Willingness of Women with Endometriosis Planning to Undergo IVF to Participate in a Randomized Clinical Trial and the Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Potential Participation.

The Pre-IVF Treatment with a GnRH Antagonist in Women with Endometriosis (PREGnant) Trial (clinicaltrials.gov no. NCT04173169) was designed to test the hypothesis that 60-day pre-treatment with an oral GnRH antagonist in women with documented endometriosis and planning an IVF cycle will result in a superior live birth rate to placebo. Eight hundred fourteen women are required from 4 national sites. To determine the feasibility of using an electronic medical record (EMR)-based strategy to recruit 204 participants at the Colorado site, we conducted a survey of women within the UCHealth system. Eligible women, identified using relevant ICD-10 codes, were invited to complete a 6-question survey to assess planned utilization of IVF, potential interest in participation, and whether delays in treatment due to COVID-19 would influence their decision to participate. Of 6354 age-eligible women with an endometriosis diagnosis, 421 had a concurrent infertility diagnosis. After eliminating duplicates, 212 were emailed a survey; 76 (36%) responded, 6 of whom reported no endometriosis diagnosis. Of the remaining 70, 29 (41%) were planning fertility treatment; only 19 planned IVF. All 19 expressed interest in participation. COVID-19 delays in treatment were not considered as a factor affecting participation by 8/19; the remaining 11 felt that it would "somewhat" affect their decision. None reported that they would not consider participation because of COVID-19. EMR-based recruitment for an endometriosis clinical trial is feasible although the overall yield of participants is low. Delays in treatment due to COVID-19 did not appear to overly influence potential recruitment.

Competing motives in a pandemic: Interplays between fundamental social motives and technology use in predicting (Non)Compliance with social distancing guidelines.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, individuals were advised to adhere to social distancing guidelines limiting physical interpersonal contact. Humans have a suite of adaptations to satisfy belonging needs while avoiding diseased conspecifics. Competition between motivational systems may explain adherence and resistance to social distancing guidelines and how technologically mediated interactions further shape these decisions. This study is a preregistered analysis of data in a representative sample collected during the pandemic investigating how individual differences in affiliative and pathogen-avoidant motives predict interest in physical interactions (N = 2409). Germ aversion predicted disinterest in physical interactions and need to belong predicted interest. Additional analyses revealed technology use satisfied belonging motives that unexpectedly heightened interest in physical contact. Exploratory analyses further indicate that internet speed was similarly associated with greater interest in physical interactions. We frame these results through a competing fundamental social motives framework and discuss how to address future pandemics effectively.

Using psychological science to support social distancing: Tradeoffs between affiliation and disease‐avoidance motivations

Humans are an intensely social species with a pervasive need for affiliation and social interaction. However, satisfying this fundamental motive comes with risk, including increased exposure to others' communicable pathogens. Consequently, disease mitigation strategies may require humans to downregulate their interest in socialization when pathogenic threat is elevated. Subsequent unsatisfactorily met affiliation needs can result in downregulation of disease avoidance goals in the service of social inclusion, albeit at the cost of putting individuals at greater risk for pathogen exposure. The current review summarizes past work in social and evolutionary psychology demonstrating affiliation and disease‐avoidance motivation tradeoffs. We then apply this research by articulating strategies to support and maintain social distancing behaviors in the face of loneliness, which is of particular importance during pandemic outbreaks such as COVID‐19. Finally, we propose novel and integrative research questions related to affiliation/pathogen‐avoidance tradeoffs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] Copyright of Social & Personality Psychology Compass is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Transforming The Medical Device Industry: Road Map To A Circular Economy

A circular economy involves maintaining manufactured products in circulation, distributing resource and environmental costs over time and with repeated use. In a linear supply chain, manufactured products are used once and discarded. In high-income nations, health care systems increasingly rely on linear supply chains composed of single-use disposable medical devices. This has resulted in increased health care expenditures and health care-generated waste and pollution, with associated public health damage. It has also caused the supply chain to be vulnerable to disruption and demand fluctuations. Transformation of the medical device industry to a more circular economy would advance the goal of providing increasingly complex care in a low-emissions future. Barriers to circularity include perceptions regarding infection prevention, behaviors of device consumers and manufacturers, and regulatory structures that encourage the proliferation of disposable medical devices. Complementary policy- and market-driven solutions are needed to encourage systemic transformation.

Patients, procedures, and PPE: Safe office-based anesthesia recommendations in the COVID-19 era.

The growth of office-based surgery (OBS) has been due to ease of scheduling and convenience for patients; office-based anesthesia safety continues to be well supported in the literature. In 2020, the Coronavirus Disease 19 (COVID-19) has resulted in dramatic shifts in healthcare, especially in the office-based setting. The goal of closing the economy was to flatten the curve, impacting office-based and ambulatory practices. Reopening of the economy and the return to ambulatory surgery and OBS and procedures have created a challenge due to COVID-19 and the infectious disease precautions that must be taken. Patients may be more apt to return to the outpatient setting to avoid the hospital, especially with the resurgence of COVID-19 cases locally, nationally, and worldwide. This review provides algorithms for screening and testing patients, selecting patients for procedures, choosing appropriate procedures, and selecting suitable personal protective equipment in this unprecedented period.