Up all night: the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on insomnia among college students.

Objective: To investigate COVID-19's impact on sleep, specifically insomnia, in college students. Participants: Students from a private university were eligible if they registered for Refresh, an online sleep-health program. Methods: A pre-intervention survey was distributed and assessed insomnia and COVID-19 factors using the Insomnia Severity Index (ISI) and a COVID-19 questionnaire. Baseline ISI scores from students enrolled in 2020-2021 were compared to scores from students enrolled in 2018-2019 using a two-sample t-test. Associations between insomnia and the COVID-19 factors were determined using chi-square tests. Results: There was no significant difference in baseline ISI scores when comparing 2018-2019 scores to those collected during the pandemic, p = 0.274. There was a statistically significant association between having insomnia and a student's learning location, p = 0.006, as well as disturbances in sleep caused by the pandemic, p = 0.026. Conclusion: Our results indicate that the COVID-19 pandemic did not worsen baseline insomnia.

Extragenital Screening of Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae Among Women in the College Health Setting.

BACKGROUND: Despite high frequencies of oral and receptive anal intercourse among young women, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention does not recommend routine oropharyngeal or anorectal screening for CT and GC. Risk-based extragenital screening of women has not been adopted at the majority of college health centers, and existing research has not focused on the female or college population. METHODS: We examined health records of women at a college health center in a large urban university for 3 years to evaluate the effectiveness of CT and GC screening. We also evaluated the proportion of CT and GC infections that would have been missed if risk-based extragenital screening was not performed. Decisions to screen at extragenital sites were based on patient-reported risk behavior. RESULTS: For 8027 unique chlamydia screens and 7907 unique gonorrhea screens, approximately 20% of the visits used extragenital screening in response to self-reported risk behaviors. More than 44% of patients were non-Hispanic White, and approximately 48% fell within the 20- to 24-year age group. The case positivity rates for CT were 2.85% with urogenital-only screening and 1.30% with risk-prompted extragenital screening (1.1% throat, 4.3% rectal). The case positivity rates for GC were 0.11% with urogenital-only screening and 0.37% with risk-prompted extragenital screening (0.37% throat, 0% rectal). If the college health center had relied solely on urogenital screening rather than adding risk-based extragenital screening, 4.41% of CT infections would have been missed and 28.57% of GC infections would have been missed. CONCLUSIONS: Nearly 1 of 22 CT infections and nearly 1 of 3 GC infections would have been missed without extragenital screening in this analysis of college women. Inclusion of risk-prompted extragenital screening in asymptomatic STD screening protocols can help clinicians diagnose CT and GC infections that would be have been missed with urogenital-only screening. Although rectal GC infections among women seem to be less common, oropharyngeal testing, in particular, for GC is suggested for women based on sexual risk. However, clinicians might only identify these risks if they ask patients directly about these potential exposures. Because guidelines exist only for men, future studies should focus on extragenital screening in college women to build the evidence that this particular population of patients may benefit from this practice, given the high risk of STDs in young adults.

The Case for Extragenital Screening of Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae in the College Health Setting.

BACKGROUND: Although the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention does not recommend routine oropharyngeal and anorectal screening for Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae in the general population, they do recommend it for men who have sex with men. However, risk-based extragenital screening of men may not have been adopted at all college health centers, and existing research has not focused on the college population. METHODS: We examined health records of men at a college health center in a large urban university over 6 years to evaluate effectiveness of C. trachomatis and N. gonorrhoeae screening. We also evaluated the proportion of C. trachomatis and N. gonorrhoeae infections that would have been missed if risk-based extragenital screening were not performed. Decisions to screen at extragenital sites were based on patient-reported risk behavior. RESULTS: For 4093 male college students screened, 7.6% of the screening visits used extragenital screening in response to self-reported risk behaviors. The case positivity rate for C. trachomatis was 3.1% with urogenital-only screening and 3.7% with risk-prompted extragenital screening. The case positivity rate for N. gonorrhoeae was 0.7% with urogenital-only screening and 3.3% with risk-prompted extragenital screening. If the college health center had relied solely on urogenital screening rather than risk-based extragenital screening, 26.4% of C. trachomatis infections and 63.2% of N. gonorrhoeae infections would have been missed. CONCLUSIONS: One out of four C. trachomatis infections and 2 of 3 N. gonorrhoeae infections would have been missed without extragenital screening in this analysis of college men. This study reinforces Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommendations for risk-based extragenital screening and is the first report to focus on college men. Because guidelines exist only for men, future studies should focus on extragenital screening in college women to build evidence for another group of patients that may benefit from this practice, given the high risk in young adults.

Notes from the Field: Outbreak of Cryptosporidiosis Among Veterinary Medicine Students--Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, February 2015.

On February 20, 2015, a northeastern university's student health center was notified of five veterinary medicine students with gastrointestinal symptoms. An investigation was conducted to establish the existence of an outbreak, determine the etiology, evaluate risk factors, and recommend control measures.