Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 28
Filter
2.
Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci ; 25(24): 7964-7970, 2021 Dec.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1608921

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to develop mental health nursing strategies for the inbound quarantined population based on the results of a survey study and frontline nursing experiences. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: A mixed research method was selected, we collected data by questionnaires from 128 quarantined people, and by semi-structured interviews from 5 registered nurses. Generalized anxiety disorder-7 (GAD-7), the patient health questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9), the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI), Social Support Rating Scale (SSRS) were used in the quantitative research to identify the prevalence of psychological issues and risk factors. Semi-structured interviews were conducted in the qualitative study to conclude nursing experiences from RNs. RESULTS: The overall prevalence of anxiety, depression, and insomnia were 34%, 41%, and 18% respectively. Binary logistic regression analysis showed that social support, urban residence, and chronic disease were associated with mental health problems in certain aspects. Three themes were emerged from the analysis of RNs interviews: personality, chronic diseases, and social support. CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of mental health issues in the inbound quarantined population was the same as the general population in the initial stage of COVID-19 outbreak, and significantly lower than people who lived in high-risk areas. Living in urban areas, with chronic diseases, and obtaining less social support are the risk factors. Finally, four nursing strategies were proposed by the research team for mental health well-being.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/prevention & control , Mental Health/statistics & numerical data , Nurses/organization & administration , Psychiatric Nursing/organization & administration , Quarantine/psychology , Adult , Anxiety/epidemiology , Anxiety/prevention & control , Anxiety/psychology , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/transmission , China/epidemiology , Cross-Sectional Studies , Depression/epidemiology , Depression/prevention & control , Depression/psychology , Humans , Male , Pandemics/prevention & control , Prevalence , Professional Role , Quarantine/standards , Risk Factors , Self Report/statistics & numerical data , Sleep Initiation and Maintenance Disorders/epidemiology , Sleep Initiation and Maintenance Disorders/prevention & control , Sleep Initiation and Maintenance Disorders/psychology , Social Support/psychology , Social Support/statistics & numerical data , Young Adult
3.
JAMA Netw Open ; 4(11): e2136113, 2021 11 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1540038

ABSTRACT

Importance: Some studies suggest that social media use is associated with risk for depression, particularly among children and young adults. Objective: To characterize the association between self-reported use of individual social media platforms and worsening of depressive symptoms among adults. Design, Setting, and Participants: This survey study included data from 13 waves of a nonprobability internet survey conducted approximately monthly between May 2020 and May 2021 among individuals aged 18 years and older in the US. Data were analyzed in July and August 2021. Main Outcomes and Measures: Logistic regression was applied without reweighting, with a 5 point or greater increase in 9-item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) score as outcome and participant sociodemographic features, baseline PHQ-9, and use of each social media platform as independent variables. Results: In total, 5395 of 8045 individuals (67.1%) with a PHQ-9 score below 5 on initial survey completed a second PHQ-9. These respondents had a mean (SD) age of 55.8 (15.2) years; 3546 respondents (65.7%) identified as female; 329 respondents (6.1%) were Asian, 570 (10.6%) Black, 256 (4.7%) Hispanic, 4118 (76.3%) White, and 122 (2.3%) American Indian or Alaska Native, Pacific Islander or Native Hawaiian, or other. Among eligible respondents, 482 (8.9%) reported 5 points or greater worsening of PHQ-9 score at second survey. In fully adjusted models for increase in symptoms, the largest adjusted odds ratio (aOR) associated with social media use was observed for Snapchat (aOR, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.19-1.96), Facebook (aOR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.10-1.81), and TikTok (aOR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.03-1.87). Conclusions and Relevance: Among survey respondents who did not report depressive symptoms initially, social media use was associated with greater likelihood of subsequent increase in depressive symptoms after adjustment for sociodemographic features and news sources. These data cannot elucidate the nature of this association, but suggest the need for further study to understand how social media use may factor into depression among adults.


Subject(s)
Depression/epidemiology , Self Report/statistics & numerical data , Social Media/statistics & numerical data , Adolescent , Adult , Age Factors , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Sex Factors , Surveys and Questionnaires , United States/epidemiology , Young Adult
4.
PLoS One ; 16(11): e0259601, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1526684

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Cases of the novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) continue to spread around the world even one year after the declaration of a global pandemic. Those with weakened immune systems, due to immunosuppressive medications or disease, may be at higher risk of COVID-19. This includes individuals with autoimmune diseases, cancer, transplants, and dialysis patients. Assessing the risk and outcomes of COVID-19 in this population has been challenging. While administrative databases provide data with minimal selection and recall bias, clinical and behavioral data is lacking. To address this, we are collecting self-reported survey data from a randomly selected subsample with and without COVID-19, which will be linked to administrative health data, to better quantify the risk of COVID-19 infection associated with immunosuppression. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Using administrative and laboratory data from British Columbia (BC), Canada, we established a population-based case-control study of all individuals who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. Each case was matched to 40 randomly selected individuals from two control groups: individuals who tested negative for SARS-CoV-2 (i.e., negative controls) and untested individuals from the general population (i.e., untested controls). We will contact 1000 individuals from each group to complete a survey co-designed with patient partners. A conditional logistic regression model will adjust for potential confounders and effect modifiers. We will examine the odds of COVID-19 infection according to immunosuppressive medication or disease type. To adjust for relevant confounders and effect modifiers not available in administrative data, the survey will include questions on behavioural variables that influence probability of being tested, acquiring COVID-19, and experiencing severe outcomes. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has received approval from the University of British Columbia Clinical Research Ethics Board [H20-01914]. Findings will be disseminated through scientific conferences, open access peer-reviewed journals, COVID-19 research repositories and dissemination channels used by our patient partners.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , /statistics & numerical data , British Columbia , Data Interpretation, Statistical , Female , Health Care Surveys/statistics & numerical data , Humans , Male , Self Report/statistics & numerical data
5.
Lancet Infect Dis ; 21(7): 939-949, 2021 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1433943

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The Pfizer-BioNTech (BNT162b2) and the Oxford-AstraZeneca (ChAdOx1 nCoV-19) COVID-19 vaccines have shown excellent safety and efficacy in phase 3 trials. We aimed to investigate the safety and effectiveness of these vaccines in a UK community setting. METHODS: In this prospective observational study, we examined the proportion and probability of self-reported systemic and local side-effects within 8 days of vaccination in individuals using the COVID Symptom Study app who received one or two doses of the BNT162b2 vaccine or one dose of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine. We also compared infection rates in a subset of vaccinated individuals subsequently tested for SARS-CoV-2 with PCR or lateral flow tests with infection rates in unvaccinated controls. All analyses were adjusted by age (≤55 years vs >55 years), sex, health-care worker status (binary variable), obesity (BMI <30 kg/m2vs ≥30 kg/m2), and comorbidities (binary variable, with or without comorbidities). FINDINGS: Between Dec 8, and March 10, 2021, 627 383 individuals reported being vaccinated with 655 590 doses: 282 103 received one dose of BNT162b2, of whom 28 207 received a second dose, and 345 280 received one dose of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19. Systemic side-effects were reported by 13·5% (38 155 of 282 103) of individuals after the first dose of BNT162b2, by 22·0% (6216 of 28 207) after the second dose of BNT162b2, and by 33·7% (116 473 of 345 280) after the first dose of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19. Local side-effects were reported by 71·9% (150 023 of 208 767) of individuals after the first dose of BNT162b2, by 68·5% (9025 of 13 179) after the second dose of BNT162b2, and by 58·7% (104 282 of 177 655) after the first dose of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19. Systemic side-effects were more common (1·6 times after the first dose of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and 2·9 times after the first dose of BNT162b2) among individuals with previous SARS-CoV-2 infection than among those without known past infection. Local effects were similarly higher in individuals previously infected than in those without known past infection (1·4 times after the first dose of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and 1·2 times after the first dose of BNT162b2). 3106 of 103 622 vaccinated individuals and 50 340 of 464 356 unvaccinated controls tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection. Significant reductions in infection risk were seen starting at 12 days after the first dose, reaching 60% (95% CI 49-68) for ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and 69% (66-72) for BNT162b2 at 21-44 days and 72% (63-79) for BNT162b2 after 45-59 days. INTERPRETATION: Systemic and local side-effects after BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccination occur at frequencies lower than reported in phase 3 trials. Both vaccines decrease the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection after 12 days. FUNDING: ZOE Global, National Institute for Health Research, Chronic Disease Research Foundation, National Institutes of Health, UK Medical Research Council, Wellcome Trust, UK Research and Innovation, American Gastroenterological Association.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines/adverse effects , COVID-19 Vaccines/immunology , COVID-19/immunology , Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions/immunology , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , Vaccination/adverse effects , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Prospective Studies , Safety/statistics & numerical data , Self Report/statistics & numerical data , United Kingdom
6.
PLoS One ; 16(9): e0256406, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1398932

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic brought about large increases in mental distress. The uptake of COVID-19 vaccines is expected to significantly reduce health risks, improve economic and social outcomes, with potential benefits to mental health. PURPOSE: To examine short-term changes in mental distress following the receipt of the first dose of the COVID-19 vaccine. METHODS: Participants included 8,003 adults from the address-based sampled, nationally representative Understanding America Study (UAS), surveyed at regular intervals between March 10, 2020, and March 31, 2021 who completed at least two waves of the survey. Respondents answered questions about COVID-19 vaccine status and self-reported mental distress as measured with the four-item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-4). Fixed-effects regression models were used to identify the change in PHQ-4 scores and categorical indicators of mental distress resulting from the application of the first dose of the COVID-19 vaccine. RESULTS: People who were vaccinated between December 2020 and March 2021 reported decreased mental distress levels in the surveys conducted after receiving the first dose. The fixed-effects estimates show an average effect of receiving the vaccine equivalent to 4% of the standard deviation of PHQ-4 scores (p-value<0.01), a reduction in 1 percentage point (4% reduction from the baseline level) in the probability of being at least mildly depressed, and of 0.7 percentage points (15% reduction from the baseline level) in the probability of being severely depressed (p-value = 0.06). CONCLUSIONS: Getting the first dose of COVID-19 resulted in significant improvements in mental health, beyond improvements already achieved since mental distress peaked in the spring of 2020.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines/immunology , COVID-19/immunology , COVID-19/psychology , Mental Disorders/psychology , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , Female , Humans , Male , Mental Health/statistics & numerical data , Middle Aged , Pandemics/prevention & control , Patient Health Questionnaire/statistics & numerical data , Psychological Distress , Self Report/statistics & numerical data , Surveys and Questionnaires/statistics & numerical data
7.
Nutrients ; 13(9)2021 Aug 24.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1374473

ABSTRACT

COVID-19-related restrictions impacted weight and weight-related factors during the initial months of the pandemic. However, longitudinal analyses are scarce. An online, longitudinal study was conducted among self-selected UK adults (n = 1818), involving three surveys (May-June, August-September, November-December 2020), covering anthropometric, sociodemographic, COVID-19-related and behavioural measures. Data were analysed using generalised estimating equations. Self-reported average weight/body mass index (BMI) significantly increased between the May-June period and the August-September period (74.95 to 75.33 kg/26.22 kg/m2 to 26.36kg/m2, p < 0.001, respectively), and then significantly decreased to November-December (to 75.06 kg/26.27 kg/m2, p < 0.01), comparable to May-June levels (p = 0.274/0.204). However, there was great interindividual variation, 37.0%/26.7% increased (average 3.64 kg (95% confidence interval: 3.32, 3.97)/1.64 kg/m2 (1.49, 1.79)), and 34.5%/26.3% decreased (average 3.59 kg (3.34, 3.85)/1.53 kg/m2 (1.42, 1.63)) weight/BMI between May-June and November-December. Weight/BMI increase was significantly negatively associated with initial BMI, and positively associated with monthly high fat, salt and sugar (HFSS) snacks intake and alcohol consumption, and for BMI only, older age. Associations were time-varying; lower initial BMI, higher HFSS snacks intake and high-risk alcohol consumption were associated with maintaining weight/BMI increases between August-September and November-December. The average weight/BMI of UK adults fluctuated between May-June and November-December 2020. However, the substantial interindividual variation in weight/BMI trajectories indicates long-term health impacts from the pandemic, associated with food and alcohol consumption.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/prevention & control , Communicable Disease Control/standards , Feeding Behavior , Overweight/epidemiology , Adult , Age Factors , Aged , Alcohol Drinking/epidemiology , Biological Variation, Population , Body Mass Index , Body Weight , COVID-19/epidemiology , Energy Intake , Female , Humans , Longitudinal Studies , Male , Middle Aged , Pandemics/prevention & control , Risk Factors , Self Report/statistics & numerical data , Snacks , United Kingdom/epidemiology , Weight Gain , Weight Loss , Young Adult
8.
Sci Rep ; 11(1): 16524, 2021 08 16.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1360205

ABSTRACT

The aims of the current study were to identify factors associated with sleep disturbance and Coronavirus disease-19 related psychological distress (CPD), and to develop a conceptual model to verify the mediating effect of CPD on the association between social impact and sleep disturbance. This study recruited patients with schizophrenia. Factors associated with the level of sleep disturbance and CPD were identified using univariate linear regression, and further selected into a stepwise multivariate linear regression model. Using structural equation modeling, a mediation model was developed to test the mediating effect of CPD on the association between social impact and sleep disturbance. After estimating with the stepwise and bootstrap regression, higher levels of CPD were associated with higher levels of social anxiety and subjects without a regular diet. Sleep disturbance was associated with a higher level of social anxiety, a history of psychological trauma, chronic disease, and those who did not smoke. The final model confirmed the mediating effects of CPD; whereas, the direct effect from social impact to sleep disturbance did not reach statistical significance. The current study manifests the crucial role of CPD on the association between social impact and sleep disturbance, and timely intervention for CPD is warranted.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/psychology , Psychological Distress , Schizophrenia/complications , Sleep Wake Disorders/psychology , Social Change , Adult , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/transmission , Cross-Sectional Studies , Female , Health Services Accessibility , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Pandemics , Risk Factors , Schizophrenic Psychology , Self Report/statistics & numerical data , Sleep Wake Disorders/diagnosis , Sleep Wake Disorders/epidemiology , Taiwan/epidemiology
9.
Lancet Respir Med ; 9(9): 1010-1020, 2021 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1331331

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Doxycycline is often used for treating COVID-19 respiratory symptoms in the community despite an absence of evidence from clinical trials to support its use. We aimed to assess the efficacy of doxycycline to treat suspected COVID-19 in the community among people at high risk of adverse outcomes. METHODS: We did a national, open-label, multi-arm, adaptive platform randomised trial of interventions against COVID-19 in older people (PRINCIPLE) across primary care centres in the UK. We included people aged 65 years or older, or 50 years or older with comorbidities (weakened immune system, heart disease, hypertension, asthma or lung disease, diabetes, mild hepatic impairment, stroke or neurological problem, and self-reported obesity or body-mass index of 35 kg/m2 or greater), who had been unwell (for ≤14 days) with suspected COVID-19 or a positive PCR test for SARS-CoV-2 infection in the community. Participants were randomly assigned using response adaptive randomisation to usual care only, usual care plus oral doxycycline (200 mg on day 1, then 100 mg once daily for the following 6 days), or usual care plus other interventions. The interventions reported in this manuscript are usual care plus doxycycline and usual care only; evaluations of other interventions in this platform trial are ongoing. The coprimary endpoints were time to first self-reported recovery, and hospitalisation or death related to COVID-19, both measured over 28 days from randomisation and analysed by intention to treat. This trial is ongoing and is registered with ISRCTN, 86534580. FINDINGS: The trial opened on April 2, 2020. Randomisation to doxycycline began on July 24, 2020, and was stopped on Dec 14, 2020, because the prespecified futility criterion was met; 2689 participants were enrolled and randomised between these dates. Of these, 2508 (93·3%) participants contributed follow-up data and were included in the primary analysis: 780 (31·1%) in the usual care plus doxycycline group, 948 in the usual care only group (37·8%), and 780 (31·1%) in the usual care plus other interventions group. Among the 1792 participants randomly assigned to the usual care plus doxycycline and usual care only groups, the mean age was 61·1 years (SD 7·9); 999 (55·7%) participants were female and 790 (44·1%) were male. In the primary analysis model, there was little evidence of difference in median time to first self-reported recovery between the usual care plus doxycycline group and the usual care only group (9·6 [95% Bayesian Credible Interval [BCI] 8·3 to 11·0] days vs 10·1 [8·7 to 11·7] days, hazard ratio 1·04 [95% BCI 0·93 to 1·17]). The estimated benefit in median time to first self-reported recovery was 0·5 days [95% BCI -0·99 to 2·04] and the probability of a clinically meaningful benefit (defined as ≥1·5 days) was 0·10. Hospitalisation or death related to COVID-19 occurred in 41 (crude percentage 5·3%) participants in the usual care plus doxycycline group and 43 (4·5%) in the usual care only group (estimated absolute percentage difference -0·5% [95% BCI -2·6 to 1·4]); there were five deaths (0·6%) in the usual care plus doxycycline group and two (0·2%) in the usual care only group. INTERPRETATION: In patients with suspected COVID-19 in the community in the UK, who were at high risk of adverse outcomes, treatment with doxycycline was not associated with clinically meaningful reductions in time to recovery or hospital admissions or deaths related to COVID-19, and should not be used as a routine treatment for COVID-19. FUNDING: UK Research and Innovation, Department of Health and Social Care, National Institute for Health Research.


Subject(s)
Anti-Bacterial Agents/administration & dosage , COVID-19/drug therapy , Doxycycline/administration & dosage , Age Factors , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Anti-Bacterial Agents/adverse effects , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/mortality , COVID-19/virology , Doxycycline/adverse effects , Female , Hospitalization/statistics & numerical data , Humans , Intention to Treat Analysis , Male , Middle Aged , Minimal Clinically Important Difference , Risk Factors , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Self Report/statistics & numerical data , Treatment Outcome , United Kingdom/epidemiology
10.
BMJ Open Respir Res ; 8(1)2021 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1327681

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Nurses have been at the forefront of the pandemic response, involved in extensive coordination of services, screening, vaccination and front-line work in respiratory, emergency and intensive care environments. The nature of this work is often intense and stress-provoking with an inevitable psychological impact on nurses and all healthcare workers. This study focused on nurses working in respiratory areas with the aim of identifying and characterising the self-reported issues that exacerbated or alleviated their concerns during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: An online survey was developed consisting of 90 questions using a mixture of open-ended and closed questions. Participant demographic data were also collected (age, gender, ethnicity, number of years qualified, details of long-term health conditions, geographical location, nursing background/role and home life). The online survey was disseminated via social media and professional respiratory societies (British Thoracic Society, Primary Care Respiratory Society, Association of Respiratory Nurse Specialists) over a 3-week period in May 2020 and the survey closed on 1 June 2020. RESULTS: The study highlights the experiences of nurses caring for respiratory patients during the first wave of the pandemic in early 2020. Concerns were expressed over the working environment, the supply and availability of adequate protective personal equipment, the quality of care individuals were able to deliver, and the impact on mental health to nurses and their families. A high number provided free-text comments around their worries and concerns about the impact on their household; these included bringing the virus home, the effect on family members worrying about them, mental health and the impact of changing working patterns, and managing with children. Although both formal and informal support were available, there were inconsistencies in provision, highlighting the importance of nursing leadership and management in ensuring equity of access to services. CONCLUSIONS: Support for staff is essential both throughout the pandemic and afterwards, and it is important that preparation of individuals regarding building resilience is recognised. It is also clear that psychological support and services for nurses and the wider healthcare team need to be available and quickly convened in the event of similar major incidents, either global or local.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/therapy , Nurses/psychology , Occupational Stress/epidemiology , Resilience, Psychological , Adolescent , Adult , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/psychology , COVID-19/transmission , Female , Humans , Infectious Disease Transmission, Patient-to-Professional/prevention & control , Leadership , Male , Middle Aged , Nurses/statistics & numerical data , Occupational Stress/prevention & control , Occupational Stress/psychology , Pandemics/prevention & control , Personal Protective Equipment , Psychosocial Support Systems , Respiratory Care Units/statistics & numerical data , Self Report/statistics & numerical data , Young Adult
11.
Breast Cancer ; 28(6): 1340-1345, 2021 Nov.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1303376

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: In response to the Coronavirus-19 (COVID-19) pandemic, the Japanese government declared a state of emergency in Saitama, Chiba, Tokyo, Kanagawa, Osaka, Hyogo and Fukuoka prefectures on April 7, 2020; this was extended to the remaining prefectures on April 16, 2020. The state of emergency was lifted on May 25, 2020. Although it was known that breast cancer screening was postponed or canceled during this period, the actual extent of postponement or cancellation has not been clarified. METHODS: We investigated postponement or cancellation of breast cancer screening between April and May 2020 using a cross-sectional, web-based, self-reported questionnaire survey. In addition, we examined the association between socioeconomic and health-related factors and postponement or cancellation by multivariable log-binominal regression. RESULTS: Among 1874 women aged 30-79 years who had scheduled breast cancer screening during the study period, 493 women (26.3%) postponed or canceled screening. While women aged 30-39 years and 70-79 years postponed or canceled less frequently than women aged 40-49 years (prevalence ratio = 0.62 and 0.56, respectively), there was no significant difference between age groups in the women aged 40-69 years. Postponement or cancellation was more frequent in five prefectures, where the state of emergency was declared early (prevalence ratio = 1.25). Employment status, annual household income, family structure, academic background, smoking status, and fear of COVID-19 were not associated with postponement or cancellation. CONCLUSION: Although care should be taken with the interpretation of these findings due to possible biases, they suggest that the postponement or cancellation of breast cancer screening might be due more to facility suspension than to individual factors. It is necessary to explore the ideal way of encouraging breast cancer screening uptake, in an environment of coexistence with COVID-19.


Subject(s)
Breast Neoplasms/diagnosis , COVID-19/prevention & control , Communicable Disease Control/standards , Early Detection of Cancer/statistics & numerical data , Patient Acceptance of Health Care/statistics & numerical data , Adult , Age Factors , Aged , Breast Neoplasms/prevention & control , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/transmission , COVID-19/virology , Cross-Sectional Studies , Early Detection of Cancer/psychology , Early Detection of Cancer/standards , Fear , Female , Humans , Japan/epidemiology , Middle Aged , Pandemics/prevention & control , Patient Acceptance of Health Care/psychology , SARS-CoV-2/pathogenicity , Self Report/statistics & numerical data
12.
PLoS One ; 16(6): e0253120, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1278185

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: In the absence of universal testing, effective therapies, or vaccines, identifying risk factors for viral infection, particularly readily modifiable exposures and behaviors, is required to identify effective strategies against viral infection and transmission. METHODS: We conducted a world-wide mobile application-based prospective cohort study available to English speaking adults with a smartphone. We collected self-reported characteristics, exposures, and behaviors, as well as smartphone-based geolocation data. Our main outcome was incident symptoms of viral infection, defined as fevers and chills plus one other symptom previously shown to occur with SARS-CoV-2 infection, determined by daily surveys. FINDINGS: Among 14, 335 participants residing in all 50 US states and 93 different countries followed for a median 21 days (IQR 10-26 days), 424 (3%) developed incident viral symptoms. In pooled multivariable logistic regression models, female biological sex (odds ratio [OR] 1.75, 95% CI 1.39-2.20, p<0.001), anemia (OR 1.45, 95% CI 1.16-1.81, p = 0.001), hypertension (OR 1.35, 95% CI 1.08-1.68, p = 0.007), cigarette smoking in the last 30 days (OR 1.86, 95% CI 1.35-2.55, p<0.001), any viral symptoms among household members 6-12 days prior (OR 2.06, 95% CI 1.67-2.55, p<0.001), and the maximum number of individuals the participant interacted with within 6 feet in the past 6-12 days (OR 1.15, 95% CI 1.06-1.25, p<0.001) were each associated with a higher risk of developing viral symptoms. Conversely, a higher subjective social status (OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.83-0.93, p<0.001), at least weekly exercise (OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.47-0.70, p<0.001), and sanitizing one's phone (OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.63-0.99, p = 0.037) were each associated with a lower risk of developing viral symptoms. INTERPRETATION: While several immutable characteristics were associated with the risk of developing viral symptoms, multiple immediately modifiable exposures and habits that influence risk were also observed, potentially identifying readily accessible strategies to mitigate risk in the COVID-19 era.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/prevention & control , Fever/diagnosis , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Self Report/statistics & numerical data , Adult , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/virology , Female , Fever/epidemiology , Humans , Incidence , Logistic Models , Male , Middle Aged , Multivariate Analysis , Pandemics , Prospective Studies , Risk Factors , SARS-CoV-2/physiology , Smartphone , United States/epidemiology
13.
Medicine (Baltimore) ; 100(21): e25945, 2021 May 28.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1269619

ABSTRACT

ABSTRACT: To investigate the prevalence of anxiety and depressive symptoms and the associated risk factors among first-line medical staff in Wuhan during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) epidemic.From March 5 to 15, 2020, the Hamilton Anxiety Scale and Hamilton Depression scale were used to investigate the anxiety and depression status of medical staff in Wuhan Cabin Hospital (a Hospital). Two hundred seventy-six questionnaires were received from 96 doctors and 180 nurses, including 79 males and 197 females.During the COVID-19 epidemic, the prevalence rate of anxiety and depression was 27.9% and 18.1%, respectively, among 276 front-line medical staff in Wuhan. The prevalence rate of anxiety and depression among doctors was 19.8% and 11.5%, respectively, and the prevalence rate of anxiety and depression among nurses was 32.2% and 21.7%, respectively. Females recorded higher total scores for anxiety and depression than males, and nurses recorded higher scores for anxiety and depression than doctors.During the COVID-19 epidemic, some first-line medical staff experienced mental health problems such as depression and anxiety. Nurses were more prone to anxiety and depression than doctors. Effective strategies toward to improving the mental health should be provided to first-line medical staff, especially female medical staff and nurses.


Subject(s)
Anxiety/epidemiology , COVID-19/epidemiology , Depression/epidemiology , Medical Staff/psychology , Mobile Health Units/statistics & numerical data , Adult , Anxiety/psychology , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/therapy , COVID-19/transmission , China/epidemiology , Cross-Sectional Studies , Depression/psychology , Fear , Female , Humans , Infectious Disease Transmission, Patient-to-Professional , Male , Medical Staff/statistics & numerical data , Middle Aged , Pandemics , Prevalence , Risk Factors , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , SARS-CoV-2/pathogenicity , Self Report/statistics & numerical data , Sex Factors , Workload/psychology
14.
J Clin Endocrinol Metab ; 106(7): e2469-e2479, 2021 06 16.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1247625

ABSTRACT

CONTEXT: The COVID-19 pandemic has impacted healthcare environment. OBJECTIVE: To determine the impact of the pandemic on self-reported outcomes in patients with adrenal insufficiency (AI). DESIGN AND SETTING: Prospective longitudinal survey study at 2 tertiary centers. PARTICIPANTS: Patients with AI. INTERVENTION: Patient-centered questionnaire. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Depression Anxiety Stress Scales-21, Short Form-36, and AI self-management. RESULTS: Of 342 patients, 157 (46%) had primary AI, 109 (32%) had secondary AI, and 76 (22%) had glucocorticoid-induced AI. When compared to prepandemic, daily glucocorticoid dose and number of adrenal crises did not change. However, patients reported a higher financial impact from AI (34% vs 23%, P = 0.006) and difficulty accessing medical care (31% vs 7%, P < 0.0001) during the pandemic. A third of patients reported difficulty managing AI during the pandemic. After adjusting for duration and subtypes of AI, younger patients [odds ratio (OR) 2.3, CI 95% 1.3-4.1], women (OR 3.7, CI 95% 1.9-7.1), poor healthcare access(OR 4.2, CI 95% 2.3-7.7), lack of good insurance support (OR 2.8, CI 95% 1.3-5.9), and those with a higher financial impact (OR 2.3, CI 95% 1.3-4.3) reported greater difficulties managing AI. Patients were more likely to report a higher anxiety score (≥8) if they found managing AI challenging during the pandemic (OR 3.0, CI 95% 1.3-6.9), and had lower Physical Component Summary (OR 4.9, CI 95% 2.2-11.0) and Mental Component Summary (OR 4.1, CI 95% 1.8-9.5) scores prior to the pandemic. CONCLUSIONS: A third of patients with AI reported difficulties with management of AI during the pandemic, particularly in younger patients, women, and those with poor healthcare access.


Subject(s)
Adrenal Insufficiency/drug therapy , Anxiety/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Patient Reported Outcome Measures , Self-Management/statistics & numerical data , Adrenal Insufficiency/economics , Adrenal Insufficiency/psychology , Age Factors , Aged , Anxiety/diagnosis , Anxiety/etiology , Anxiety/psychology , COVID-19/economics , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/psychology , Communicable Disease Control/standards , Female , Financial Stress/diagnosis , Financial Stress/epidemiology , Financial Stress/psychology , Glucocorticoids/administration & dosage , Glucocorticoids/economics , Health Services Accessibility/standards , Health Services Accessibility/statistics & numerical data , Humans , Longitudinal Studies , Male , Middle Aged , Pandemics/economics , Pandemics/prevention & control , Patient Health Questionnaire/statistics & numerical data , Prevalence , Prospective Studies , Quality of Life , Risk Factors , Self Report/statistics & numerical data , Self-Management/economics , Sex Factors , United States/epidemiology
15.
Curr Oncol ; 28(3): 1867-1878, 2021 05 13.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1227004

ABSTRACT

Cancer causes substantial emotional and psychosocial distress, which may be exacerbated by delays in treatment. The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in increased wait times for many patients with cancer. In this study, the psychosocial distress associated with waiting for cancer surgery during the pandemic was investigated. This cross-sectional, convergent mixed-methods study included patients with lower priority disease during the first wave of COVID-19 at an academic, tertiary care hospital in eastern Canada. Participants underwent semi-structured interviews and completed two questionnaires: Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) and Perceived Stress Scale (PSS). Qualitative analysis was completed through a thematic analysis approach, with integration achieved through triangulation. Fourteen participants were recruited, with cancer sites including thyroid, kidney, breast, prostate, and a gynecological disorder. Increased anxiety symptoms were found in 36% of patients and depressive symptoms in 14%. Similarly, 64% of patients experienced moderate or high stress. Six key themes were identified, including uncertainty, life changes, coping strategies, communication, experience, and health services. Participants discussed substantial distress associated with lifestyle changes and uncertain treatment timelines. Participants identified quality communication with their healthcare team and individualized coping strategies as being partially protective against such symptoms. Delays in surgery for patients with cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in extensive psychosocial distress. Patients may be able to mitigate these symptoms partially through various coping mechanisms and improved communication with their healthcare teams.


Subject(s)
Anxiety/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Depression/epidemiology , Neoplasms/surgery , Time-to-Treatment , Adaptation, Psychological , Adult , Aged , Anxiety/diagnosis , Anxiety/etiology , Anxiety/psychology , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/transmission , Communicable Disease Control/standards , Cross-Sectional Studies , Depression/diagnosis , Depression/etiology , Depression/psychology , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Neoplasms/psychology , Nova Scotia/epidemiology , Pandemics/prevention & control , Psychological Distress , Psychometrics/statistics & numerical data , Qualitative Research , Self Report/statistics & numerical data , Triage/standards , Uncertainty
16.
PLoS One ; 16(4): e0249914, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1197378

ABSTRACT

Studies of citizens' compliance with COVID-19 preventive measures routinely rely on survey data. While such data are essential, public health restrictions provide clear signals of what is socially desirable in this context, creating a potential source of response bias in self-reported measures of compliance. In this research, we examine whether the results of a guilt-free strategy recently proposed to lessen this constraint are generalizable across twelve countries, and whether the treatment effect varies across subgroups. Our findings show that the guilt-free strategy is a useful tool in every country included, increasing respondents' proclivity to report non-compliance by 9 to 16 percentage points. This effect holds for different subgroups based on gender, age and education. We conclude that the inclusion of this strategy should be the new standard for survey research that aims to provide crucial data on the current pandemic.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/psychology , Patient Compliance/psychology , Adult , COVID-19/prevention & control , Disease Transmission, Infectious/prevention & control , Female , Guilt , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Self Report/statistics & numerical data , Surveys and Questionnaires
17.
Lupus Sci Med ; 8(1)2021 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1194228

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To report the results of a survey exploring the experience of patients with SLE facing hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) shortage that occurred during the early phases of the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: A survey was designed by Lupus Europe's patient advisory network and distributed through its social media, newsflash and members' network. People with lupus were asked about their last HCQ purchases and their level of anxiety (on a 0-10 scale) with regard to not being able to have access to HCQ, once in April 2020 (first wave) and after 11 August (second wave). The results were compared. RESULTS: 2075 patients responded during the first wave; 1001 (48.2%) could get HCQ from the first place they asked, 230 (11.1%) could get the drug by going to more than one pharmacy, 498 (24.0%) obtained HCQ later from their usual pharmacy and 126 (6.1%) from other sources. 188 (9.1%) could not get any; 32 (1.5%) did not respond to this question. All countries showed significant improvement in HCQ availability during the second wave. 562 (27.4%) patients reported an extremely high level of anxiety in wave 1 and 162 (10.3%) patients in wave 2; 589 (28.7%) and 268 (17.1%) patients reported a high level of anxiety in wave 1 and wave 2, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The HCQ shortage had a significant impact on patients with SLE and has been responsible for psychological consequences including anxiety. Indeed, despite an objective improvement in drug availability, the event is leaving significant traces in patients' mind and behaviours.


Subject(s)
Anxiety , COVID-19 , Community Pharmacy Services/statistics & numerical data , Health Services Accessibility , Hydroxychloroquine , Lupus Erythematosus, Systemic , Antirheumatic Agents/supply & distribution , Antirheumatic Agents/therapeutic use , Anxiety/diagnosis , Anxiety/etiology , COVID-19/drug therapy , COVID-19/epidemiology , Civil Defense/methods , Civil Defense/standards , Europe/epidemiology , Health Services Accessibility/standards , Health Services Accessibility/statistics & numerical data , Humans , Hydroxychloroquine/supply & distribution , Hydroxychloroquine/therapeutic use , Lupus Erythematosus, Systemic/drug therapy , Lupus Erythematosus, Systemic/epidemiology , Lupus Erythematosus, Systemic/psychology , Psychological Distress , SARS-CoV-2 , Self Report/statistics & numerical data , Surveys and Questionnaires
18.
Lancet Respir Med ; 9(4): 360-372, 2021 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1045088

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Mechanical ventilation in intensive care for 48 h or longer is associated with the acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), which might be present at the time ventilatory support is instituted or develop afterwards, predominantly during the first 5 days. Survivors of prolonged mechanical ventilation and ARDS are at risk of considerably impaired physical function that can persist for years. An early pathogenic mechanism of lung injury in mechanically ventilated, critically ill patients is inflammation-induced pulmonary fibrin deposition, leading to thrombosis of the microvasculature and hyaline membrane formation in the air sacs. The main aim of this study was to determine if nebulised heparin, which targets fibrin deposition, would limit lung injury and thereby accelerate recovery of physical function in patients with or at risk of ARDS. METHODS: The Can Heparin Administration Reduce Lung Injury (CHARLI) study was an investigator-initiated, multicentre, double-blind, randomised phase 3 trial across nine hospitals in Australia. Adult intensive care patients on invasive ventilation, with impaired oxygenation defined by a PaO2/FiO2 ratio of less than 300, and with the expectation of invasive ventilation beyond the next calendar day were recruited. Key exclusion criteria were heparin allergy, pulmonary bleeding, and platelet count less than 50 X 109/L. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1, with stratification by site and using blocks of variable size and random seed, via a web-based system, to either unfractionated heparin sodium 25 000 IU in 5 mL or identical placebo (sodium chloride 0·9% 5 mL), administered using a vibrating mesh membrane nebuliser every 6 h to day 10 while invasively ventilated. Patients, clinicians, and investigators were masked to treatment allocation. The primary outcome was the Short Form 36 Health Survey Physical Function Score (out of 100) of survivors at day 60. Prespecified secondary outcomes, which are exploratory, included development of ARDS to day 5 among at-risk patients, deterioration of the Murray Lung Injury Score (MLIS) to day 5, mortality at day 60, residence of survivors at day 60, and serious adverse events. Analyses followed the intention-to-treat principle. There was no imputation of missing data. The trial is registered with the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Register, number ACTRN12612000418875 . FINDINGS: Between Sept 4, 2012, and Aug 23, 2018, 256 patients were randomised. Final follow-up was on Feb 25, 2019. We excluded three patients who revoked consent and one ineligible participant who received no intervention. Of 252 patients included in data analysis, the mean age was 58 years (SD 15), 157 (62%) were men, and 118 (47%) had ARDS. 128 (51%) patients were assigned to the heparin group and 124 (49%) to the placebo group, all of whom received their assigned intervention. Survivors in the heparin group (n=97) had similar SF-36 Physical Function Scores at day 60 compared to the placebo group (n=94; mean 53·6 [SD 31·6] vs 48·7 [35·7]; difference 4·9 [95% CI -4·8 to 14·5]; p=0·32). Compared with the placebo group, the heparin group had fewer cases of ARDS develop to day 5 among the at-risk patients (nine [15%] of 62 patients vs 21 [30%] of 71 patients; hazard ratio 0·46 [95% CI 0·22 to 0·98]; p=0·0431), less deterioration of the MLIS to day 5 (difference -0·14 [-0·26 to -0·02]; p=0·0215), similar day 60 mortality (23 [18%] of 127 patients vs 18 [15%] of 123 patients; odds ratio [OR] 1·29 [95% CI 0·66 to 2·53]; p=0·46), and more day 60 survivors at home (86 [87%] of 99 patients vs 73 [73%] of 100 patients; OR 2·45 [1·18 to 5·08]; p=0·0165). A similar number of serious adverse events occurred in each group (seven [5%] of 128 patients in the heparin group vs three [2%] of 124 patients in the placebo group; OR 2·33 [0·59 to 9·24]; p=0·23), which were a transient increase in airway pressure during nebulisation (n=3 in the heparin group), major non-pulmonary bleeding (n=2 in each group), haemoptysis (n=1 in the heparin group), tracheotomy site bleeding (n=1 in the heparin group), and hypoxaemia during nebulisation (n=1 in the placebo group). INTERPRETATION: In patients with or at risk of ARDS, nebulised heparin did not improve self-reported performance of daily physical activities, but was well tolerated and exploratory outcomes suggest less progression of lung injury and earlier return home. Further research is justified to establish if nebulised heparin accelerates recovery in those who have or are at risk of ARDS. FUNDING: Rowe Family Foundation, TR and RB Ditchfield Medical Research Endowment Fund, Patricia Madigan Charitable Trust, and The J and R McGauran Trust Fund.


Subject(s)
Critical Care/methods , Heparin/administration & dosage , Respiration, Artificial/adverse effects , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/epidemiology , Activities of Daily Living , Administration, Inhalation , Adult , Aged , Australia/epidemiology , Double-Blind Method , Female , Hemoptysis/chemically induced , Hemoptysis/epidemiology , Heparin/adverse effects , Hospital Mortality , Humans , Hypoxia/chemically induced , Hypoxia/epidemiology , Incidence , Male , Middle Aged , Nebulizers and Vaporizers , Placebos/administration & dosage , Placebos/adverse effects , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/diagnosis , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/etiology , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/prevention & control , Self Report/statistics & numerical data , Severity of Illness Index , Survivors/statistics & numerical data , Time Factors , Treatment Outcome
19.
Med Sci Monit ; 27: e930447, 2021 Apr 15.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1134483

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND The present study was designed to reveal the trajectory of self-reported somatic symptom burden and sleep quality over time in patients with COVID-19 and to identify prognostic factors for greater somatic symptom burden and sleep disturbance. MATERIAL AND METHODS Seventy-four patients with COVID-19 were prospectively followed for longitudinal assessment of somatic symptom burden and sleep quality. We used the 8-item Somatic Symptom Scale (SSS-8) and the modified Medical Research Council (mMRC) scale for somatic symptom burden and the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index for sleep quality investigation. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to identify independent factors associated with somatic symptom burden and sleep quality. RESULTS Although the degree of physical discomfort and sleep quality issues tended to decline during self-quarantine, patients still experienced these problems to a certain degree. Univariate and multivariate analyses showed that SSS-8 scores at admission (relative risk [RR] 1.234, 95% CI 1.075-1.417, P=0.003) and mMRC scores at discharge (RR 2.420, 95% CI 1.251-4.682, P=0.009) were 2 independent prognostic indicators of somatic symptom burden. In addition, muscle pain as a chief complaint (RR 4.682, 95% CI 1.247-17.580, P<0.022) and history of use of hypnotic drugs (RR 0.148, 95% CI 0.029-0.749, P<0.019) were 2 independent indicators of patient sleep quality during hospitalization. CONCLUSIONS To the best of our knowledge, the present study was the first dynamic assessment of the somatic symptom burden and sleep quality in patients with COVID-19 during hospitalization and quarantine after discharge. Patients with high somatic symptom burden at admission, especially muscle pain as the chief complaint, are prone to having a higher physical burden and more sleep disturbance at discharge.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/complications , Cost of Illness , Medically Unexplained Symptoms , Myalgia/epidemiology , Sleep Wake Disorders/epidemiology , Adult , Aged , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , China/epidemiology , Female , Humans , Longitudinal Studies , Male , Middle Aged , Myalgia/diagnosis , Myalgia/etiology , Myalgia/physiopathology , Patient Admission/statistics & numerical data , Patient Discharge/statistics & numerical data , Prognosis , Prospective Studies , Quarantine/statistics & numerical data , Risk Assessment/statistics & numerical data , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Self Report/statistics & numerical data , Severity of Illness Index , Sleep/physiology , Sleep Wake Disorders/diagnosis , Sleep Wake Disorders/etiology
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL