COVID-19 infection rates and mitigation strategies in orthodontic practices.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 has impacted and increased risks for all populations, including orthodontic patients and providers. It also changes the practice management and infection control landscape in the practices. This study aimed to investigate the COVID-19 infection and vaccination status of orthodontic providers and mitigation approaches in orthodontic practices in the United States during 2021. METHODS: A validated 50-question research electronic data capture (REDCap) browser-based questionnaire was distributed to 12,393 orthodontists and pediatric dentists who reported actively providing orthodontic treatment. Questions were designed to collect demographic data of respondents, evaluate the COVID-19 mitigation approaches, and evaluate the history of COVID-19 infection and vaccination status of the orthodontic providers. Associations of demographic and the COVID-19 mitigation approaches were assessed using chi-square tests at the significance level of 0.05. RESULTS: Four hundred fifty-seven returned the survey (response rate 3.69%) for analysis. Most respondents were vaccinated, and increased infection control measures in response to the pandemic. Half of the respondents practiced teledentistry and switched to digital impression systems. Two-thirds reported difficulties in attaining PPEs due to the increased cost and scarcity of PPEs. About 6% of respondents reported a history of COVID-19 infection, and 68.9% of their staff had COVID-19 infection. Statistically significant associations were found between increased practice experience with difficulties in acquiring PPE (p = .010). There were no significant associations between races of respondents, geographic location, and years of practicing when cross-tabulated with vaccination status or COVID-19 infection rate (p > .05). CONCLUSION: Increased infection control strategies were employed in almost all orthodontic practices in addition to existing universal precaution. Most of the orthodontic providers and their staff members were vaccinated. While staff's infection rates were an issue, doctors' infection rates remained low.

Lifting Universal Masking in Schools - Covid-19 Incidence among Students and Staff.

BACKGROUND: In February 2022, Massachusetts rescinded a statewide universal masking policy in public schools, and many Massachusetts school districts lifted masking requirements during the subsequent weeks. In the greater Boston area, only two school districts - the Boston and neighboring Chelsea districts - sustained masking requirements through June 2022. The staggered lifting of masking requirements provided an opportunity to examine the effect of universal masking policies on the incidence of coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) in schools. METHODS: We used a difference-in-differences analysis for staggered policy implementation to compare the incidence of Covid-19 among students and staff in school districts in the greater Boston area that lifted masking requirements with the incidence in districts that sustained masking requirements during the 2021-2022 school year. Characteristics of the school districts were also compared. RESULTS: Before the statewide masking policy was rescinded, trends in the incidence of Covid-19 were similar across school districts. During the 15 weeks after the statewide masking policy was rescinded, the lifting of masking requirements was associated with an additional 44.9 cases per 1000 students and staff (95% confidence interval, 32.6 to 57.1), which corresponded to an estimated 11,901 cases and to 29.4% of the cases in all districts during that time. Districts that chose to sustain masking requirements longer tended to have school buildings that were older and in worse condition and to have more students per classroom than districts that chose to lift masking requirements earlier. In addition, these districts had higher percentages of low-income students, students with disabilities, and students who were English-language learners, as well as higher percentages of Black and Latinx students and staff. Our results support universal masking as an important strategy for reducing Covid-19 incidence in schools and loss of in-person school days. As such, we believe that universal masking may be especially useful for mitigating effects of structural racism in schools, including potential deepening of educational inequities. CONCLUSIONS: Among school districts in the greater Boston area, the lifting of masking requirements was associated with an additional 44.9 Covid-19 cases per 1000 students and staff during the 15 weeks after the statewide masking policy was rescinded.

Involvement of the digestive system in covid-19. A review. / Afectación del aparato digestivo en la covid-19. Una revisión sobre el tema.

The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic is leading to high mortality and a global health crisis. The primary involvement is respiratory; however, the virus can also affect other organs, such as the gastrointestinal tract and liver. The most common symptoms are anorexia and diarrhea. In about half of the cases, viral RNA could be detected in the stool, which is another line of transmission and diagnosis. covid19 has a worse prognosis in patients with comorbidities, although there is not enough evidence in case of previous digestive diseases. Digestive endoscopies may give rise to aerosols, which make them techniques with a high risk of infection. Experts and scientific organizations worldwide have developed guidelines for preventive measures. The available evidence on gastrointestinal and hepatic involvement, the impact on patients with previous digestive diseases and operating guidelines for Endoscopy Units during the pandemic are reviewed.

Barriers and facilitators to healthcare workers' adherence with infection prevention and control (IPC) guidelines for respiratory infectious diseases: a rapid qualitative evidence synthesis.

BACKGROUND: This review is one of a series of rapid reviews that Cochrane contributors have prepared to inform the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic. When new respiratory infectious diseases become widespread, such as during the COVID-19 pandemic, healthcare workers' adherence to infection prevention and control (IPC) guidelines becomes even more important. Strategies in these guidelines include the use of personal protective equipment (PPE) such as masks, face shields, gloves and gowns; the separation of patients with respiratory infections from others; and stricter cleaning routines. These strategies can be difficult and time-consuming to adhere to in practice. Authorities and healthcare facilities therefore need to consider how best to support healthcare workers to implement them. OBJECTIVES: To identify barriers and facilitators to healthcare workers' adherence to IPC guidelines for respiratory infectious diseases. SEARCH METHODS: We searched OVID MEDLINE on 26 March 2020. As we searched only one database due to time constraints, we also undertook a rigorous and comprehensive scoping exercise and search of the reference lists of key papers. We did not apply any date limit or language limits. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included qualitative and mixed-methods studies (with a distinct qualitative component) that focused on the experiences and perceptions of healthcare workers towards factors that impact on their ability to adhere to IPC guidelines for respiratory infectious diseases. We included studies of any type of healthcare worker with responsibility for patient care. We included studies that focused on IPC guidelines (local, national or international) for respiratory infectious diseases in any healthcare setting. These selection criteria were framed by an understanding of the needs of health workers during the COVID-19 pandemic. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Four review authors independently assessed the titles, abstracts and full texts identified by our search. We used a prespecified sampling frame to sample from the eligible studies, aiming to capture a range of respiratory infectious disease types, geographical spread and data-rich studies. We extracted data using a data extraction form designed for this synthesis. We assessed methodological limitations using an adapted version of the Critical Skills Appraisal Programme (CASP) tool. We used a 'best fit framework approach' to analyse and synthesise the evidence. This provided upfront analytical categories, with scope for further thematic analysis. We used the GRADE-CERQual (Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research) approach to assess our confidence in each finding. We examined each review finding to identify factors that may influence intervention implementation and developed implications for practice. MAIN RESULTS: We found 36 relevant studies and sampled 20 of these studies for our analysis. Ten of these studies were from Asia, four from Africa, four from Central and North America and two from Australia. The studies explored the views and experiences of nurses, doctors and other healthcare workers when dealing with severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), H1N1, MERS (Middle East respiratory syndrome), tuberculosis (TB), or seasonal influenza. Most of these healthcare workers worked in hospitals; others worked in primary and community care settings. Our review points to several barriers and facilitators that influenced healthcare workers' ability to adhere to IPC guidelines. The following factors are based on findings assessed as of moderate to high confidence. Healthcare workers felt unsure as to how to adhere to local guidelines when they were long and ambiguous or did not reflect national or international guidelines. They could feel overwhelmed because local guidelines were constantly changing. They also described how IPC strategies led to increased workloads and fatigue, for instance because they had to use PPE and take on additional cleaning. Healthcare workers described how their responses to IPC guidelines were influenced by the level of support they felt that they received from their management team. Clear communication about IPC guidelines was seen as vital. But healthcare workers pointed to a lack of training about the infection itself and about how to use PPE. They also thought it was a problem when training was not mandatory. Sufficient space to isolate patients was also seen as vital. A lack of isolation rooms, anterooms and shower facilities was a problem. Other important practical measures described by healthcare workers included minimising overcrowding, fast-tracking infected patients, restricting visitors, and providing easy access to handwashing facilities. A lack of PPE, and equipment that was of poor quality, was a serious concern for healthcare workers and managers. They also pointed to the need to adjust the volume of supplies as infection outbreaks continued. Healthcare workers believed that they followed IPC guidance more closely when they saw the value of it. Some healthcare workers felt motivated to follow the guidance because of fear of infecting themselves or their families, or because they felt responsible for their patients. Some healthcare workers found it difficult to use masks and other equipment when it made patients feel isolated, frightened or stigmatised. Healthcare workers also found masks and other equipment uncomfortable to use. The workplace culture could also influence whether healthcare workers followed IPC guidelines or not. Across many of the findings, healthcare workers pointed to the importance of including all staff, including cleaning staff, porters, kitchen staff and other support staff when implementing IPC guidelines. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Healthcare workers point to several factors that influence their ability and willingness to follow IPC guidelines when managing respiratory infectious diseases. These include factors tied to the guideline itself and how it is communicated, support from managers, workplace culture, training, physical space, access to and trust in personal protective equipment, and a desire to deliver good patient care. The review also highlights the importance of including all facility staff, including support staff, when implementing IPC guidelines.

How prepared is Africa to face COVID-19?

The epidemic of Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in China caused by the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has become a global concern and subsequently labeled a pandemic by the World Health Organization on March 11th. As the world mobilizes to contain the COVID-19, scientists and public health experts are increasingly alarmed about the potentially catastrophic effects of an outbreak in Africa. The establishment of Africa Centres for Disease Control and Prevention by the Africa Union in 2017 was an unprecedented move toward strengthening national responses, so far enabling all fifty member states with confirmed cases of COVID-19 to adequately respond, break chains of transmission and effectively contain the spread of SARS-CoV-2. We enter an uncertain and challenging period that may severely test the preparedness, organizational resource and resilience of African states and the fabric of their societies. However, we speculate that the fear associated with COVID-19 may also lead to some of the long-standing messages about simple measures to reduce the spread, such as hand washing, finally becoming absorbed and more universally adopted by health workers and the public. Is it possible that regardless of the terrible threat posed by SARS-CoV-2, the increased adoption of these health protection measures may result in a reduction in the spread of other infectious diseases?

[Coronavirus: Predictive brain and terror management]. / Coronavirus : cerveau prédictif et gestion de la terreur.

Emerging infectious diseases like Covid-19 cause a major threat to global health. When confronted with new pathogens, individuals generate several beliefs about the epidemic phenomenon. Many studies have shown that individual protective behaviors largely depend on these beliefs. Due to the absence of treatment and vaccine against these emerging pathogens, the relation between these beliefs and these behaviors represents a crucial issue for public health policies. In the premises of the Covid-19 pandemic, several preliminary studies have highlighted a delay in the perception of risk by individuals, which potentially holds back the implementing of the necessary precautionary measures: people underestimated the risks associated with the virus, and therefore also the importance of complying with sanitary guidelines. During the peak of the pandemic, the salience of the threat and of the risk of mortality could then have transformed the way people generate their beliefs. This potentially leads to upheavals in the way they understand the world. Here, we propose to explore the evolution of beliefs and behaviors during the Covid-19 crisis, using the theory of predictive coding and the theory of terror management, two influential frameworks in cognitive science and in social psychology.

Universal Admission Screening for SARS-CoV-2 Infections among Hospitalized Patients, Switzerland, 2020.

Switzerland began a national lockdown on March 16, 2020, in response to the rapid spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). We assessed the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection among patients admitted to 4 hospitals in the canton of Zurich, Switzerland, in April 2020. These 4 acute care hospitals screened 2,807 patients, including 2,278 (81.2%) who did not have symptoms of coronavirus disease (COVID-19). Overall, 529 (18.8%) persons had >1 symptom of COVID-19, of whom 60 (11.3%) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. Eight asymptomatic persons (0.4%) also tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. Our findings indicate that screening on the basis of COVID-19 symptoms, regardless of clinical suspicion, can identify most SARS-CoV-2-positive persons in a low-prevalence setting.

Adherence to Public Health Measures Mitigates the Risk of COVID-19 Infection in Older Adults: A Community-Based Study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the prevalence and characteristics of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) cases during the reopening period in older adults, given that little is known about the prevalence of COVID-19 after the stay-at-home order was lifted in the United States, nor the actual effects of adherence to recommended public health measures (RPHM) on the risk of COVID-19. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study nested in a parent prospective cohort study, which followed a population-based sample of 2325 adults 50 years and older residing in southeast Minnesota to assess the incidence of viral infections. Participants were instructed to self-collect both nasal and oropharyngeal swabs, which were tested by reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction-based severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) assay between May 8, 2020, and June, 30, 2020. We assessed the prevalence of COVID-19 cases and characteristics of study subjects. RESULTS: A total of 1505 eligible subjects participated in the study whose mean age was 68 years, with 885 (59%) women, 32 (2%) racial/ethnic minorities, and 906 (60%) with high-risk conditions for influenza. The prevalence of other Coronaviridae (human coronavirus [HCoV]-229E, HCoV-NL63, and HCoV-OC43) during the 2019 to 2020 flu season was 109 (7%), and none tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. Almost all participants reported adhering to the RPHM (1,488 [99%] for social distancing, 1,438 [96%] for wearing mask in a public space, 1,476 [98%] for hand hygiene, and 1,441 (96%) for staying home mostly). Eighty-six percent of participants resided in a single-family home. CONCLUSION: We did not identify SARS-COV-2 infection in our study cohort. The combination of participants' behavior in following the RPHM and their living environment may considerably mitigate the risk of COVID-19.