Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 2 de 2
Filter
Add filters

Database
Language
Document Type
Year range
1.
PLoS One ; 17(8): e0273344, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2002328

ABSTRACT

This study explored the roles of epidemic-spread-related behaviors, vaccination status and weather factors during the COVID-19 epidemic in 50 U.S. states since March 2020. Data from March 1, 2020 to February 5, 2022 were incorporated into panel model. The states were clustered by the k-means method. In addition to discussing the whole time period, we also took multiple events nodes into account and analyzed the data in different time periods respectively by panel linear regression method. In addition, influence of cluster grouping and different incubation periods were been discussed. Non-segmented analysis showed the rate of people staying at home and the vaccination dose per capita were significantly negatively correlated with the daily incidence rate, while the number of long-distance trips was positively correlated. Weather indicators also had a negative effect to a certain extent. Most segmental results support the above view. The vaccination dose per capita was unsurprisingly proved to be the most significant factor especially for epidemic dominated by Omicron strains. 7-day was a more robust incubation period with the best model fit while weather had different effects on the epidemic spread in different time period. The implementation of prevention behaviors and the promotion of vaccination may have a successful control effect on COVID-19, including variants' epidemic such as Omicron. The spread of COVID-19 also might be associated with weather, albeit to a lesser extent.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Epidemics , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Humans , Regression Analysis , SARS-CoV-2 , United States/epidemiology , Weather
2.
Ann Palliat Med ; 10(6): 6180-6188, 2021 Jun.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1414022

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Since the outbreak of the novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), medical staff and affiliated healthcare staff are under both physical and psychological pressures. Due to this serious situation, it is extremely important to assess the prevalence and possible predictors of psychological distress in front-line, anti-epidemic medical staff. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted through the use of the network crowdsourcing platform (which provides functions equivalent to Amazon Mechanical Turk) in Jilin, China. A total of 725 Jilin medical staff who had returned from Wuhan participated in the survey. The collected data included demographics and psychological responses to COVID-19, and the following tests were used to measure the data: (I) the Social Support Rate Scale (SSRS) was used to measure the types and levels of social support that were received by the medical staff; (II) the Stanford Acute Stress Reaction Questionnaire (SASRQ) was used to evaluate anxiety and dissociation symptoms in the aftermath of traumatic events; (III) the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) was used to measure sleep quality; and (IV) the Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K10) was used to evaluate nonspecific psychological distress. The χ2 test, Kruskal-Wallis test, ANOVA test and binary logistic regression were used to identify the factors that were correlated with psychological distress. RESULTS: In our study, 475 (65.5%) participants reported low psychological distress, and 72 (10%) participants reported high psychological distress. The results of the binary logistic regression analysis identified that the performance of physical activity in Wuhan (ß=-0.585; P<0.001; OR =0.557) and years of work experience (in contrast to approximately 0-5 years, approximately 6-15 years: ß=-1.258; P=0.008; OR =0.284, >15 years: ß=-0.562; P=0.016; OR =0.570) were protective factors for the possibility of having a mental disorder, whereas a high PSQI score (ß=0.106; P=0.024; OR =1.112) and a high SASRQ score (ß=0.242; P<0.001; OR =1.274) were risk factors. CONCLUSIONS: The high psychological distress (10%) of Jilin medical staff who returned from the front-line areas of Wuhan was higher than that in other studies. Medical staff with less physical activity and work experience in Wuhan, as well as high PSQI and SASRQ scores, had higher psychological distress.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Psychological Distress , Anxiety , China/epidemiology , Cross-Sectional Studies , Depression , Disease Outbreaks , Humans , Medical Staff , Prevalence , SARS-CoV-2 , Surveys and Questionnaires
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL