ABSTRACT
Background: The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the importance of urban parks to provide safe places to visit and recreate. Recent research has suggested that park visitation over this time may not have occurred equitably, which may exacerbate existing health disparities. However, usual methods of estimating park visitation are labor intensive, requiring better solutions.. The objective of this study was to assess how park visitation changed in Buffalo, New York after the start of the COVID-19 pandemic utilizing human mobility data. Methods: Monthly mobile phone location data from January 2018 through October of 2021 from residents of Buffalo were analyzed to estimate total park visits for each census tract. A generalized linear mixed effect model was utilized to examine if selected factors affected park visitation. Factors examined included demographic, health, park, and crime data at the census tract level. Results: Across 587,487 park visits that were captured in the 79 census tracts, park visitation increased by 25% since March 2020. In our regression model, having cancer and currently smoking had negative effects on park visitation. The start of the COVID-19 pandemic positively affected park visitation. Season (of the year), was the other statistically significant variable that affected park visitation. Conclusions: Anonymous mobile phone data demonstrated that park visitation has increased by 25% since the beginning of the pandemic when we looked at census tract level data. While some data limitations must be addressed, mobile phone data is a novel method that can be used to understand behavioral and public health trends.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVETo evaluate the efficacy and safety of Chinese medicine (Q-14) plus standard care compared with standard care alone in adult with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Study DESIGNSingle-center, open label, randomised controlled trial. SETTINGWuhan Jinyintan Hospital, Wuhan, China, February 27 to March 27, 2020. PARTICIPANTS204 patients with laboratory confirmed COVID-19 were randomised in to treatment group and control group, which was 102 patients each group. INTERVENTIONSIn treatment group, Q-14 was administrated at 10g (granules), twice daily for 14 days and plus standard care. In control group, patients were given standard care alone for 14 days. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREThe primary outcome was conversion time of SARS-CoV-2 viral assay. Adverse events were analyzed in the safety population. RESULTSAmong 204 patients, 195 were analyzed according to the intention to treat principle. There were 149 patients (71 vs. 78 in treatment group and control group respectively) turning to negative via SARS-CoV-2 viral assay. No statistically significance showed in conversion time between treatment group and control group (FAS: Median (IQR): 10.00 (9.00-11.00) vs. 10.00 (9.00-11.00); Mean rank: 67.92 vs. 81.44; P=0.051.). Time to recovery of fever was shorter in treatment group as compared in control group. The disappearance rate of symptom in cough, fatigue, chest discomfort was significantly higher in treatment group. In chest computed tomography (Chest CT) examinations, overall evaluation of chest CT examination after treatment compared with baseline showed more patients improved in treatment group .There were no significant differences in the other outcomes. CONCLUSIONAdministration of Q-14 on standard care for COVID-19 was useful for improvement of symptoms (such as fever, cough, fatigue and chest discomfort), while did not result in a significantly higher probability of negative conversion of SARS-CoV-2 viral assay. No serious adverse events were reported. TRIAL REGISTRATIONChiCTR2000030288
