Covid-19 transmission in fitness centers in Norway - a randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Closed fitness centers during the Covid-19 pandemic may negatively impact health and wellbeing. We assessed whether training at fitness centers increases the risk of SARS-CoV-2 virus infection. METHODS: In a two-group parallel randomized controlled trial, fitness center members aged 18 to 64 without Covid-19-relevant comorbidities, were randomized to access to training at a fitness center or no-access. Fitness centers applied physical distancing (1 m for floor exercise, 2 m for high-intensity classes) and enhanced hand and surface hygiene. Primary outcomes were SARS-CoV-2 RNA status by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) after 14 days, hospital admission after 21 days. The secondary endpoint was SARS-CoV-2 antibody status after 1 month. RESULTS: 3764 individuals were randomized; 1896 to the training arm and 1868 to the no-training arm. In the training arm, 81.8% trained at least once, and 38.5% trained ≥six times. Of 3016 individuals who returned the SARS-CoV-2 RNA tests (80.5%), there was one positive test in the training arm, and none in the no-training arm (risk difference 0.053%; 95% CI - 0.050 to 0.156%; p = 0.32). Eleven individuals in the training arm (0.8% of tested) and 27 in the no-training arm (2.4% of tested) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies (risk difference - 0.87%; 95%CI - 1.52% to - 0.23%; p = 0.001). No outpatient visits or hospital admissions due to Covid-19 occurred in either arm. CONCLUSION: Provided good hygiene and physical distancing measures and low population prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection, there was no increased infection risk of SARS-CoV-2 in fitness centers in Oslo, Norway for individuals without Covid-19-relevant comorbidities. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial was prospectively registered in ClinicalTrials.gov on May 13, 2020. Due to administrative issues it was first posted on the register website on May 29, 2020: NCT04406909 .

The COVID-19 pandemic in Norway and Sweden - threats, trust, and impact on daily life: a comparative survey.

BACKGROUND: Norway and Sweden have similar populations and health care systems, but different reactions to the COVID-19 pandemic. Norway closed educational institutions, and banned sports and cultural activities; Sweden kept most institutions and training facilities open. We aimed to compare peoples' attitudes towards authorities and control measures, and perceived impact of the pandemic and implemented control measures on life in Norway and Sweden. METHODS: Anonymous web-based surveys for individuals age 15 or older distributed through Facebook using the snowball method, in Norway and Sweden from mid-March to mid-April, 2020. The survey contained questions about perceived threat of the pandemic, views on infection control measures, and impact on daily life. We performed descriptive analyses of the responses and compared the two countries. RESULTS: 3508 individuals participated in the survey (Norway 3000; Sweden 508). 79% were women, the majority were 30-49 years (Norway 60%; Sweden 47%), and about 45% of the participants in both countries had more than 4 years of higher education. Participants had high trust in the health services, but differed in the degree of trust in their government (High trust in Norway 17%; Sweden 37%). More Norwegians than Swedes agreed that school closure was a good measure (Norway 66%; Sweden 18%), that countries with open schools were irresponsible (Norway 65%; Sweden 23%), and that the threat from repercussions of the mitigation measures were large or very large (Norway 71%; Sweden 56%). Both countries had a high compliance with infection preventive measures (> 98%). Many lived a more sedentary life (Norway 69%; Sweden 50%) and ate more (Norway 44%; Sweden 33%) during the pandemic. CONCLUSION: Sweden had more trust in the authorities, while Norwegians reported a more negative lifestyle during the pandemic. The level of trust in the health care system and self-reported compliance with preventive measures was high in both countries despite the differences in infection control measures.

Incentives and participation in a medical survey. / Incentiver og deltagelse i en medisinsk spørreundersøkelse.

BACKGROUND Questionnaire surveys are important for surveying the health and disease behaviour of the population, but recent years have seen a fall in participation. Our study tested whether incentives can increase participation in these surveys.MATERIAL AND METHOD We sent a questionnaire on risk factors for colorectal cancer (height, weight, smoking, self-reported diagnoses, family medical history) to non-screened participants in a randomised colonoscopy screening study for colorectal cancer: participants who were invited but did not attend for colonoscopy examination (screening-invited) and persons who were not offered colonoscopy (control group). The persons were randomised to three groups: no financial incentive, lottery scratch cards included with the form, or a prize draw for a tablet computer when they responded to the form. We followed up all the incentive groups with telephone reminder calls, and before the prize draw for the tablet computer.RESULTS Altogether 3 705 of 6 795 persons (54.5 %) responded to the questionnaire; 43.5 % of those invited for screening and 65.6 % of the control group (p < 0.001). The proportion that answered was not influenced by incentives, either among those invited for screening (42.4 % in the non-prize group, 45.5 % in the lottery scratch card group and 42.6 % in the prize draw group; p = 0.24), or in the control group (65.6 % in the non-prize group, 66.4 % in the lottery scratch card group and 64.7 % in the prize draw group; p = 0.69). Prior to reminder calls, 39.2 % responded. A further 15.3 % responded following telephone reminder calls (14.1 % of the screening-invited and 16.5 % of the control group; p < 0.001).INTERPRETATION Incentives did not increase participation in this medical questionnaire survey. Use of telephone reminder calls and telephone interviews increased participation, but whether this is more effective than other methods requires further study.