Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 10 de 10
Filter
1.
Psychol Med ; : 1-9, 2021 May 26.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2257951

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: There is a paucity of literature on the relationship between pre-existing mental health conditions and coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) outcomes. The aim was to examine the association between pre-existing mental health diagnosis and COVID-19 outcomes (positive screen, hospitalization, mortality). METHODS: Electronic medical record data for 30 976 adults tested for COVID-19 between March 2020 and 10th July 2020 was analyzed. COVID-19 outcomes included positive screen, hospitalization among screened positive, and mortality among screened positive and hospitalized. Primary independent variable, mental health disorders, was based on ICD-10 codes categorized as bipolar, internalizing, externalizing, and psychoses. Descriptive statistics were calculated, unadjusted and adjusted logistic regression and Cox proportional hazard models were used to investigate the relationship between each mental health disorder and COVID-19 outcomes. RESULTS: Adults with externalizing (odds ratio (OR) 0.67, 95%CI 0.57-0.79) and internalizing disorders (OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.70-0.88) had lower odds of having a positive COVID-19 test in fully adjusted models. Adults with bipolar disorder had significantly higher odds of hospitalization in fully adjusted models (OR 4.27, 95% CI 2.06-8.86), and odds of hospitalization were significantly higher among those with externalizing disorders after adjusting for demographics (OR 1.71, 95% CI 1.23-2.38). Mortality was significantly higher in the fully adjusted model for patients with bipolar disorder (hazard ratio 2.67, 95% CI 1.07-6.67). CONCLUSIONS: Adults with mental health disorders, while less likely to test positive for COVID-19, were more likely to be hospitalized and to die in the hospital. Study results suggest the importance of developing interventions that incorporate elements designed to address smoking cessation, nutrition and physical activity counseling and other needs specific to this population to improve COVID-19 outcomes.

2.
Diabetes ; 71, 2022.
Article in English | ProQuest Central | ID: covidwho-1923939

ABSTRACT

Healthcare costs in 2020 increased 9.7% from the prior year reaching $4.1 trillion dollars. This increase is considered largely due to the COVID-pandemic. Since adults with diabetes were at increased risk of poor outcomes from COVID-19, the objective of this study was to investigate cost and length of stay for Department of Defense (DoD) hospitalizations attributed to COVID-for adults with diabetes. Data on hospitalizations within military facilities between 2020-2021 for patients with diabetes were investigated. 6,265 hospitalizations occurred at DoD facilities, of which 7.2% (n=458) were attributed to COVID-19. Generalized linear models using a gamma distribution for total cost and Poisson distribution for length of stay were run to investigate outcomes adjusting for age, sex, race/ethnicity, active duty status, service category (Army, Coast Guard, Marine, Air Force, or Navy) , and comorbidity count. In adults with diabetes hospitalized at military facilities, those with COVID-cost over $8,500 more than those without COVID- (8792.98, 95%CI 5850.38,11735.57) after adjustment. There were no significant differences by sex or race/ethnicity, however, active duty hospitalizations cost on average $2,200 more than not active duty (2239.26, 95%CI 738.72,3739.81) . Length of stay was over 2 days longer for COVID-hospitalizations (2.20, 95%CI 1.98,2.42) after adjustment. There were no differences by sex, however African Americans and Asian/Pacific Islanders had slightly longer lengths of stay (AA: 0.37, 95%CI 0.26,0.48;A/PI: 0.26, 95%CI 0.05,0.46) , as did those on active duty (0.24, 95%CI 0.08,0.40) . Total costs for hospitalizations attributed to COVID-were higher and length of stay longer for adults with diabetes at military facilities. Further work is needed to understand long term consequences of COVID-on cost and utilization for adults with diabetes.

3.
Qual Life Res ; 31(8): 2387-2396, 2022 Aug.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1631939

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: This study aimed to investigate changes over time in quality of life, perceived stress, and serious psychological distress for individuals diagnosed with COVID-19 in an urban academic health system. METHODS: Phone-based surveys were completed with adult patients tested for COVID-19 during emergency department visits, hospitalizations, or outpatient visits at the Froedtert and Medical College of Wisconsin Health Network. Data were then matched to medical record data. Unadjusted and adjusted mixed effects linear models using random intercept were run for each outcome (physical health-related quality of life, mental health-related quality of life, perceived stress, and serious psychological distress) with time (baseline vs 3-month follow-up) as the primary independent variable. Individuals were treated as a random effect, with all covariates (age, sex, race/ethnicity, payor, comorbidity count, hospitalization, and intensive care unit (ICU) stay) treated as fixed effects. RESULTS: 264 adults tested positive for COVID-19 and completed baseline and 3-month follow-up assessments. Of that number, 31.8% were hospitalized due to COVID-19, and 10.2% were admitted for any reason to the ICU. After adjustment, patients reported higher physical health-related quality of life at 3 months compared to baseline (0.63, 95% CI 0.15, 1.11) and decreased stress at 3 months compared to baseline (- 0.85, 95% CI - 1.33, - 0.37). There were no associations between survey time and mental health-related quality of life or serious psychological distress. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest the influence of COVID-19 on physical health-related quality of life and stress may resolve over time, however, the influence of mental health on daily activities, work, and social activities may not.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Psychological Distress , Adult , COVID-19/epidemiology , Hospitalization , Humans , Quality of Life/psychology , Stress, Psychological/epidemiology , Stress, Psychological/psychology , United States
4.
J Surg Res ; 264: 81-89, 2021 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1164149

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Right ventricular failure is an underrecognized consequence of COVID-19 pneumonia. Those with severe disease are treated with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) but with poor outcomes. Concomitant right ventricular assist device (RVAD) may be beneficial. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of intensive care unit patients admitted with COVID-19 ARDS (Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome) was performed. Nonintubated patients, those with acute kidney injury, and age > 75 were excluded. Patients who underwent RVAD/ECMO support were compared with those managed via invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) alone. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included 30-d mortality, acute kidney injury, length of ICU stay, and duration of mechanical ventilation. RESULTS: A total of 145 patients were admitted to the ICU with COVID-19. Thirty-nine patients met inclusion criteria. Of these, 21 received IMV, and 18 received RVAD/ECMO. In-hospital (52.4 versus 11.1%, P = 0.008) and 30-d mortality (42.9 versus 5.6%, P= 0.011) were significantly lower in patients treated with RVAD/ECMO. Acute kidney injury occurred in 15 (71.4%) patients in the IMV group and zero RVAD/ECMO patients (P< 0.001). ICU (11.5 versus 21 d, P= 0.067) and hospital (14 versus 25.5 d, P = 0.054) length of stay were not significantly different. There were no RVAD/ECMO device complications. The duration of mechanical ventilation was not significantly different (10 versus 5 d, P = 0.44). CONCLUSIONS: RVAD support at the time of ECMO initiation resulted in the no secondary end-organ damage and higher in-hospital and 30-d survival versus IMV in specially selected patients with severe COVID-19 ARDS. Management of severe COVID-19 ARDS should prioritize right ventricular support.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/complications , Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation/methods , Heart Failure/therapy , Heart-Assist Devices , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/therapy , Ventricular Dysfunction, Right/therapy , Adult , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/therapy , Combined Modality Therapy , Critical Care/methods , Critical Care/statistics & numerical data , Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation/statistics & numerical data , Female , Heart Failure/diagnosis , Heart Failure/etiology , Heart Failure/mortality , Hospital Mortality , Humans , Intensive Care Units/statistics & numerical data , Male , Middle Aged , Respiration, Artificial/statistics & numerical data , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/diagnosis , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/etiology , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/mortality , Retrospective Studies , Severity of Illness Index , Treatment Outcome , Ventricular Dysfunction, Right/diagnosis , Ventricular Dysfunction, Right/etiology , Ventricular Dysfunction, Right/mortality
5.
J Affect Disord ; 283: 94-100, 2021 03 15.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1046353

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Understanding the association between separate and combined mental and physical health diagnoses and COVID-19 outcomes is greatly needed to address the severity of illness. METHODS: Data on 24,034 patients screened for COVID-19 as of July 2020 were extracted from the Froedtert/Medical College of Wisconsin Epic medical record. COVID-19 outcomes were defined as positive screens, proportion hospitalized among positive screens, and proportion that died among positive and hospitalized population. The primary independent variable was a 3-category variable: physical health diagnosis alone, mental health diagnosis alone, and combined mental and physical health diagnoses. Logistic regression and Cox proportional hazard models were used to examine the independent relationship between separate and combined diagnoses and COVID-19 outcomes. RESULTS: Compared to physical health diagnosis alone, mental health diagnosis alone had lower odds of screening positive (OR=0.68, CI=0.51;0.92) and was not associated with hospitalization or mortality among positive screens. Combined had lower odds of screening positive (OR=0.78, CI=0.69;0.88) and higher odds of hospitalization among positive screens after adjusting for demographics (OR=1.58, CI=1.20;2.08) but lost significance in the fully adjusted model. No category of diagnoses was associated with mortality. LIMITATIONS: Analysis is cross-sectional and cannot speak to any causal relationships. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, compared to physical health diagnosis alone, mental health diagnosis and combined had lower odds of positive screens. However, individuals with combined were more likely to be hospitalized, after adjusting for demographics only. These findings add new evidence for risk of COVID-19 and related hospitalization in individuals who have a physical and mental health diagnosis.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Cross-Sectional Studies , Hospitalization , Humans , Mental Health , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2 , Wisconsin/epidemiology
6.
J Gen Intern Med ; 36(5): 1407-1410, 2021 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1041839

ABSTRACT

Our multidisciplinary research team is composed of 6 faculty with expertise in internal medicine, nephrology, maternal/fetal medicine, health services research, statistics, and community-based research, and 36 program staff including biostatisticians, nurses, program coordinators, program assistants, and medical assistants/phlebotomists. With the emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic and the impact it was having on our community, especially the ethnic minority population in inner-city Milwaukee, we felt it was critical to stay engaged and figure out how to ask meaningful research questions that are important to the community, are relevant to the times, and will lead to lasting change. While navigating this unprecedented challenge, our research team made difficult decisions but were able to engage our staff and respond to community needs. We organized our lessons learned to serve as a perspective on how to effectively remain committed to vision and serve our communities, while collecting evidence that can inform policy in difficult times.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Population Health , Ethnicity , Humans , Interdisciplinary Research , Minority Groups , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2
7.
Health Aff (Millwood) ; 39(11): 1926-1934, 2020 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-937241

ABSTRACT

This study aimed to understand racial/ethnic differences in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) screening, symptom presentation, hospitalization, and mortality, using data from 31,549 adults tested for COVID-19 between March 1 and July 10, 2020, in Milwaukee and Southeast Wisconsin. Racial/ethnic differences existed in adults who screened positive for COVID-19 (4.5 percent of non-Hispanic Whites, 14.9 percent of non-Hispanic Blacks, and 14.8 percent of Hispanics). After adjustment for demographics and comorbidities, Blacks and Hispanics were more than three times more likely to screen positive and two times more likely to be hospitalized relative to Whites, and Hispanics were two times more likely to die than Whites. Given the long-standing history of structural racism, residential segregation, and social risk in the US and their role as contributors to poor health, we propose and discuss the part these issues play as explanatory factors for our findings.


Subject(s)
Coronavirus Infections , Ethnicity/statistics & numerical data , Hospitalization/statistics & numerical data , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral , Racial Groups , Black or African American/statistics & numerical data , Betacoronavirus/isolation & purification , COVID-19 , Coronavirus Infections/diagnosis , Coronavirus Infections/mortality , Coronavirus Infections/therapy , Cross-Sectional Studies , Female , Hispanic or Latino/statistics & numerical data , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Pneumonia, Viral/diagnosis , Pneumonia, Viral/mortality , Pneumonia, Viral/therapy , SARS-CoV-2 , White People/statistics & numerical data , Wisconsin
9.
Aging Med (Milton) ; 3(4): 234-236, 2020 Dec.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-885045
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL