How College Students Used Information From Institutions of Higher Education in the United States During COVID-19: Web-Based Cross-Sectional Survey Study.

BACKGROUND: The start of the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in the implementation of nonpharmaceutical interventions by US institutions of higher education at an unprecedented level. During the backdrop of an emerging pandemic, younger adults (eg, college students) had an overall lower risk for severe outcomes for SARS-CoV-2, making this population a potential source of transmission for age groups with high susceptibility and negative health outcomes. We examine how college students' level of concern for COVID-19 was influenced by different sources of information, their living status, income level, and other demographic identifiers and its association with prevention behavior change. OBJECTIVE: We sought to examine the level of concern, defined as the extent to which the participant would take corrective action to mitigate contracting or spreading the virus (to family or friends) by using personal protective equipment such as a face mask, practicing social distancing, and following other public health recommendations, among college students during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: A cross-sectional, web-based survey was conducted in 2021 among 185 college students aged 18-41 years, with most living in New York City and the United States (n=134, 72.4%). Out of 185 college students, 94 provided their zip codes, with 51 of those college students indicating they lived in New York City areas. The participants completed the survey via a QR code. Study participants who did not complete the full survey or were not college students in any US college or university were excluded. Analyses were conducted using R (version 4.2.2; R Foundation for Statistical Computing). RESULTS: Of 185 respondents participated in the study, 25 (13.5.%) used emails from their schools, 51 (27.6%) used mainstream media, and 109 (58.9%) used social media and other sources to obtain information about COVID-19. Of the 109 participants who learned about the pandemic from social media, 91 (83.5%) were concerned; however, only 63% (32/51) and 60% (15/25) of the participants who sourced information from mainstream media and their schools' email, respectively, were concerned. Further, the participants who received information from social media and other sources were about 3 times more likely to be concerned about COVID-19 than participants who received information from the university via email (P=.036; OR=3.07, 95% CI: 1.06-8.83).. CONCLUSIONS: College students who received information from social media and other sources were more likely to be concerned about COVID-19 than students who received information from their school via emails.

Electroconvulsive therapy-induced volumetric brain changes converge on a common causal circuit in depression.

Neurostimulation is a mainstream treatment option for major depression. Neuromodulation techniques apply repetitive magnetic or electrical stimulation to some neural target but significantly differ in their invasiveness, spatial selectivity, mechanism of action, and efficacy. Despite these differences, recent analyses of transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) and deep brain stimulation (DBS)-treated individuals converged on a common neural network that might have a causal role in treatment response. We set out to investigate if the neuronal underpinnings of electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) are similarly associated with this causal depression network (CDN). Our aim here is to provide a comprehensive analysis in three cohorts of patients segregated by electrode placement (N = 246 with right unilateral, 79 with bitemporal, and 61 with mixed) who underwent ECT. We conducted a data-driven, unsupervised multivariate neuroimaging analysis Principal Component Analysis (PCA) of the cortical and subcortical volume changes and electric field (EF) distribution to explore changes within the CDN associated with antidepressant outcomes. Despite the different treatment modalities (ECT vs TMS and DBS) and methodological approaches (structural vs functional networks), we found a highly similar pattern of change within the CDN in the three cohorts of patients (spatial similarity across 85 regions: r = 0.65, 0.58, 0.40, df = 83). Most importantly, the expression of this pattern correlated with clinical outcomes (t = -2.35, p = 0.019). This evidence further supports that treatment interventions converge on a CDN in depression. Optimizing modulation of this network could serve to improve the outcome of neurostimulation in depression.

Electroconvulsive therapy-induced volumetric brain changes converge on a common causal circuit in depression.

Neurostimulation is a mainstream treatment option for major depression. Neuromodulation techniques apply repetitive magnetic or electrical stimulation to some neural target but significantly differ in their invasiveness, spatial selectivity, mechanism of action, and efficacy. Despite these differences, recent analyses of transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) and deep brain stimulation (DBS)-treated individuals converged on a common neural network that might have a causal role in treatment response. We set out to investigate if the neuronal underpinnings of electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) are similarly associated with this common causal network (CCN). Our aim here is to provide a comprehensive analysis in three cohorts of patients segregated by electrode placement (N = 246 with right unilateral, 79 with bitemporal, and 61 with mixed) who underwent ECT. We conducted a data-driven, unsupervised multivariate neuroimaging analysis (Principal Component Analysis, PCA) of the cortical and subcortical volume changes and electric field (EF) distribution to explore changes within the CCN associated with antidepressant outcomes. Despite the different treatment modalities (ECT vs TMS and DBS) and methodological approaches (structural vs functional networks), we found a highly similar pattern of change within the CCN in the three cohorts of patients (spatial similarity across 85 regions: r = 0.65, 0.58, 0.40, df = 83). Most importantly, the expression of this pattern correlated with clinical outcomes. This evidence further supports that treatment interventions converge on a CCN in depression. Optimizing modulation of this network could serve to improve the outcome of neurostimulation in depression.