International survey on fear and childbirth experience in pregnancy and the postpartum period during the COVID-19 pandemic: study protocol

IntroductionThe COVID-19 pandemic has caused unprecedented disruptions around the world. Adding to the existing stress surrounding pregnancy and childbirth, the threat of infection and social isolation policies may negatively impact pregnant women and new mothers. Literature on the effect of COVID-19 on fear during pregnancy and childbirth experience is limited. As the COVID-19 pandemic continues to affect the global population, it is important to understand how it has impacted pregnant women and new mothers’ experiences worldwide to inform perinatal care and interventions.Methods and analysisThis multicountry study involving China and Canada targets to recruit 1000 pregnant women and new mothers who gave birth since 2020 in each participating country. Participants will be recruited online in the local language through mothers’ groups, antenatal and postnatal clinics and hospital wards. All questionnaires will be completed online. Participants’ level of fear, depression and childbirth experience will be assessed along with other sociodemographic, medical and COVID-related measures. Regression models will be used to compare the outcomes among the participating countries.Ethics and disseminationThe study has been reviewed and approved by the institutional review boards of the participating countries. Findings will be disseminated in peer-reviewed journals and academic conferences. Results from this study may guide the formulation of future health guidelines and policies in the face of a pandemic.

Psychometric Evaluation of a Fear of COVID-19 Scale in China: Cross-sectional Study.

BACKGROUND: At the very beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, information about fear of COVID-19 was very limited in Chinese populations, and there was no standardized and validated scale to measure the fear associated with the pandemic. OBJECTIVE: This cross-sectional study aimed to adapt and validate a fear scale to determine the levels of fear of COVID-19 among the general population in mainland China and Hong Kong. METHODS: A web-based questionnaire platform was developed for data collection; the study instruments were an adapted version of the 8-item Breast Cancer Fear Scale ("Fear Scale") and the 4-item Patient Health Questionnaire. The internal construct validity, convergent validity, known group validity, and reliability of the adapted Fear Scale were assessed, and descriptive statistics were used to summarize the participants' fear levels. RESULTS: A total of 2822 study participants aged 18 years or older were included in the analysis. The reliability of the adapted scale was satisfactory, with a Cronbach α coefficient of .93. The item-total correlations corrected for overlap were >0.4, confirming their internal construct validity. Regarding convergent validity, a small-to-moderate correlation between the Fear Scale and the 4-item Patient Health Questionnaire scores was found. Regarding known group validity, we found that the study participants who were recruited from Hong Kong had a higher level of fear than the study participants from mainland China. Older adults had a higher level of fear compared with younger adults. Furthermore, having hypertension, liver disease, heart disease, cancer, anxiety, and insomnia were associated with a higher fear level. The descriptive analysis found that more than 40% of the study participants reported that the thought of COVID-19 scared them. About one-third of the study participants reported that when they thought about COVID-19, they felt nervous, uneasy, and depressed. CONCLUSIONS: The psychometric properties of the adapted Fear Scale are acceptable to measure the fear of COVID-19 among Chinese people. Our study stresses the need for more psychosocial support and care to help this population cope with their fears during the pandemic.

Impact of varying wave periods of COVID-19 on in-hospital mortality and length of stay for admission through emergency department: A territory-wide observational cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has been associated with excess mortality and reduced emergency department attendance. However, the effect of varying wave periods of COVID-19 on in-hospital mortality and length of stay (LOS) for non-COVID disease for non-COVID diseases remains unexplored. METHODS: We examined a territory-wide observational cohort of 563,680 emergency admissions between January 1 and November 30, 2020, and 709,583 emergency admissions during the same 2019 period in Hong Kong, China. Differences in 28-day in-hospital mortality risk and LOS due to COVID-19 were evaluated. RESULTS: The cumulative incidence of 28-day in-hospital mortality increased overall from 2.9% in 2019 to 3.6% in 2020 (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] = 1.22, 95% CI 1.20 to 1.25). The aHR was higher among patients with lower respiratory tract infection (aHR: 1.30 95% CI 1.26 to 1.34), airway disease (aHR: 1.35 95% CI 1.22 to 1.49), and mental disorders (aHR: 1.26 95% CI 1.15 to 1.37). Mortality risk in the first- and third-wave periods was significantly greater than that in the inter-wave period (p-interaction < 0.001). The overall average LOS in the pandemic year was significantly shorter than that in 2019 (Mean difference = -0.40 days; 95% CI -0.43 to -0.36). Patients with mental disorders and cerebrovascular disease in 2020 had a 3.91-day and 2.78-day shorter LOS than those in 2019, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Increased risk of in-hospital deaths was observed overall and by all major subgroups of disease during the pandemic period. Together with significantly reduced LOS for patients with mental disorders and cerebrovascular disease, this study shows the spillover effect of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Changes in Emergency Department Visits, Diagnostic Groups, and 28-Day Mortality Associated With the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Territory-Wide, Retrospective, Cohort Study.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: We aimed to evaluate and characterize the scale and relationships of emergency department (ED) visits and excess mortality associated with the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic in the territory of Hong Kong. METHODS: We conducted a territory-wide, retrospective cohort study to compare ED visits and the related impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on mortality. All ED visits at 18 public acute hospitals in Hong Kong between January 1 and August 31 of 2019 (n=1,426,259) and 2020 (n=1,035,562) were included. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality in the 28 days following an ED visit. The secondary outcomes were weekly number of ED visits and diagnosis-specific mortality. RESULTS: ED visits decreased by 27.4%, from 1,426,259 in 2019 to 1,035,562 in 2020. Overall period mortality increased from 28,686 (2.0%) in 2019 to 29,737 (2.9%) in 2020. The adjusted odds ratio for 28-day, all-cause mortality in the pandemic period of 2020 relative to 2019 was 1.26 (95% confidence interval 1.24 to 1.28). Both sexes, age more than 45 years, all triage categories, all social classes, all ED visit periods, epilepsy (odds ratio 1.58, 95% confidence interval 1.20 to 2.07), lower respiratory tract infection, and airway disease had higher adjusted ORs for all-cause mortality. CONCLUSION: A significant reduction in ED visits in the first 8 months of the COVID-19 pandemic was associated with an increase in deaths certified in the ED. The government must make provisions to encourage patients with alarming symptoms, mental health conditions, and comorbidities to seek timely emergency care, regardless of the pandemic.

International survey for assessing COVID-19's impact on fear and health: study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: COVID-19, caused by the SARS-CoV-2, has been one of the most highly contagious and rapidly spreading virus outbreak. The pandemic not only has catastrophic impacts on physical health and economy around the world, but also the psychological well-being of individuals, communities and society. The psychological and social impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic internationally have not been well described. There is a lack of international study assessing health-related impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, especially on the degree to which individuals are fearful of the pandemic. Therefore, this study aims to (1) assess the health-related impact of the COVID-19 pandemic in community-dwelling individuals around the world; (2) determine the extent various communities are fearful of COVID-19 and (3) identify perceived needs of the population to prepare for potential future pandemics. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This global study involves 30 countries. For each country, we target at least 500 subjects aged 18 years or above. The questionnaires will be available online and in local languages. The questionnaires include assessment of the health impacts of COVID-19, perceived importance of future preparation for the pandemic, fear, lifestyles, sociodemographics, COVID-19-related knowledge, e-health literacy, out-of-control scale and the Patient Health Questionnaire-4. Descriptive statistics will be used to describe participants' characteristics, perceptions on the health-related impacts of COVID-19, fear, anxiety and depression, lifestyles, COVID-19 knowledge, e-health literacy and other measures. Univariable and multivariable regression models will be used to assess the associations of covariates on the outcomes. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has been reviewed and approved by the local ethics committees in participating countries, where local ethics approval is needed. The results will be actively disseminated. This study aims to map an international perspective and comparison for future preparation in a pandemic.

Clinical presentations, laboratory and radiological findings, and treatments for 11,028 COVID-19 patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

This systematic review and meta-analysis investigated the comorbidities, symptoms, clinical characteristics and treatment of COVID-19 patients. Epidemiological studies published in 2020 (from January-March) on the clinical presentation, laboratory findings and treatments of COVID-19 patients were identified from PubMed/MEDLINE and Embase databases. Studies published in English by 27th March, 2020 with original data were included. Primary outcomes included comorbidities of COVID-19 patients, their symptoms presented on hospital admission, laboratory results, radiological outcomes, and pharmacological and in-patient treatments. 76 studies were included in this meta-analysis, accounting for a total of 11,028 COVID-19 patients in multiple countries. A random-effects model was used to aggregate estimates across eligible studies and produce meta-analytic estimates. The most common comorbidities were hypertension (18.1%, 95% CI 15.4-20.8%). The most frequently identified symptoms were fever (72.4%, 95% CI 67.2-77.7%) and cough (55.5%, 95% CI 50.7-60.3%). For pharmacological treatment, 63.9% (95% CI 52.5-75.3%), 62.4% (95% CI 47.9-76.8%) and 29.7% (95% CI 21.8-37.6%) of patients were given antibiotics, antiviral, and corticosteroid, respectively. Notably, 62.6% (95% CI 39.9-85.4%) and 20.2% (95% CI 14.6-25.9%) of in-patients received oxygen therapy and non-invasive mechanical ventilation, respectively. This meta-analysis informed healthcare providers about the timely status of characteristics and treatments of COVID-19 patients across different countries.PROSPERO Registration Number: CRD42020176589.

Impact of National Containment Measures on Decelerating the Increase in Daily New Cases of COVID-19 in 54 Countries and 4 Epicenters of the Pandemic: Comparative Observational Study.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) is a worldwide epidemic, and various countries have responded with different containment measures to reduce disease transmission, including stay-at-home orders, curfews, and lockdowns. Comparative studies have not yet been conducted to investigate the impact of these containment measures; these studies are needed to facilitate public health policy-making across countries. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to describe and evaluate the impact of national containment measures and policies (stay-at-home orders, curfews, and lockdowns) on decelerating the increase in daily new cases of COVID-19 in 54 countries and 4 epicenters of the pandemic in different jurisdictions worldwide. METHODS: We reviewed the effective dates of the national containment measures (stay-at-home order, curfew, or lockdown) of 54 countries and 4 epicenters of the COVID-19 pandemic (Wuhan, New York State, Lombardy, and Madrid), and we searched cumulative numbers of confirmed COVID-19 cases and daily new cases provided by health authorities. Data were drawn from an open, crowdsourced, daily-updated COVID-19 data set provided by Our World in Data. We examined the trends in the percent increase in daily new cases from 7 days before to 30 days after the dates on which containment measures went into effect by continent, World Bank income classification, type of containment measures, effective date of containment measures, and number of confirmed cases on the effective date of the containment measures. RESULTS: We included 122,366 patients with confirmed COVID-19 infection from 54 countries and 24,071 patients from 4 epicenters on the effective dates on which stay-at-home orders, curfews, or lockdowns were implemented between January 23 and April 11, 2020. Stay-at-home, curfew, and lockdown measures commonly commenced in countries with approximately 30%, 20%, or 10% increases in daily new cases. All three measures were found to lower the percent increase in daily new cases to <5 within one month. Among the countries studied, 20% had an average percent increase in daily new cases of 30-49 over the seven days prior to the commencement of containment measures; the percent increase in daily new cases in these countries was curbed to 10 and 5 a maximum of 15 days and 23 days after the implementation of containment measures, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Different national containment measures were associated with a decrease in daily new cases of confirmed COVID-19 infection. Stay-at-home orders, curfews, and lockdowns curbed the percent increase in daily new cases to <5 within a month. Resurgence in cases within one month was observed in some South American countries.