Persistent symptoms and risk factors predicting prolonged time to symptom-free after SARS­CoV­2 infection: an analysis of the baseline examination of the German COVIDOM/NAPKON-POP cohort.

PURPOSE: We aimed to assess symptoms in patients after SARS-CoV-2 infection and to identify factors predicting prolonged time to symptom-free. METHODS: COVIDOM/NAPKON-POP is a population-based prospective cohort of adults whose first on-site visits were scheduled ≥ 6 months after a positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR test. Retrospective data including self-reported symptoms and time to symptom-free were collected during the survey before a site visit. In the survival analyses, being symptom-free served as the event and time to be symptom-free as the time variable. Data were visualized with Kaplan-Meier curves, differences were tested with log-rank tests. A stratified Cox proportional hazard model was used to estimate adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) of predictors, with aHR < 1 indicating a longer time to symptom-free. RESULTS: Of 1175 symptomatic participants included in the present analysis, 636 (54.1%) reported persistent symptoms after 280 days (SD 68) post infection. 25% of participants were free from symptoms after 18 days [quartiles: 14, 21]. Factors associated with prolonged time to symptom-free were age 49-59 years compared to < 49 years (aHR 0.70, 95% CI 0.56-0.87), female sex (aHR 0.78, 95% CI 0.65-0.93), lower educational level (aHR 0.77, 95% CI 0.64-0.93), living with a partner (aHR 0.81, 95% CI 0.66-0.99), low resilience (aHR 0.65, 95% CI 0.47-0.90), steroid treatment (aHR 0.22, 95% CI 0.05-0.90) and no medication (aHR 0.74, 95% CI 0.62-0.89) during acute infection. CONCLUSION: In the studied population, COVID-19 symptoms had resolved in one-quarter of participants within 18 days, and in 34.5% within 28 days. Over half of the participants reported COVID-19-related symptoms 9 months after infection. Symptom persistence was predominantly determined by participant's characteristics that are difficult to modify.

Changes in work-related stressors before and during the COVID-19 pandemic: differences by gender and parental status.

PURPOSE: The COVID-19 pandemic changed people's working conditions worldwide and research suggests increases in work stressors. However, it is not known to what extent these changes differ by gender or parental status. In the present study, we investigate trends in work stressors and whether these differ by gender and parental status. METHODS: We used cross-sectional time series data of the European Working Conditions Survey of 2015 and Living, Working and COVID-19 survey of spring 2020 to examine trends in work stressors by gender and parental status. Work stressors were working in leisure time, lack of psychological detachment and work-life conflict. We applied three-way multilevel regressions reporting prevalence ratios and reported predicted probabilities and average marginal effects to show trends and differences in changes in work stressors. RESULTS: Our multilevel regression results showed elevated prevalence ratios during the pandemic for working leisure time (PR: 1.43, 95% CI 1.34-1.53), psychological detachment (PR: 1.70, 95% CI 1.45-1.99) and work-life conflict (PR: 1.29, 95% CI 1.17-1.43) compared to before the pandemic. Except for working in leisure time, the increase was more significant among women and mothers. The proportion of work-life conflict in 2020 was 20.7% (95% CI 18.7-22.9) for men and 25.8% (95% CI 24.0-27.6) for women, equalling a difference of 5.1% (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: There is evidence that work stressors increased disproportionately for women and mothers. This needs to be monitored and addressed to prevent widening gender inequalities in the quality of work.

Striving for Health Equity: The Importance of Social Determinants of Health and Ethical Considerations in Pandemic Preparedness Planning.

Since the WHO's "Influenza Pandemic Preparedness Plan" in 1999, pandemic preparedness plans at the international and national level have been constantly adapted with the common goal to respond early to outbreaks, identify risks, and outline promising interventions for pandemic containment. Two years into the COVID-19 pandemic, public health experts have started to reflect on the extent to which previous preparations have been helpful as well as on the gaps in pandemic preparedness planning. In the present commentary, we advocate for the inclusion of social and ethical factors in future pandemic planning-factors that have been insufficiently considered so far, although social determinants of infection risk and infectious disease severity contribute to aggravated social inequalities in health.

Economic change and population health: lessons learnt from an umbrella review on the Great Recession.

OBJECTIVES: Worldwide, the COVID-19 pandemic triggered the sharpest economic downturn since the Great Recession. To prepare for future crises and to preserve public health, we conduct an overview of systematic reviews to examine the evidence on the effect of the Great Recession on population health. METHODS: We searched PubMed and Scopus for systematic reviews and/or meta-analyses focusing specifically on the impact of the Great Recession on population health (eg, mental health). Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses guidelines were followed throughout this review and critical appraisal of included systematic reviews was performed using Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews. RESULTS: Twenty-one studies were identified and consistently showed that the Great Recession was most risky to health, the more a country's economy was affected and the longer strict austerity policies were in place. Consequently, a deterioration of health was highest in countries that had implemented strict austerity measures (eg, Greece), but not in countries that rejected austerity measures (eg, Germany). Moreover, the impact of the Great Recession fell disproportionately on the most vulnerable groups such as people in unemployment, at risk of unemployment and those living in poverty. CONCLUSIONS: The experiences of the last economic crisis show that it is possible to limit the consequences for health. Prioritising mental healthcare and prevention, foregoing austerity measures in the healthcare system and protecting vulnerable groups are the most important lessons learnt. Moreover, given the further aggravating social inequalities, a health in all policies approach, based on a comprehensive Health Impact Assessment, is advised.