COVID-19 vaccination hesitancy among health care workers,communication, and policy-making

BackgroundCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine hesitancy in health care workers (HCWs) contributes to personal and patient risk in contracting COVID-19. Reasons behind hesitancy and how best to improve vaccination rates in HCWs are not clear.MethodsWe adapted a survey using the Health Belief Model framework to evaluate HCW vaccine hesitancy and reasons for choosing for or against COVID-19 vaccination. The survey was sent to 3 large academic medical centers in the Chicagoland area between March and May 2021.ResultsWe received 1974 completed responses with 85% of HCWs receiving or anticipating receiving COVID-19 vaccination. Multivariable logistic regression found HCWs were less likely to receive COVID-19 vaccination if they were Black (OR 0.34, 95% CI 0.15-0.80), Republican (OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.31-0.91), or allergic to any vaccine component (OR 0.27, 95% CI 0.10-0.70) and more likely to receive if they believed people close to them thought it was important for them to receive the vaccine (OR 5.2, 95% CI 3-8).ConclusionsA sizable number of HCWs remain vaccine hesitant 1 year into the COVID-19 pandemic. As HCWs are positively influenced by colleagues who believe in COVID-19 vaccination, development of improved communication across HCW departments and roles may improve vaccination rates.     

The first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in Spain: characterisation of cases and risk factors for severe outcomes,as at 27 April 2020

BackgroundThe first wave of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic spread rapidly in Spain, one of Europe’s most affected countries. A national lockdown was implemented on 15 March 2020.AimTo describe reported cases and the impact of national lockdown, and to identify disease severity risk factors.MethodsNational surveillance data were used to describe PCR-confirmed cases as at 27 April 2020. We compared case characteristics by severity categories (hospitalisation, admission to intensive care unit (ICU), death) and identified severity risk factors using multivariable regression.ResultsThe epidemic peaked on 20 March. Of 218,652 COVID-19 cases, 45.4% were hospitalised, 4.6% were admitted to ICU and 11.9% died. Among those who died, 94.8% had at least one underlying disease. Healthcare workers (HCWs) represented 22.9% of cases. Males were more likely to have severe outcomes than females. Cardiovascular disease was a consistent risk factor. Patients with pneumonia had higher odds of hospitalisation (odds ratio (OR): 26.63; 95% confidence interval (CI): 25.03–28.33). The strongest predictor of death was age ≥ 80 years (OR: 28.4; 95% CI: 19.85–40.78). Among underlying diseases, chronic renal disease had highest odds of death (OR: 1.47; 95% CI: 1.29–1.68).ConclusionsCOVID-19 case numbers began declining 6 days after the national lockdown. The first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in Spain had a severe impact on elderly people. Patients with cardiovascular or renal conditions were at higher risk for severe outcomes. A high proportion of cases were HCWs. Enhanced surveillance and control measures in these subgroups are crucial during future COVID-19 waves.     

The Association Between History of Depression and Access to Care Among Medicare Beneficiaries During the COVID-19 Pandemic

BackgroundDepression is associated with a higher risk for experiencing barriers to care, unmet social needs, and poorer economic and mental health outcomes.ObjectiveTo determine the impact of COVID-19 on ability to access care, social and economic needs, and mental health among Medicare beneficiaries with and without depression.Design and ParticipantsCross-sectional study using data from the 2020 Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey COVID-19 Summer Supplement Public Use File.Main MeasuresAccess to medical care, inability to access food, medications, household supplies, pay rent or mortgage, feelings of economic security, and mental health effects since COVID-19, risk-adjusted for sociodemographic and clinical characteristics.Key ResultsParticipants were 11,080 Medicare beneficiaries (nationally representative of 55,960,783 beneficiaries), 27.0% with and 73.0% without a self-reported history of depression. As compared to those without a history of depression, Medicare beneficiaries with a self-reported history of depression were more likely to report inability to get care because of COVID-19 (aOR = 1.28, 95% CI, 1.09, 1.51; P = 0.003), to get household supplies such as toilet paper (aOR = 1.32, 95% CI, 1.10, 1.58; P = 0.003), and to pay rent or mortgage (aOR = 1.64, 95% CI, 1.07, 2.52; P = 0.02). Medicare beneficiaries with a self-reported history of depression were more likely to report feeling less financially secure (aOR = 1.43, 95% CI, 1.22, 1.68; P < 0.001), more stressed or anxious (aOR = 1.68, 95% CI, 1.49, 1.90; P < 0.001), more lonely or sad (aOR = 1.97, 95% CI, 1.68, 2.31; P < 0.001), and less socially connected (aOR = 1.27, 95% CI, 1.10, 1.47; P = 0.001).ConclusionA self-reported history of depression was associated with greater inability to access care, more unmet social needs, and poorer economic and mental health outcomes, suggesting greater risk for adverse health outcomes during COVID-19.Supplementary InformationThe online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11606-021-06990-4.Key Words: depression, health services research, stress, primary care, prevention     

Cigarette Smoking and Risk Perceptions During the COVID-19 Pandemic Reported by Recently Hospitalized Participants in a Smoking Cessation Trial

BackgroundCigarette smoking is a risk factor for severe COVID-19 disease. Understanding smokers’ responses to the pandemic will help assess its public health impact and inform future public health and provider messages to smokers.ObjectiveTo assess risk perceptions and change in tobacco use among current and former smokers during the COVID-19 pandemic.DesignCross-sectional survey conducted in May–July 2020 (55% response rate)Participants694 current and former daily smokers (mean age 53, 40% male, 78% white) who had been hospitalized pre-COVID-19 and enrolled into a smoking cessation clinical trial at hospitals in Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Tennessee.Main MeasuresPerceived risk of COVID-19 due to tobacco use; changes in tobacco consumption and interest in quitting tobacco use; self-reported quitting and relapse since January 2020.Key Results68% (95% CI, 65–72%) of respondents believed that smoking increases the risk of contracting COVID-19 or having a more severe case. In adjusted analyses, perceived risk was higher in Massachusetts where COVID-19 had already surged than in Pennsylvania and Tennessee which were pre-surge during survey administration (AOR 1.56, 95% CI, 1.07–2.28). Higher perceived COVID-19 risk was associated with increased interest in quitting smoking (AOR 1.72, 95% CI 1.01–2.92). During the pandemic, 32% (95% CI, 27–37%) of smokers increased, 37% (95% CI, 33–42%) decreased, and 31% (95% CI, 26–35%) did not change their cigarette consumption. Increased smoking was associated with higher perceived stress (AOR 1.49, 95% CI 1.16–1.91). Overall, 11% (95% CI, 8–14%) of respondents who smoked in January 2020 (pre-COVID-19) had quit smoking at survey (mean, 6 months later) while 28% (95% CI, 22–34%) of former smokers relapsed. Higher perceived COVID-19 risk was associated with higher odds of quitting and lower odds of relapse.ConclusionsMost smokers believed that smoking increased COVID-19 risk. Smokers’ responses to the pandemic varied, with increased smoking related to stress and increased quitting associated with perceived COVID-19 vulnerability.Supplementary InformationThe online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11606-021-06913-3.KEY WORDS: cigarette smoking, electronic cigarettes, COVID-19, risk perceptions     

Hospitalizations During the COVID-19 Pandemic Among Recently Homeless Individuals: a Retrospective Population-Based Matched Cohort Study

BackgroundHospitalizations fell precipitously among the general population during the COVID-19 pandemic. It remains unclear whether individuals experiencing homelessness experienced similar reductions.ObjectiveTo examine how overall and cause-specific hospitalizations changed among individuals with a recent history of homelessness (IRHH) and their housed counterparts during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, using corresponding weeks in 2019 as a historical control.DesignPopulation-based cohort study conducted in Ontario, Canada, between September 30, 2018, and September 26, 2020.ParticipantsIn total, 38,617 IRHH, 15,022,368 housed individuals, and 186,858 low-income housed individuals matched on age, sex, rurality, and comorbidity burden.Main MeasuresPrimary outcomes included medical-surgical, non-elective (overall and cause-specific), elective surgical, and psychiatric hospital admissions.Key ResultsAverage rates of medical-surgical (rate ratio: 3.8, 95% CI: 3.7–3.8), non-elective (10.3, 95% CI: 10.1–10.4), and psychiatric admissions (128.1, 95% CI: 126.1–130.1) between January and September 2020 were substantially higher among IRHH compared to housed individuals. During the peak period (March 17 to June 16, 2020), rates of medical-surgical (0.47, 95% CI: 0.47–0.47), non-elective (0.80, 95% CI: 0.79–0.80), and psychiatric admissions (0.86, 95% CI: 0.84–0.88) were significantly lower among housed individuals relative to equivalent weeks in 2019. No significant changes were observed among IRHH. During the re-opening period (June 17–September 26, 2020), rates of non-elective hospitalizations for liver disease (1.41, 95% CI: 1.23–1.69), kidney disease (1.29, 95% CI: 1.14–1.47), and trauma (1.19, 95% CI: 1.07–1.32) increased substantially among IRHH but not housed individuals. Distinct hospitalization patterns were observed among IRHH even in comparison with more medically and socially vulnerable matched housed individuals.ConclusionsPersistence in overall hospital admissions and increases in non-elective hospitalizations for liver disease, kidney disease, and trauma indicate that the COVID-19 pandemic presented unique challenges for recently homeless individuals. Health systems must better address the needs of this population during public health crises.Supplementary InformationThe online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11606-022-07506-4.KEY WORDS: homelessness, COVID-19, hospitalizations, matched cohort, administrative health data     

Type 2 Diabetes Management,Control and Outcomes During the COVID-19 Pandemic in Older US Veterans: an Observational Study

BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic required a change in outpatient care delivery models, including shifting from in-person to virtual visits, which may have impacted care of vulnerable patients.ObjectiveTo describe the changes in management, control, and outcomes in older people with type 2 diabetes (T2D) associated with the shift from in-person to virtual visits.Design and ParticipantsIn veterans aged ≥ 65 years with T2D, we assessed the rates of visits (in person, virtual), A1c measurements, antidiabetic deintensification/intensification, ER visits and hospitalizations (for hypoglycemia, hyperglycemia, other causes), and A1c level, in March 2020 and April–November 2020 (pandemic period). We used negative binomial regression to assess change over time (reference: pre-pandemic period, July 2018 to February 2020), by baseline Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI; > 2 vs. <= 2) and A1c level.Key ResultsAmong 740,602 veterans (mean age 74.2 [SD 6.6] years), there were 55% (95% CI 52–58%) fewer in-person visits, 821% (95% CI 793–856%) more virtual visits, 6% (95% CI 1–11%) fewer A1c measurements, and 14% (95% CI 10–17%) more treatment intensification during the pandemic, relative to baseline. Patients with CCI > 2 had a 14% (95% CI 12–16%) smaller relative increase in virtual visits than those with CCI <= 2. We observed a seasonality of A1c level and treatment modification, but no association of either with the pandemic. After a decrease at the beginning of the pandemic, there was a rebound in other-cause (but not hypo- and hyperglycemia-related) ER visits and hospitalizations from June to November 2020.ConclusionDespite a shift to virtual visits and a decrease in A1c measurement during the pandemic, we observed no association with A1c level or short-term T2D-related outcomes, providing some reassurance about the adequacy of virtual visits. Further studies should assess the longer-term effects of shifting to virtual visits in different populations to help individualize care, improve efficiency, and maintain appropriate care while reducing overuse.Supplementary InformationThe online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11606-021-07301-7.KEY WORDS: type 2 diabetes, covid-19 pandemic, virtual care, elderly, veterans     

Racial Discrimination,Mental Health and Behavioral Health During the COVID-19 Pandemic: a National Survey in the United States

BackgroundWhile hate crimes rose during the COVID-19 pandemic, few studies examined whether this pandemic-time racial discrimination has led to negative health consequences at the population level.ObjectiveWe examined whether experienced and perceived racial discrimination were associated with mental or behavioral health outcomes during the pandemic.DesignIn October 2020, we conducted a national survey with minorities oversampled that covered respondents’ sociodemographic background and health-related information.ParticipantsA total of 2709 participants responded to the survey (response rate: 4.2%).Main MeasuresThe exposure variables included (1) experienced and encountered racial discrimination, (2) experienced racial and ethnic cyberbullying, and (3) perceived racial bias. Mental health outcomes were measured by psychological distress and self-rated happiness. Measures for behavioral health included sleep quality, change in cigarette smoking, and change in alcohol consumption. Weighted logistic regressions were performed to estimate the associations between the exposure variables and the outcomes, controlling for age, gender, race and ethnicity, educational attainment, household income, eligibility to vote, political party, COVID-19 infection, and geographic region. Separate regressions were performed in the six racial and ethnic subgroups: non-Hispanic White, non-Hispanic Black, Hispanic, East Asian, South Asian, and Southeast Asian respondents.Key ResultsExperienced racial discrimination was associated with higher likelihood of psychological distress (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 2.18, 95% confidence interval [95% CI]: 1.34–3.55). Experienced racial discrimination (AOR = 2.31, 95% CI: 1.34–3.99) and perceived racial bias (AOR = 1.05, 95% CI: 1.00–1.09) were both associated with increased cigarette smoking. The associations between racial discrimination and mental distress and substance use were most salient among Black, East Asian, South Asian, and Hispanic respondents.ConclusionsRacial discrimination may be associated with higher likelihood of distress, and cigarette smoking among racial and ethnic minorities. Addressing racial discrimination is important for mitigating negative mental and behavioral health ramifications of the pandemic.Supplementary InformationThe online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11606-022-07540-2.KEY WORDS: racial bias, racial discrimination, mental health, cyberbully, substance use, COVID-19, pandemic     

Insomnia,Poor Sleep Quality and Sleep Duration,and Risk for COVID-19 Infection and Hospitalization

BackgroundMedical comorbidities increase the risk of severe acute COVID-19 illness. Although sleep problems are common after COVID-19 infection, it is unclear whether insomnia, poor sleep quality, and extremely long or short sleep increase risk of developing COVID-19 infection or hospitalization.MethodsThe study used a cross-sectional survey of a diverse sample of 19,926 US adults.ResultsCOVID-19 infection and hospitalization prevalence rates were 40.1% and 2.9%, respectively. Insomnia and poor sleep quality were reported in 19.8% and 40.1%, respectively. In logistic regression models adjusted for comorbid medical conditions and sleep duration but excluding participants who reported COVID-19-associated sleep problems, poor sleep quality, but not insomnia, was associated with COVID-19 infection (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.16; 95% CI, 1.07-1.26) and COVID-19 hospitalization (aOR 1.50; 95% CI, 1.18-1.91). In comparison with habitual sleep duration of 7-8 hours, sleep durations <7 hours (aOR 1.14; 95% CI, 1.06-1.23) and sleep duration of 12 hours (aOR 1.61; 95% CI, 1.12-2.31) were associated with increased odds of COVID-19 infection. Overall, the relationship between COVID-19 infection and hours of sleep followed a quadratic (U-shaped) pattern. No association between sleep duration and COVID-19 hospitalization was observed.ConclusionIn a general population sample, poor sleep quality and extremes of sleep duration are associated with greater odds of having had a COVID-19 infection; poor sleep quality was associated with an increased requirement of hospitalization for severe COVID-19 illness. These observations suggest that inclusion of healthy sleep practices in public health messaging may reduce the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.     

Changes in healthcare workers’ knowledge,attitudes, practices,and stress during the COVID-19 pandemic

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has caused an unprecedented health crisis around the world, not least because of its heterogeneous clinical presentation and course. The new information on the pandemic emerging daily has made it challenging for healthcare workers (HCWs) to stay current with the latest knowledge, which could influence their attitudes and practices during patient care.This study is a follow-up evaluation of changes in HCWs’ knowledge, attitudes, and practices as well as anxiety levels regarding COVID-19 since the beginning of the pandemic. Data were collected through an anonymous, predesigned, self-administered questionnaire that was sent online to HCWs in Saudi Arabia.The questionnaire was sent to 1500 HCWs, with a 63.8% response rate (N = 957). The majority of respondents were female (83%), and the most common age group was 31 to 40 years (52.2%). Nurses constituted 86.3% of the respondents. HCWs reported higher anxiety during the COVID-19 pandemic which increased from 4.91 ± 2.84 to 8.6 ± 2.27 on an 11-point Likert scale compared to other viral outbreaks. HCWs believed that their own preparedness as well as that of their hospital''s intensive care unit or emergency room was higher during the COVID-19 pandemic than during the Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus pandemic (2012–2015). About 58% of HCWs attended one or more simulations concerning the management of COVID-19 patients in their intensive care unit/emergency room, and nearly all had undergone N95 mask fit testing. The mean score of HCWs’ knowledge of COVID-19 was 9.89/12. For most respondents (94.6%), the perception of being at increased risk of infection was the main cause of anxiety related to COVID-19; the mean score of anxiety over COVID-19 increased from 4.91 ± 2.84 before to 8.6 ± 2.27 during the pandemic in Saudi Arabia.HCWs’ anxiety levels regarding COVID-19 have increased since a pandemic was declared. It is vital that healthcare facilities provide more emotional and psychological support for all HCWs.     

Clinical symptoms,comorbidities and complications in severe and non-severe patients with COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis without cases duplication

Background:The pandemic of COVID-19 poses a challenge to global healthcare. The mortality rates of severe cases range from 8.1% to 38%, and it is particularly important to identify risk factors that aggravate the disease.Methods:We performed a systematic review of the literature with meta-analysis, using 7 databases to identify studies reporting on clinical characteristics, comorbidities and complications in severe and non-severe patients with COVID-19. All the observational studies were included. We performed a random or fixed effects model meta-analysis to calculate the pooled proportion and 95% confidence interval (CI). Measure of heterogeneity was estimated by Cochran''s Q statistic, I² index and P value.Results:A total of 4881 cases from 25 studies related to COVID-19 were included. The most prevalent comorbidity was hypertension (severe: 33.4%, 95% CI: 25.4%–41.4%; non-severe 21.6%, 95% CI: 9.9%–33.3%), followed by diabetes (severe: 14.4%, 95% CI: 11.5%–17.3%; non-severe: 8.5%, 95% CI: 6.1%–11.0%). The prevalence of acute respiratory distress syndrome, acute kidney injury and shock were all higher in severe cases, with 41.1% (95% CI: 14.1%–68.2%), 16.4% (95% CI: 3.4%–29.5%) and 19.9% (95% CI: 5.5%–34.4%), rather than 3.0% (95% CI: 0.6%–5.5%), 2.2% (95% CI: 0.1%–4.2%) and 4.1% (95% CI: −4.8%–13.1%) in non-severe patients, respectively. The death rate was higher in severe cases (30.3%, 95% CI: 13.8%–46.8%) than non-severe cases (1.5%, 95% CI: 0.1%–2.8%).Conclusion:Hypertension, diabetes and cardiovascular diseases may be risk factors for severe COVID-19.     

Post-traumatic Stress Disorder Among COVID-19 Survivors at 3-Month Follow-up After Hospital Discharge

BackgroundPost-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is a severe but treatable mental disorder that develops after a life-threatening traumatic event. Coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) hospitalisation is a potentially traumatic experience, especially in severe cases. Furthermore, the unprecedented context of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 pandemic, with daily media bombardment about COVID-19 mortality, may have amplified life-threatening perception also in patients with moderate infection. The aim of this study was to assess the prevalence and risk factors of PTSD at 3-month follow-up in patients hospitalised for COVID-19 infection.DesignIn this cohort follow-up study conducted in a large Italian academic COVID-19 hospital, 115 recruited survivors were contacted by telephone 3 months after discharge to home care. The Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Checklist for DSM-5 was administered. Multivariate logistic regression models were used to analyse risk factors for the development of PTSD.Key ResultsA total of 10.4% of the sample received a PCL-5-based diagnosis of PTSD. Other 8.6% of the sample received a diagnosis of subthreshold PTSD, which leads to significant levels of distress and impairment. Multivariate regression analysis indicated that previous psychiatric diagnosis (odds ratio (OR) = 6.3, 95% confidence interval (CI): 3.7–78.6, p < 0.001) and obesity (OR = 3.51, 95% CI: 1.4–857.9, p = 0.03) were risk factors for developing PTSD. Chronic pulmonary diseases approached significance as a risk factor (OR = 6.03, 95% CI: 1.0–37.1, p = 0.053). Male sex was a protective factor (OR=0.04, 95% CI: 0.0–0.041, p = 0.007).ConclusionsPTSD and subthreshold PTSD rates in patients hospitalised for COVID-19 are worrying. Female sex and pre-existing mental disorders are established risk factors for PTSD, while the prospective association with obesity needs further investigation. Clinicians treating COVID-19 should consider screening for PTSD at follow-up assessments in patients discharged from the hospital.KEY WORDS: post-traumatic stress disorder, COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2, mental health, hospitalisation     

Assessment of population infection with SARS-CoV-2 in Ontario,Canada, March to June 2020

BackgroundSerosurveys for SARS-CoV-2 aim to estimate the proportion of the population that has been infected.AimThis observational study assesses the seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in Ontario, Canada during the first pandemic wave.MethodsUsing an orthogonal approach, we tested 8,902 residual specimens from the Public Health Ontario laboratory over three time periods during March–June 2020 and stratified results by age group, sex and region. We adjusted for antibody test sensitivity/specificity and compared with reported PCR-confirmed COVID-19 cases.ResultsAdjusted seroprevalence was 0.5% (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.1–1.5) from 27 March–30 April, 1.5% (95% CI: 0.7–2.2) from 26–31 May, and 1.1% (95% CI: 0.8–1.3) from 5–30 June 2020. Adjusted estimates were highest in individuals aged ≥ 60 years in March–April (1.3%; 95% CI: 0.2–4.6), in those aged 20–59 years in May (2.1%; 95% CI: 0.8–3.4) and in those aged ≥ 60 years in June (1.6%; 95% CI: 1.1–2.1). Regional seroprevalence varied, and was highest for Toronto in March–April (0.9%; 95% CI: 0.1–3.1), for Toronto in May (3.2%; 95% CI: 1.0–5.3) and for Toronto (1.5%; 95% CI: 0.9–2.1) and Central East in June (1.5%; 95% CI: 1.0–2.0). We estimate that COVID-19 cases detected by PCR in Ontario underestimated SARS-CoV-2 infections by a factor of 4.9.ConclusionsOur results indicate low population seroprevalence in Ontario, suggesting that public health measures were effective at limiting the spread of SARS-CoV-2 during the first pandemic wave.     

A US Population Health Survey on the Impact of COVID-19 Using the EQ-5D-5L

BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in negative impacts on the economy, population health, and health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL).ObjectiveTo assess the impact of COVID-19 on US population HRQoL using the EQ-5D-5L.DesignWe surveyed respondents on physical and mental health, demographics, socioeconomics, brief medical history, current COVID-19 status, sleep, dietary, financial, and spending changes. Results were compared to online and face-to-face US population norms. Predictors of EQ-5D-5L utility were analyzed using both standard and post-lasso OLS regressions. Robustness of regression coefficients against unmeasured confounding was analyzed using the E-Value sensitivity analysis.SubjectsAmazon MTurk workers (n=2776) in the USA.Main MeasuresEQ-5D-5L utility and VAS scores by age group.Key ResultsWe received n=2746 responses. Subjects 18–24 years reported lower mean (SD) health utility (0.752 (0.281)) compared with both online (0.844 (0.184), p=0.001) and face-to-face norms (0.919 (0.127), p<0.001). Among ages 25–34, utility was worse compared to face-to-face norms only (0.825 (0.235) vs. 0.911 (0.111), p<0.001). For ages 35–64, utility was better during pandemic compared to online norms (0.845 (0.195) vs. 0.794 (0.247), p<0.001). At age 65+, utility values (0.827 (0.213)) were similar across all samples. VAS scores were worse for all age groups (p<0.005) except ages 45–54. Increasing age and income were correlated with increased utility, while being Asian, American Indian or Alaska Native, Hispanic, married, living alone, having history of chronic illness or self-reported depression, experiencing COVID-19-like symptoms, having a family member diagnosed with COVID-19, fear of COVID-19, being underweight, and living in California were associated with worse utility scores. Results were robust to unmeasured confounding.ConclusionsHRQoL decreased during the pandemic compared to US population norms, especially for ages 18–24. The mental health impact of COVID-19 is significant and falls primarily on younger adults whose health outcomes may have been overlooked based on policy initiatives to date.Supplementary InformationThe online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11606-021-06674-z.     

SARS-CoV-2 Infection among Medical Institution Faculty and Healthcare Workers in Tokyo,Japan

Objective To consider effective measures against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection in medical institutions, this study estimated the SARS-CoV-2 infection rate among healthcare workers (HCWs) in Tokyo, Japan, and determined the specific findings for mild coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) cases. Methods This study analyzed the results of serologic tests to detect immunoglobulin G antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 and evaluated the demographic and clinical characteristics of the faculty and HCWs at a Tokyo medical institution in August 2020. The demographic and clinical characteristics of participants with antibody-positive results were compared to those of participants with antibody-negative results. Materials This study recruited 2,341 faculty and HCWs at a Tokyo medical institution, 21 of whom had a COVID-19 history. Results Of the 2,320 participants without a COVID-19 history, 20 (0.862%) had positive serologic test results. A fever and dysgeusia or dysosmia occurred with greater frequency among the participants with positive test results than in those with negative results [odds ratio (OR), 5.475; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.960-15.293 and OR, 24.158; 95% CI, 2.693-216.720, respectively]. No significant difference was observed in the positivity rate between HCWs providing medical care for COVID-19 patients using adequate protection and other HCWs (OR, 2.514; 95% CI, 0.959-6.588). Conclusion To reduce the risk of COVID-19 spread in medical institutions, faculty and HCWs should follow standard and necessary transmission-based precautions, and those with a fever and dysgeusia or dysosmia should excuse themselves from work as soon as possible.     

The Experience of Homebound Older Adults During the COVID-19 Pandemic

BackgroundHomebound older adults have heightened risks for isolation and negative health consequences, but it is unclear how COVID-19 has impacted them. We examine social contact and mood symptoms among previously homebound older adults during the COVID-19 pandemic.Design/SettingCross-sectional analysis using data from the National Health and Aging Trends Study (NHATS), a nationally-representative longitudinal study of aging in the USA.ParticipantsA total of 3,112 community-dwelling older adults in 2019 who completed the COVID-19 survey in the summer/fall of 2020.MeasurementsHomebound status was defined via self-report as rarely/never leaving home or leaving the house with difficulty or help in the prior month. We measured limited social contact during COVID-19 (in-person, telephone, video or email contacts <once/week), as well as loneliness, anxiety, and depression.ResultsAmong homebound older adults, 13.2% experienced limited social contact during COVID-19 vs. 6.5% of the non-homebound. Differences in social contact were greatest for contacts via email/text/social media: 54.9% of the homebound used this <once/week vs. 28.4% of the non-homebound. In adjusted analyses of those without limited social contact prior to the pandemic, the homebound had higher but not significantly different odds (OR 1.83; 95% CI 0.95–3.52) of limited social contact during COVID-19, with increased risk among the older individuals, those with dementia, and those in assisted living facilities. Of the homebound, 13.2% felt lonely every/most days during the pandemic vs. 7.7% of non-homebound older adults. Homebound and non-homebound older adults reported similar rates of increased loneliness, anxiety, or depression during COVID-19. Fewer homebound older adults learned a new technology during the pandemic (16.3%) vs. non-homebound older adults (30.4%).DiscussionIsolation among homebound older adults increased during COVID-19, partially due to differences in technology use. We must ensure that homebound persons have the connection and care they need including new technologies for communication during and beyond COVID-19.Supplementary InformationThe online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11606-021-07361-9.KEY WORDS: Homebound, COVID-19, NHATS, Isolation, Social contact     

From stress to stigma – Mental health considerations of health care workers involved in COVID19 management

BackgroundHealthcare workers (HCWs) involved in administration and patient management during COVID-19 pandemic are at high risk of developing psychological problems related to fear and stress of contacting COVID infection. This is augmented by the stigma faced at home and society, owing to the nature of their job.AimTo assess the mental health issues and stigma amongst health care workers involved in COVID care.MethodologyWe conducted a hospital based cross sectional study where 150 health care workers involved in the care of COVID-19 patients, directly and indirectly, were selected using systematic random sampling. They were assessed using Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scale (DASS-21) Hindi Version, The Impact of Event Scale - Revised scale and a Modified Stigma scale.ResultsSignificant psychological stress, anxiety, depression and high risk for developing post-traumatic stress disorder was found in more than half of the healthcare workers, albeit more in those having direct contact with COVID patients (p < 0.05). Stigma was significantly reported in most HCWs, especially with concerns regarding public attitude and disclosure of their work profile.ConclusionHealthcare Workers are at a higher risk for developing psychological disorders and post-traumatic stress disorder because of the immensely stressful work-related conditions and stigma related to working with COVID patients. This may lead to long lasting psychosocial consequences which may affect more severely than the infection itself. Early identification of psychological issues of HCWs and timely intervention is the key.     

Disparities in Telemedicine Use for Subspecialty Diabetes Care During COVID-19 Shelter-In-Place Orders

Background:During the COVID-19 pandemic, telemedicine use rapidly and dramatically increased for management of diabetes mellitus. It is unknown whether access to telemedicine care has been equitable during this time. This study aimed to identify patient-level factors associated with adoption of telemedicine for subspecialty diabetes care during the pandemic.Methods:We conducted an explanatory sequential mixed-methods study using data from a single academic medical center. We used multivariate logistic regression to explore associations between telemedicine use and demographic factors for patients receiving subspecialty diabetes care between March 19 and June 30, 2020. We then surveyed a sample of patients who received in-person care to understand why these patients did not use telemedicine.Results:Among 1292 patients who received subspecialty diabetes care during the study period, those over age 65 were less likely to use telemedicine (OR: 0.34, 95% CI: 0.22-0.52, P < .001), as were patients with a primary language other than English (OR: 0.53, 95% CI: 0.31-0.91, P = .02), and patients with public insurance (OR: 0.64, 95% CI: 0.49-0.84, P = .001). Perceived quality of care and technological barriers were the most common reasons cited for choosing in-person care during the pandemic.Conclusions:Our findings suggest that, amidst the COVID-19 pandemic, there have been disparities in telemedicine use by age, language, and insurance for patients with diabetes mellitus. We anticipate telemedicine will continue to be an important care modality for chronic conditions in the years ahead. Significant work must therefore be done to ensure that telemedicine services do not introduce or widen population health disparities.     

Susceptibility to COVID-19 Diagnosis in People with Down Syndrome Compared to the General Population: Matched-Cohort Study Using Primary Care Electronic Records in the UK

BackgroundDuring the COVID-19 pandemic, people with Down syndrome (DS) have experienced a more severe disease course and higher mortality rates than the general population. It is not yet known whether people with DS are more susceptible to being diagnosed with COVID-19.ObjectiveTo explore whether DS is associated with increased susceptibility to COVID-19.DesignMatched-cohort study design using anonymised primary care electronic health records from the May 2021 release of Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) Aurum.SettingElectronic health records from approximately 1400 general practices (GPs) in England.Participants8854 people with DS and 34,724 controls matched for age, gender and GP who were registered on or after the 29th January 2020.MeasurementsThe primary outcome was COVID-19 diagnosis between January 2020 and May 2021. Conditional logistic regression models were fitted to estimate associations between DS and COVID-19 diagnosis, adjusting for comorbidities.ResultsCompared to controls, people with DS were more likely to be diagnosed with COVID-19 (7.4% vs 5.6%, p ≤ 0.001, odds ratio (OR) = 1.35; 95% CI = 1.23–1.48). There was a significant interaction between people with DS and a chronic respiratory disease diagnosis excluding asthma and increased odds of a COVID-19 diagnosis (OR = 1.71; 95% CI = 1.20–2.43), whilst adjusting for a number of comorbidities.ConclusionIndividuals with DS are at increased risk for contracting COVID-19. Those with underlying lung conditions are particularly vulnerable during viral pandemics and should be prioritised for vaccinations.     

Protective efficient comparisons among all kinds of respirators and masks for health-care workers against respiratory viruses: A PRISMA-compliant network meta-analysis

Background:There is no definite conclusion about comparison of better effectiveness between N95 respirators and medical masks in preventing health-care workers (HCWs) from respiratory infectious diseases, so that conflicting results and recommendations regarding the protective effects may cause difficulties for selection and compliance of respiratory personal protective equipment use for HCWs, especially facing with pandemics of corona virus disease 2019.Methods:We systematically searched MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang, medRxiv, and Google Scholar from initiation to November 10, 2020 for randomized controlled trials, case-control studies, cohort studies, and cross-sectional studies that reported protective effects of masks or respirators for HCWs against respiratory infectious diseases. We gathered data and pooled differences in protective effects according to different types of masks, pathogens, occupations, concurrent measures, and clinical settings. The study protocol is registered with PROSPERO (registration number: 42020173279).Results:We identified 4165 articles, reviewed the full text of 66 articles selected by abstracts. Six randomized clinical trials and 26 observational studies were included finally. By 2 separate conventional meta-analyses of randomized clinical trials of common respiratory viruses and observational studies of pandemic H1N1, pooled effects show no significant difference between N95 respirators and medical masks against common respiratory viruses for laboratory-confirmed respiratory virus infection (risk ratio 0.99, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.86–1.13, I² = 0.0%), clinical respiratory illness (risk ratio 0.89, 95% CI 0.45–1.09, I² = 83.7%, P = .002), influenza-like illness (risk ratio 0.75, 95% CI 0.54–1.05, I² = 0.0%), and pandemic H1N1 for laboratory-confirmed respiratory virus infection (odds ratio 0.92, 95% CI 0.49–1.70, I² = 0.0%, P = .967). But by network meta-analysis, N95 respirators has a significantly stronger protection for HCWs from betacoronaviruses of severe acute respiratory syndrome, middle east respiratory syndrome, and corona virus disease 2019 (odds ratio 0.43, 95% CI 0.20–0.94).Conclusions:Our results provide moderate and very-low quality evidence of no significant difference between N95 respirators and medical masks for common respiratory viruses and pandemic H1N1, respectively. And we found low quality evidence that N95 respirators had a stronger protective effectiveness for HCWs against betacoronaviruses causative diseases compared to medical masks. The evidence of comparison between N95 respirators and medical masks for corona virus disease 2019 is open to question and needs further study.     

Emotions,Perceptions and Health Behaviors of Adult Congenital Heart Disease Patients during COVID-19 in New York City

Background: Adults with congenital heart disease (ACHD) have increased prevalence of mood and anxiety disorders. There are limited data regarding the influence of the COVID-19 pandemic on the mental health and health behaviors of these patients. Objective: The purpose is to evaluate the perceptions, emotions, and health behaviors of ACHD patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: In this cross-sectional study of ACHD patients, we administered surveys evaluating self-reported emotions, perceptions and health behaviors. Logistic regressions were performed to determine the adjusted odds of displaying each perception, emotion and health behavior based on predictor variables. Results: Ninety-seven patients (mean age 38.3 years, 46.4% female, 85.6% moderate or complex lesion) completed the survey. The majority of patients reported feeling moderately or very sad (63.1%), and 48.4% of patients identified themselves as feeling moderately or very anxious. The majority of patients perceived their risk of COVID-19 as moderate or high. Females were more likely to report feeling sad and anxious (95% CI 1.06–10.96, p-value 0.039, and 95% CI 1.44–15.30, p-value = 0.012, respectively), and were associated with higher odds of having a perceived increased risk of COVID-19 (95% CI 1.33–10.59, p-value 0.012). There was no association between ACHD anatomic or physiologic classification and perceptions, emotions and health behaviors. Conclusions: Females were more likely to report feeling sad, anxious and an increased risk of COVID-19 in comparison to males. These findings indicate the need for mental health support and promotion of health behaviors during the pandemic amongst all ACHD patients, regardless of underlying condition.