The role of resilience and coping among Italian healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic

Objective:To evaluate the psychological state of healthcare workers (HCWs) in the field of rehabilitation during the COVID-19 pandemic.Methods:Cross-sectional observational study. Sample of 334 HCWs including: nurses, medical doctors, therapists, scientists, and clerical workers working at the IRCCS San Raffaele Roma rehabilitation hospital during the second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. Anonymous web-based questionnaire included 14-item Resilience Scale, Brief-COPE, Hospital Anxiety Depression Scale, Fear of COVID-19 Scale. Occupational and sociodemographic characteristics.Results:High levels of resilience, low levels of anxiety, depression, and fear were observed in the study population; the most frequently used coping strategies in the Brief-COPE were acceptance, planning, and active coping. Specifically, 87% of the participants reported a moderate to high level of resilience, with the highest level observed in nurses while physicians show the lowest level. HCWs showed symptoms of anxiety (29%), depressive symptoms (10%), and fear caused by the COVID-19 pandemic (44%). Statistically significant differences were observed between different occupations for fear (p <0.05) and resilience (p <0.01). Levels of anxiety and fear appeared to be higher in female and younger workers. The latter group - who also reported higher levels of depression - showed lower levels of resilience.Conclusions:In our study hospital and non-hospital workers show different emotional, cognitive, and behavioural resources when facing stressful situations, like in the case of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemics. Our results support the role of resilience and the proper use of problem-focused and emotion-focused coping strategies as protective factors from psychological distress.     

Burnout syndrome and its determinants among healthcare workers during the first wave of the Covid-19 outbreak in Italy: a cross-sectional study to identify sex-related differences

Introduction: Several studies described burnout levels of healthcare workers (HCWs) during the COVID-19 pandemic; however, sex-related differences remain poorly investigated. Objective: To describe sex-related differences in burnout and its determinants among HCWs during the first pandemic wave of the COVID-19 in Italy. Methods: A cross-sectional study was performed between April and May 2020. The framework given by the Job Demands Resources (JD-R) model was used to assess burnout determinants (risk and protective factors). Results: Male HCWs (n=133) had higher levels of depersonalization than female HCWs (P=0,017) and female HCWs (n=399) reported greater emotional exhaustion rates (P=0,005). Female nurses were the most exposed to burnout (OR=2,47; 95%CI=1,33-4,60; P=0,004), emotional exhaustion (OR=1,89; 95% CI=1,03-3,48; P=0,041), and depersonalization (OR=1,91; 95% CI=1,03-3,53; P=0,039). Determinants of burnout differed between sexes, and some paradoxical associations were detected: the score of job demands was a protective factor in females for burnout, emotional exhaustion, and depersonalization, resilience was a risk factor for males. Conclusions: This study reveals that the stressors in male and female HCWs tended to be associated with burnout differently. Both sexes showed alarming burnout levels, even if the weights of emotional exhaustion and depersonalization acted in different ways between the sexes. The revealed paradoxical effects in this study could reflect the study’s cross-sectional nature, highlighting that more resilient and empathic individuals were more consciously overwhelmed by the challenges related to the COVID-19 pandemic, thus reporting higher scores of emotional exhaustion and burnout. Future in-depth and longitudinal analyses are recommended to further explore sex-related differences in burnout among HCWs.     

Persistence of Mental Health Deterioration Among People Living Alone During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Periodically-repeated Longitudinal Study

BackgroundThis longitudinal study aimed to investigate how psychological distress levels changed from early to middle phases of the new coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic depending on the living arrangements of individuals.MethodsAn internet-based, longitudinal survey of 2,400 Japanese people was conducted every 5–6 weeks between February 2020 and January 2021. The presence of severe psychological distress (SPD) was measured using the Kessler’s psychological distress scale. Living arrangements were classified into two groups (ie, living alone or living with others). Mixed-effects logistic regression analysis was performed to assess whether changes in SPD status were different depending on living arrangements.ResultsOf 2,400 respondents, 446 (18.5%) lived alone. Although the proportion of SPD in both individuals living alone and those living with others increased to the same extent in the early phase of the pandemic, the distress levels decreased after the early phase of the pandemic in the group living with others, compared with the group living alone, for which SPD remained high. The odds ratio (OR) of developing SPD in interaction term with survey phases tended to be higher among those who lived alone than those who lived with others in Phase 6 (OR 1.89; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.99–3.64) and Phase 7 (OR 1.88; 95% CI, 0.97–3.63).ConclusionDuring the COVID-19 pandemic, those living alone are persistently at a higher risk of SPD compared to those living with others. Effective countermeasures targeting those living alone, such as enhancing online communication or providing psychological therapies, are essential.Key words: living arrangement, novel coronavirus, K6, psychological distress     

High Work-Related Stress and Anxiety as a Response to COVID-19 Among Health Care Workers in South Korea: Cross-sectional Online Survey Study

BackgroundThe COVID-19 outbreak had a severe impact on health care workers'' psychological health. It is important to establish a process for psychological assessment and intervention for health care workers during epidemics.ObjectiveWe investigated risk factors associated with psychological impacts for each health care worker group, to help optimize psychological interventions for health care workers in countries affected by the COVID-19 pandemic.MethodsRespondents (n=1787) from 2 hospitals in Korea completed a web-based survey during the period from April 14 to 30, 2020. The web-based survey collected demographic information, psychiatric history, and responses to the 9-item Stress and Anxiety to Viral Epidemics (SAVE-9), 9-item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9), and 7-item Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 (GAD-7) scales. We performed logistic regression to assess contributing factors as predictor variables, using health care workers’ depression as outcome variables.ResultsAmong 1783 health care workers, nursing professionals had significantly higher levels of depression (PHQ-9 score: meannurse 5.5, SD 4.6; meanother 3.8, SD 4.2; P<.001), general anxiety (GAD-7 score: meannurse 4.0, SD 4.1; meanother 2.7, SD 3.6; P<.001), and virus-related anxiety symptoms (SAVE-9 score: meannurse 21.6, SD 5.9; meanother 18.6, SD 6.3; P<.001). Among nursing professionals, single workers reported more severe depressive symptoms than married workers (PHQ-9 score ≥10; meannurse 20.3%; meanother 14.1%; P=.02), and junior (<40 years) workers reported more anxiety about the viral epidemic (SAVE-9 anxiety score; meannurse 15.6, SD 4.1; meanother 14.7, SD 4.4; P=.002). Logistic regression revealed that hospital (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 1.45, 95% CI 1.06-1.99), nursing professionals (adjusted OR 1.37, 95% CI 1.02-1.98), single workers (adjusted OR 1.51, 95% CI 1.05-2.16), higher stress and anxiety to the viral infection (high SAVE-9 score, adjusted OR 1.20, 95% CI 1.17-1.24), and past psychiatric history (adjusted OR 3.26, 95% CI 2.15-4.96) were positively associated with depression.ConclusionsPsychological support and interventions should be considered for health care workers, especially nursing professionals, those who are single, and those with high SAVE-9 scores.     

Prospective COVID-19 related changes in physical activity and sedentary time and associations with symptoms of depression and anxiety

ProblemThe COVID-19 pandemic is associated with psychological distress. Decreased moderate-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) and increased sedentary time may be exacerbating pandemic-related symptoms of anxiety and depression, but existing studies exploring these associations are almost entirely cross-sectional.MethodsReported data from 2018 and Summer 2020 were used to create change categories based on compliance with MVPA guidelines and relative sedentary time. Participants completed the Patient Health Questionnaire-4 (PHQ-4) in Summer 2020. Associations among changes in MVPA and sedentary time (separately and jointly) with psychological distress (total PHQ-4 score) were examined with ordinal logistic regression and associations with depressive or anxiety symptoms were examined with logistic regression.ResultsAmong 2,240 participants (65% women, mean age 57.5 years), 67% increased sedentary time and 21% became inactive between the two time points. After multivariate adjustment, participants who became (OR = 1.71, 95% CI: 1.05–2.78) or remained inactive (OR = 2.07, 1.34–3.22) were more likely to experience depressive symptoms compared to those who remained active. Participants who increased sedentary time were also more likely to experience depressive symptoms compared to those who maintained sedentary time (OR = 1.78, 1.13–2.81). Jointly, those who increased sedentary time while remaining (OR = 3.67, 1.83–7.38) or becoming inactive (OR = 3.02, 1.44–6.34) were much more likely to have depressive symptoms compared to the joint referent (remained active/maintained sedentary time). Associations with anxiety symptoms were not statistically significant.ConclusionsThese findings support the value of promoting MVPA and limiting sedentary time during stressful events associated with psychological distress, like the COVID-19 pandemic.     

Psychological symptoms associated with self-reported events of COVID-19 contact,symptoms, or diagnosis: a large community-based survey among adults in Quebec,Canada

ObjectivesPsychological consequences of COVID-19 contact, symptoms, or diagnosis are being increasingly reported. Few studies have examined the psychological effects tied to these events, using an unaffected comparison group. Most did not consider confounding factors like fear and stigma. This study aims to (1) identify individual characteristics associated with COVID-19 contact/symptoms or diagnosis and (2) examine the independent association between COVID-19 contact/symptoms or diagnosis and psychological symptoms.MethodsFrom September 2020 to February 2021, 20,327 adults participated in community-based surveys in Quebec. Using repeated cross-sectional online questionnaire, data were collected on probable generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) and major depression episode (MDE), using the GAD-7 and the PHQ-9 scales, respectively. Self-reported events of (1) contact with a case or symptoms of COVID-19, and (2) diagnosis of COVID-19 were examined, along with several sociodemographic and pandemic-related factors.ResultsCOVID-19 contact, symptoms, or diagnosis was more frequent in young adults, healthcare or social services workers, adults living with children, and those reporting a greater sense of threat, stigma, financial losses, or daily stress. COVID-19 contact or symptoms and diagnosis were associated with probable MDE relative to the unaffected group (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 1.25, 95% CI: 1.12–1.39 and aOR:1.82, 95% CI: 1.48–2.2, respectively). Suicidal thoughts and psychomotor retardation were the symptoms most closely associated with a COVID-19 diagnosis.ConclusionResults from this study stress the need for better understanding, recognition, and support for people suffering from psychological symptoms following a COVID-19 diagnosis.     

Impacts of Digital Healthy Diet Literacy and Healthy Eating Behavior on Fear of COVID-19, Changes in Mental Health,and Health-Related Quality of Life among Front-Line Health Care Workers

Background: We aimed to examine the impacts of digital healthy diet literacy (DDL) and healthy eating behaviors (HES) on fear of COVID-19, changes in mental health, and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) among front-line healthcare workers (HCWs). Methods: An online survey was conducted at 15 hospitals and health centers from 6–19 April 2020. Data of 2299 front-line HCWs were analyzed—including socio-demographics, symptoms like COVID-19, health literacy, eHealth literacy, DDL, HES, fear of COVID-19, changes in mental health, and HRQoL. Regression models were used to examine the associations. Results: HCWs with higher scores of DDL and HES had lower scores of FCoV-19S (regression coefficient, B, −0.04; 95% confidence interval, 95% CI, −0.07, −0.02; p = 0.001; and B, −0.10; 95% CI, −0.15, −0.06; p < 0.001); had a higher likelihood of stable or better mental health status (odds ratio, OR, 1.02; 95% CI, 1.00, 1.05; p = 0.029; and OR, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.00, 1.07; p = 0.043); and HRQoL (OR, 1.02; 95% CI, 1.01, 1.03; p = 0.006; and OR, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.02, 1.06; p = 0.001), respectively. Conclusions: DDL and HES were found as independent predictors of fear of COVID−19, changes in mental health status, and HRQoL in front-line HCWs. Improving DDL and HES should be considered as a strategic approach for hospitals and healthcare systems.     

Anxiety and depression predict musculoskeletal disorders in health care workers

Incidence of musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) is high among health care workers (HCWs). To determine whether MSDs are associated with preexisting anxiety and/or depression, a case-control study was carried out in female HCWs (56 cases/55 controls). Cases were HCWs with a first-time clinical diagnosis of MSD within the previous 2 years. Occupation, workplace, work shift, direct patient assistance, and anxiety/depression scores (Goldberg scale) were assessed. Increased risk of incident MSDs (multivariate logistic regression) was found in workers with preexisting anxiety/depression compared to those without (OR 5.01; 95% CI 2.20–12.05; p < .01). Other significant risk factors were direct patient assistance (OR 2.59; 95% CI 1.03–6.92; p = .04) and morning work shift (OR 2.47; 95% CI 0.99–6.48; p = .05). Preexisting anxiety/depression was associated with incident MSDs in HCWs, adjusting for occupational exposure risk factors.     

Psychological Distress in Hospitalized Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the prevalence of psychological distress in hospitalized patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and to examine possible associations between psychological distress and several sociodemographic variables. METHODS: The Hopkins Symptom Checklist was used to gather data from 92 hospitalized COPD patients. These data were compared with 3,319 respondents aged 45 or over drawn from the 1998 Norwegian Statistics Health Survey. The latter were divided into four groups: respondents with COPD, respondents with other respiratory diseases, respondents with mixed chronic diseases, and a healthy group. RESULTS: The prevalence of psychological distress was found to be 58.7% in the hospitalized COPD patients and 42.9% in the community-based COPD sample. After controlling for sociodemographic variables and current smoking, the results showed a higher risk of psychological distress among hospitalized COPD patients (OR = 23.69; 95% CI: 13.37-41.98) and the community-based COPD sample (OR = 18.16; 95% CI: 8.31-39.68), and with sub-samples with other respiratory diseases (OR = 5.87; 95% CI: 3.82-9.02), and mixed chronic diseases (OR = 3.51; 95% CI: 2.39-5.18). CONCLUSIONS: COPD is associated with a high prevalence of psychological distress in both hospital and community settings. Furthermore, it appears that age, gender, education, marital status, and current smoking status do not substantially mediate the association between the severity of psychological distress and COPD status. The results provide additional evidence of the importance of screening for psychological distress symptoms in both hospitalized and community-based patients with COPD.     

Change in COVID19 outbreak pattern following vaccination in long-term care facilities in Flanders,Belgium

IntroductionLong term care facilities for elderly (LTCFs) in Europe encountered a high disease burden at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. Therefore, these facilities were the first to receive COVID-19 vaccines in many European countries. A limited COVID-19 vaccine supply early 2021 resulted in a majority of residents and healthcare workers (HCWs) in LTCFs being vaccinated compared to a minority in the general population. This study exploits this imbalance to assess the efficiency of COVID-19 vaccination in containing outbreaks in LTCFs.MethodsExploratory statistics were performed using data from a COVID-19 surveillance system covering all 842 LTCFs in Flanders (the northern region of Belgium). The number and size of COVID-19 outbreaks in LTCFs were compared (1) before and after introducing vaccines and (2) with the status of the pandemic in the general population. Based on individual data from 15 LTCFs, the infection rate and symptoms of vaccinated and unvaccinated residents and HCWs were compared during a COVID-19 outbreak.Results95.8% of the residents and 90.9% of the HCWs in Flemish LTCFs were vaccinated before May 30, 2021. Before vaccine introduction, residents in LTCFs were 10 times more likely to test positive for COVID-19 than the general population of Flanders. This ratio reversed after vaccination. Furthermore, after vaccination fewer and shorter outbreaks were observed involving fewer residents. During these outbreaks, vaccinated and unvaccinated residents were equally likely to test positive, but positive vaccinated residents were less likely to develop severe symptoms. In contrast, unvaccinated HCWs were more likely to test positive.ConclusionIn the first half of 2021, two-dose vaccination was highly efficient in preventing and containing outbreaks in LTCFs, reducing COVID-19 hospitalizations and deaths. The high likelihood of unvaccinated HCWs to be involved in COVID-19 outbreaks in vaccinated LTCFs emphasizes the importance of vaccinating HCWs.     

Psychosocial determinants of pertussis and influenza vaccine uptake in pregnant women: A prospective study

ObjectiveTo identify the psychosocial factors influencing women’s uptake and willingness to receive pertussis and influenza vaccine during pregnancy.MethodsThe study population comprised 1364 healthy nulliparous pregnant women who participated in a prospective cohort study at two obstetric hospitals in South Australia between 2015 and 2017. Information on women's vaccination status, sociodemographic, lifestyle and psychological state were collected at 9–16 weeks’ gestation and medical case notes were checked post-delivery to verify the reported vaccination status. Poisson regression models were used to estimate the crude and adjusted prevalence ratios (aPRs) to identify psychosocial factors influencing uptake of vaccination during pregnancy.ResultsWillingness to receive the recommended maternal vaccines was high (90%). Overall, 79% and 48% received maternal pertussis and influenza vaccines respectively. There was no evidence to support the influence of psychosocial factors on women’s willingness to receive immunization during pregnancy. High levels of anxiety (aPR 0.98, 95% CI: 0.87–1.09) was not associated with uptake of maternal pertussis vaccine. However, elevated depressive symptoms (aPR 1.14, 95% CI: 1.00–1.30) and very high-perceived stress during pregnancy were significantly associated with receipt of pertussis vaccination (aPR 0.87; 95% CI 0.76–0.99). Women with mild depressive symptoms (aPR 1.21, 95% CI 1.00–1.44) and mild anxiety symptoms (aPR 1.21, 95% CI: 0.99–1.48) were more likely to receive influenza vaccine during pregnancy (aPR 1.27, 95% CI: 1.08–1.49). A history of major depressive disorder was independently associated with receipt of pertussis (aPR 1.16, 95% CI 1.06–1.26) and influenza vaccination during pregnancy (aPR 1.32; 95% CI 1.14–1.58).ConclusionRegardless of psychosocial factors, most women reported a positive willingness to receive the recommended vaccinations during pregnancy. However, psychosocial factors influenced the uptake of pertussis and influenza vaccines during pregnancy. Psychosocial factors should be taken into consideration in designing interventions and implementation of maternal pertussis and influenza immunization programs.     

疫情防控常态化期间研究生社交焦虑及相关因素

  目的  了解研究生群体在新冠肺炎疫情防控常态化期间社交焦虑状况及其相关影响因素, 为研究生群体健康促进提供参考借鉴。  方法  采用方便抽样方法对江苏省5所高校研究生进行在线问卷调查, 采用一般自我效能感量表(GSES)、疏离感量表(GAS)、社交焦虑量表(IAS)以及自编基本信息与居家生活状况调查表进行评估调查。  结果  疫情防控常态化期间, 研究生自我效能感、疏离感、社交焦虑得分分别为(2.58±0.50)(30.68±6.22)(47.55±8.77)分, 社交焦虑问题阳性症状检出率为43.96%;二元Logistic回归分析显示, 对手机等电子设备的依赖加重(OR=1.86, 95%CI=1.32~2.61)及较高的疏离感(中水平: OR=2.06, 95%CI=1.45~2.92;高水平: OR=5.19, 95%CI=1.00~27.00)均与社交焦虑呈正相关; 与好友交流增多(OR=0.65, 95%CI=0.47~0.90)、较高的自我效能感(中水平: OR=0.37, 95%CI=0.21~0.66;高水平: OR=0.15, 95%CI=0.08~0.30)均与社交焦虑呈负相关。  结论  疫情防控常态化期间研究生社交焦虑问题仍较为严重。获得朋辈支持、缓解个体疏离、提升自我效能感与减少对电子设备的依赖有助于改善特殊时期研究生社交焦虑问题。     

Papers Please - Predictive Factors of National and International Attitudes Toward Immunity and Vaccination Passports: Online Representative Surveys

BackgroundIn response to the COVID-19 pandemic, countries are introducing digital passports that allow citizens to return to normal activities if they were previously infected with (immunity passport) or vaccinated against (vaccination passport) SARS-CoV-2. To be effective, policy decision-makers must know whether these passports will be widely accepted by the public and under what conditions. This study focuses attention on immunity passports, as these may prove useful in countries both with and without an existing COVID-19 vaccination program; however, our general findings also extend to vaccination passports.ObjectiveWe aimed to assess attitudes toward the introduction of immunity passports in six countries, and determine what social, personal, and contextual factors predicted their support.MethodsWe collected 13,678 participants through online representative sampling across six countries—Australia, Japan, Taiwan, Germany, Spain, and the United Kingdom—during April to May of the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic, and assessed attitudes and support for the introduction of immunity passports.ResultsImmunity passport support was moderate to low, being the highest in Germany (775/1507 participants, 51.43%) and the United Kingdom (759/1484, 51.15%); followed by Taiwan (2841/5989, 47.44%), Australia (963/2086, 46.16%), and Spain (693/1491, 46.48%); and was the lowest in Japan (241/1081, 22.94%). Bayesian generalized linear mixed effects modeling was used to assess predictive factors for immunity passport support across countries. International results showed neoliberal worldviews (odds ratio [OR] 1.17, 95% CI 1.13-1.22), personal concern (OR 1.07, 95% CI 1.00-1.16), perceived virus severity (OR 1.07, 95% CI 1.01-1.14), the fairness of immunity passports (OR 2.51, 95% CI 2.36-2.66), liking immunity passports (OR 2.77, 95% CI 2.61-2.94), and a willingness to become infected to gain an immunity passport (OR 1.6, 95% CI 1.51-1.68) were all predictive factors of immunity passport support. By contrast, gender (woman; OR 0.9, 95% CI 0.82-0.98), immunity passport concern (OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.57-0.65), and risk of harm to society (OR 0.71, 95% CI 0.67-0.76) predicted a decrease in support for immunity passports. Minor differences in predictive factors were found between countries and results were modeled separately to provide national accounts of these data.ConclusionsOur research suggests that support for immunity passports is predicted by the personal benefits and societal risks they confer. These findings generalized across six countries and may also prove informative for the introduction of vaccination passports, helping policymakers to introduce effective COVID-19 passport policies in these six countries and around the world.     

The deterioration of mental health among healthcare workers during the COVID-19 outbreak: A population-based cohort study of workers in Japan

Objectives:This study compared the longitudinal change in the mental health of healthcare and non-healthcare workers during two months of the COVID-19 outbreak in Japan.Methods:Data were derived from a prospective online cohort study of 1448 full-time employees in Japan. Participants were surveyed at baseline from 19–22 March 2020 (T1) and at follow-up from 22–26 May 2020 (T2). A self-administered online questionnaire was used to assess participants’ fear and worry of COVID-19, psychological distress, and physical symptoms at T1 and T2. A series of generalized linear models were created to assess changes in outcomes between healthcare and non-healthcare workers. Demographic variables (ie, sex, age, marital status, child[ren], education, and residential area) were included in the models as covariates.Results:A total of 1032 participants completed the follow-up questionnaire at T2 (follow-up rate, 72.6%). After excluding unemployed respondents (N=17), the final sample comprised 1015 full-time employees (111 healthcare and 904 non-healthcare workers). After adjusting for the covariates, psychological distress (and subscales of fatigue, anxiety, and depression) as well as fear and worry of COVID-19 increased statistically significantly more among healthcare than non-healthcare workers from T1 to T2.Conclusions:Psychological distress, together with fear and worry of COVID-19, increased more among healthcare compared to non-healthcare workers during the COVID-19 outbreak. The study confirmed that healthcare workers are an important target for mental healthcare during the COVID-19 outbreak.     

Side effects among healthcare workers from a large Milan university hospital after second dose of BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine

Background:In Italy, healthcare workers (HCWs) were among the first to receive COVID-19 vaccination. Aim of the present study is to evaluate frequency and severity of adverse events (AEs) following the second dose of BNT162b2 vaccine among HCWs of a large university hospital in Milan, Italy.Methods:One month after having received the second dose of vaccine, HCWs filled-in a form about type, severity, and duration of post-vaccination local and systemic symptoms. We calculated the overall frequency of AEs and used multivariable Poisson regression models (adjusted for sex, age, BMI, smoking, allergy history, previous SARS-CoV-2 infection, anti-hypertensive therapy, and occupation) to calculate risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) of AEs according to selected variables.Results:We included 3659 HCWs. Overall, 2801 (76.6%) experienced at least one local event, with pain at injection site being the most frequent (2788, 76.2%). Systemic events were reported by 2080 (56.8%) HCWs, with fatigue (52.3%), muscle pain (42.2%), headache (37.7%), joint pain (31.9%), and fever (26.2%) being the most frequent. Risks of systemic events were associated with female gender (RR=1.14, CI: 1.06-1.24), age (strong decrease with increasing age, p-trend<0.001), allergy history (RR=1.13, CI: 1.05-1.20), SARS-CoV-2 infection more than 180 days before second dose (RR=1.16, CI:1.01-1.32), and current smoking (RR=0.90, CI: 0.84-0.97).Conclusions:Both local and systemic acute effects after second dose of BNT162b2 vaccine were frequently reported. However, symptoms were mostly light/mild and of short duration. Thus, our findings support the safety of COVID-19 vaccination in adults in relatively good health.     

The Impacts of the COVID-19 Pandemic on HIV Testing Utilization Among Men Who Have Sex With Men in China: Cross-sectional Online Survey

BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic has created disruptions in HIV prevention and sexual health services for men who have sex with men (MSM).ObjectiveThis study compared HIV testing utilization in 3 different reference periods (period 1: before the COVID-19 outbreak, November 2019-January 2020; period 2: after the outbreak, February-April 2020; and period 3: after the pandemic was under initial control, May-July 2020). Factors associated with HIV testing utilization after the COVID-19 outbreak (combined periods 2 and 3) were also investigated.MethodsParticipants were MSM aged ≥18 years living in Shenzhen, China. Those self-reporting as HIV positive were excluded. A total of 595 participants recruited through multiple sources completed a self-administered online survey during August-September 2020. HIV testing utilization after the COVID-19 outbreak was the dependent variable, and multivariate logistic regression models were fitted.ResultsHIV testing utilization was significantly lower in period 2 than in period 1 (n=262 vs 363, 44.0% vs 61.0%, P<.001). However, HIV testing utilization was not significantly higher in period 3 than in period 2 (n=277 vs 262, 46.6% vs 44.0%, P=.21). The prevalence of HIV testing utilization after the COVID-19 outbreak was seen in 331 (55.6%) participants. After adjusting for significant background characteristics, condomless anal intercourse (CAI) with regular male sex partners (RPs; adjusted odds ratio [AOR] 2.15, 95% CI 1.29-3.57) and sexualized drug use (SDU; AOR 2.94, 95% CI 1.41-6.06) both before and after the COVID-19 outbreak, CAI with RPs (AOR 2.07, 95% CI 1.06-4.07) and nonregular male sex partners (NRPs; AOR 3.57, 95%CI: 1.43-8.89) only after the COVID-19 outbreak was positively associated with the dependent variable. Regarding HIV prevention service utilization, HIV testing utilization before the COVID-19 outbreak (AOR 10.75, 95% CI 7.22-16.02) and the use of sexually transmitted infection (STI) testing (AOR 7.02, 95% CI 4.10-12.02), other HIV/STI prevention (AOR 3.15, 95% CI 2.16-4.60), and preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP; AOR 3.58, 95% CI 1.54-8.34) after the COVID-19 outbreak were associated with higher HIV testing utilization. The current perceived risk of HIV infection was higher than that before the COVID-19 outbreak (AOR 1.15, 95% CI 1.01-1.30), and perceived COVID-19 preventive measures taken by HIV testing service providers to be effective (AOR 1.52, 95% CI 1.29-1.78) and perceived higher behavioral control to undergo HIV testing (AOR 1.18, 95% CI 1.00-1.40) were positively associated with HIV testing utilization. Concerns about COVID-19 infection during HIV testing (AOR 0.78, 95% CI 0.68-0.89), avoiding crowded places (AOR 0.68, 95% CI 0.48-0.98), and HIV testing service providers reducing their working hours (AOR 0.59, 95% CI 0.48-0.98) were negatively associated with the dependent variable.ConclusionsHIV testing utilization among Chinese MSM declined after the COVID-19 outbreak and did not increase after the pandemic was under initial control. Removing structural barriers to accessing HIV testing caused by COVID-19, modifying perceptions related to HIV testing, and making use of HIV self-testing (HIVST) might be useful strategies to improve HIV testing among MSM during the pandemic.     

Plasma levels of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB) and the risk of soft tissue sarcoma

Background::Soft tissue sarcoma (STS) is a heterogeneous group of rare neoplasms whose aetiology is largely unknown. Dioxin and dioxin-like compounds, including 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (2,3,7,8-TCDD) and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), are potential risk factors for STS.Objectives:To investigate the relation of 17 PCBs congeners, assessed in human plasma, with STS risk.Methods:We conducted a case-control study in Italy, including 52 STS cases and 99 hospital-based controls. Selected PCB were extracted by high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) and measured with gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS). Odds ratios (OR), and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI), were estimated through multivariate logistic regression models.Results:The most frequently detected PCB congeners were 138, 170, 180 and 149 (detected in 40-77% of controls). The OR for the sum of all 17 PCB congeners was 1.20 (95% CI 0.50-2.92). In categorical analysis no consistent association was found for individual congeners and for groups based on Wolff’s classification or the degree of chlorination. For continuous estimates, borderline positive associations emerged for Wolff’s groups 2A (OR 1.23, 95% CI 0.97-1.55), 2B (OR 1.34, 95% CI 1.00-1.77, and 3 (OR 1.19, 95% CI 0.96-1.49), for moderately (OR 1.20, 95% CI 0.96-1.51) and highly (OR 1.18, 95% CI 0.99-1.41) chlorinated PCBs, and for congeners 170 (OR 1.26, 95% CI 0.98-1.63), 180 (OR 1.26, 95% CI 0.97-1.64) and 138 (OR 1.45, 95% CI 1.02-2.04).Discussion:Most associations between PCBs and STS risk were not significant, but, given the limited sample size, we cannot exclude moderate associations.Key words: Soft tissue sarcoma, polychlorinated biphenyls, epidemiology, environmental risk factors, chemical contaminants, case-control study     

Association of Sources of COVID-19 Information with Vaccine Uptake,Preventive Behaviors,and Perceived Severity of COVID-19

ObjectiveTo investigate the association of using informal sources and reliance on multiple sources of information with actual COVID-19 vaccine uptake, the number of doses of vaccine received, COVID-19 testing, essential preventive measures, and perceived severity of COVID-19.DesignRetrospective cross-sectional study.Setting and ParticipantsOur study sample consisted of 9584 community-dwelling Medicare beneficiaries, representing a weighted 50,029,030 beneficiaries from the Winter 2021 Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey COVID-19 Supplement.MethodsTwo key independent variables were whether a respondent relied on a formal source (ie, traditional news, government guidance, or health care providers) or an informal source (ie, social media, Internet, or friends/family) the most for the COVID-19 information and the total number of information sources a respondent relied on.ResultsCompared with beneficiaries relying on formal sources of information, those relying on informal sources of information were less likely to receive COVID-19 vaccine (odds ratio [OR], 0.65; 95% CI, 0.56–0.75) and COVID-19 testing (OR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.74–0.98), to engage in preventive behaviors (OR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.50–0.74), to have high perception of COVID-19 severity, and were more likely to be unvaccinated vs 2 doses of vaccine (relative risk ratio [RRR], 1.64; 95% CI, 1.41–1.91). Relying on more information sources was significantly associated with higher odds of actual vaccine uptake (OR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.17–1.26), COVID-19 testing (OR, 1.11; 95% CI, 1.07–1.15), engagement of essential preventive behaviors (OR, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.25–1.42), having high perception of COVID-19 severity, and with lower likelihood of being unvaccinated vs 2 doses of vaccine (RRR, 0.82; 0.79–0.85).Conclusions and ImplicationsThe COVID-19 pandemic has made communicating information about coronavirus more important than ever. Our findings suggest that information from formal sources with expertise and more balanced sources of information were key to effective communication to prevent from COVID-19 infection among older adults.