ABSTRACT
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To investigate the association between the olfactory dysfunction and the more typical symptoms (fever, cough, dyspnoea) within the Sars-CoV-2 infection (COVID-19) in hospitalized and non-hospitalized patients. RECENT FINDINGS: PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science databases were reviewed from May 5, 2020, to June 1, 2020. Inclusion criteria included English, French, German, Spanish or Italian language studies containing original data related to COVID19, anosmia, fever, cough, and dyspnoea, in both hospital and non-hospital settings. Two investigators independently reviewed all manuscripts and performed quality assessment and quantitative meta-analysis using validated tools. A third author arbitrated full-text disagreements. Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA), 11 of 135 studies fulfilled eligibility. Anosmia was estimated less prevalent than fever and cough (respectively rate difference = - 0.316, 95% CI: - 0.574 to - 0.058, Z = - 2.404, p < 0.016, k = 11 and rate difference = - 0.249, 95% CI: - 0.402 to - 0.096, Z = - 3.185, p < 0.001, k = 11); the analysis between anosmia and dyspnoea was not significant (rate difference = - 0.008, 95% CI: - 0.166 to 0.150, Z = - 0.099, p < 0.921, k = 8). The typical symptoms were significantly more frequent than anosmia in hospitalized more critical patients than in non-hospitalized ones (respectively [Q(1) = 50.638 p < 0.000, Q(1) = 52.520 p < 0.000, Q(1) = 100.734 p < 0.000). SUMMARY: Patient with new onset olfactory dysfunction should be investigated for COVID-19. Anosmia is more frequent in non-hospitalized COVID-19 patients than in hospitalized ones.
ABSTRACT
Although vaccination has been heralded as one of the 10 greatest public health achievements, how parents differ in their views about vaccination is not well understood. A deeper understanding of these attitudes and beliefs may improve the effectiveness of vaccine communications. In this mailed survey of U.S. parents in January 2001 (return response rate 49%), parental confidence in vaccination was very high, although there was significant variation among parents. Using multivariate analyses to group and profile parents, 90% of parents (n=1820) were classified into one of four distinct parent groups: (1) "Vaccine Believer" parents who were convinced of the benefit of vaccination; (2) "Cautious" parents noteworthy for a high emotional investment in their child; (3) "Relaxed" parents characterized by a less involved parenting style and some skepticism about vaccines; and (4) "Unconvinced" parents distinguished by their distrust of vaccinations and vaccination policy. These findings suggest that messages that are customized to parents' attitudes and beliefs may improve their understanding and acceptance of vaccination.
