-
BMJ Open Diabetes Research & Care Jun 2024We previously reported predictors of mortality in 1786 adults with diabetes or stress hyperglycemia (glucose>180 mg/dL twice in 24 hours) admitted with COVID-19 from...
INTRODUCTION
We previously reported predictors of mortality in 1786 adults with diabetes or stress hyperglycemia (glucose>180 mg/dL twice in 24 hours) admitted with COVID-19 from March 2020 to February 2021 to five university hospitals. Here, we examine predictors of readmission.
RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS
Data were collected locally through retrospective reviews of electronic medical records from 1786 adults with diabetes or stress hyperglycemia who had a hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) test on initial admission with COVID-19 infection or within 3 months prior to initial admission. Data were entered into a Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap) web-based repository, and de-identified. Descriptive data are shown as mean±SD, per cent (%) or median (IQR). Student's t-test was used for comparing continuous variables with normal distribution and Mann-Whitney U test was used for data not normally distributed. X test was used for categorical variable.
RESULTS
Of 1502 patients who were alive after initial hospitalization, 19.4% were readmitted; 90.3% within 30 days (median (IQR) 4 (0-14) days). Older age, lower estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), comorbidities, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, mechanical ventilation, diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA), and longer length of stay (LOS) during the initial hospitalization were associated with readmission. Higher HbA1c, glycemic gap, or body mass index (BMI) were not associated with readmission. Mortality during readmission was 8.0% (n=23). Those who died were older than those who survived (74.9±9.5 vs 65.2±14.4 years, p=0.002) and more likely had DKA during the first hospitalization (p<0.001). Shorter LOS during the initial admission was associated with ICU stay during readmission, suggesting that a subset of patients may have been initially discharged prematurely.
CONCLUSIONS
Understanding predictors of readmission after initial hospitalization for COVID-19, including older age, lower eGFR, comorbidities, ICU admission, mechanical ventilation, statin use and DKA but not HbA1c, glycemic gap or BMI, can help guide treatment approaches and future research in adults with diabetes.
Topics: Humans; COVID-19; Patient Readmission; Male; Female; Hyperglycemia; Middle Aged; Retrospective Studies; Aged; Glycated Hemoglobin; SARS-CoV-2; Diabetes Mellitus; Hospitalization; Adult; Risk Factors; Aged, 80 and over; Blood Glucose
PubMed: 38937276
DOI: 10.1136/bmjdrc-2024-004167 -
Global Health, Science and Practice Jun 2024Countries that are high burden for TB must reverse the COVID-19 pandemic's devastating effects to accelerate progress toward ending TB. Vietnam's Double X (2X) strategy...
Countries that are high burden for TB must reverse the COVID-19 pandemic's devastating effects to accelerate progress toward ending TB. Vietnam's Double X (2X) strategy uses chest radiography (CXR) and GeneXpert (Xpert) rapid diagnostic testing to improve early detection of TB disease. Household contacts and vulnerable populations (e.g., individuals aged 60 years and older, smokers, diabetics, those with alcohol use disorders, and those previously treated for TB) with and without TB symptoms were screened in community campaigns using CXRs, followed by Xpert for those with a positive screen. In public non-TB district facilities, diabetics, respiratory outpatients, inpatients with lung disease, and other vulnerable populations underwent 2X evaluation. During COVID-19 restrictions in Vietnam, the 2X strategy improved access to TB services by decentralization to commune health stations, the lowest level of the health system, and enabling self-screening using a quick response mobile application. The number needed to screen (NNS) with CXRs to diagnose 1 person with TB disease was calculated for all 2X models and showed the highest yield among self-screeners (11 NNS with CXR), high yield for vulnerable populations in communities (60 NNS) and facilities (19 NNS), and moderately high yield for household contacts in community campaigns (154 NNS). Computer-aided diagnosis for CXRs was incorporated into community and facility implementation and improved physicians' CXR interpretations and Xpert referral decisions. Integration of TB infection and TB disease evaluation increased eligibility for TB preventive treatment among household contacts, a major challenge during implementation. The 2X strategy increased the rational use of Xpert, employing a health system-wide approach that reached vulnerable populations with and without TB symptoms in communities and facilities for early detection of TB disease. This strategy was effectively adapted to different levels of the health system during COVID-19 restrictions and contributed to post-pandemic TB recovery in Vietnam.
Topics: Humans; Vietnam; COVID-19; Tuberculosis, Pulmonary; Mass Screening; SARS-CoV-2; Middle Aged; Radiography, Thoracic; Tuberculosis; Female; Pandemics; Male; Vulnerable Populations
PubMed: 38936961
DOI: 10.9745/GHSP-D-24-00024 -
PloS One 2024This study examines the 12-month prevalence rates of intimate partner violence (IPV) victimization, including psychological, physical, and sexual forms, in women and...
OBJECTIVES
This study examines the 12-month prevalence rates of intimate partner violence (IPV) victimization, including psychological, physical, and sexual forms, in women and men. It also aims to identify changes in IPV victimization during the COVID-19 pandemic and to explore factors associated with the occurrence of any IPV victimization during this period.
METHODS
Data from the DREAMCORONA study in Germany collected from May 2020 to February 2021 included 737 participants, i.e., (expectant) mothers (64%) and fathers (36%). The Revised Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS2S) short form was used to assess the 12-month IPV victimization. Prevalence of IPV victimization as well as changes in IPV victimization during the pandemic were analyzed descriptively, with results stratified by sex. Multiple logistic regression was employed to identify risk factors for IPV.
RESULTS
Psychological IPV was found to be the most prevalent form of violence, with the occurrence of any psychological IPV affecting 48.5% of women and 39.4% of men, while 2.6% of women and 3.3% of men reported the occurrence of any physical IPV victimization, and 2.8% of women and 1.5% of men reported the occurrence of any sexual IPV victimization. Of those who experienced the occurrence of any IPV in the last 12 months, 89.7% of women and 89.8% of men were victimized by one single act of violence. The majority of affected participants reported no change in psychological and physical IPV victimization during the pandemic. Nevertheless, for certain IPV behaviors on the psychological and physical IPV victimization subscales, both affected women and men also reported higher frequencies during the COVID-19 pandemic. Multiple logistic regression revealed that higher levels of relationship satisfaction were negatively associated with the occurrence of any IPV victimization for women and men, whereas greater levels of own anger-hostility symptoms were positively associated with the occurrence of any IPV victimization.
CONCLUSIONS
Psychological IPV was present in almost every second (expectant) couple. The majority of affected women and men reported no change in their psychological and physical IPV victimization, suggesting that they continued to experience IPV during the pandemic. This underlines the importance of promoting healthier relationship dynamics, coping strategies, and emotional well-being to reduce the risk of IPV, even in times of crisis. Our study sheds light on the early stages of the pandemic and highlights the ongoing need for research into the temporal dynamics of IPV.
Topics: Humans; COVID-19; Female; Male; Intimate Partner Violence; Adult; Prevalence; Risk Factors; Crime Victims; Germany; Middle Aged; Young Adult; Pandemics; SARS-CoV-2; Adolescent
PubMed: 38935801
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0306103 -
PloS One 2024The Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) has caused a global health crisis. Mortality predictors in critically ill patients remain under investigation. A retrospective...
The Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) has caused a global health crisis. Mortality predictors in critically ill patients remain under investigation. A retrospective cohort study included 201 patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) due to COVID-19. Data on demographic characteristics, laboratory findings, and mortality were collected. Logistic regression analysis was conducted with various independent variables, including demographic characteristics, clinical factors, and treatment methods. The study aimed to identify key risk factors associated with mortality in an ICU. In an investigation of 201 patients comprising non-survivors (n = 80, 40%) and Survivors (n = 121, 60%), we identified several markers significantly associated with ICU mortality. Lower Interleukin 6 and White Blood Cells levels at both 24- and 48-hours post-ICU admission emerged as significant indicators of survival. The study employed logistic regression analysis to evaluate risk factors for in-ICU mortality. Analysis results revealed that demographic and clinical factors, including gender, age, and comorbidities, were not significant predictors of in-ICU mortality. Ventilator-associated pneumonia was significantly higher in Survivors, and the use of antibiotics showed a significant association with increased mortality risk in the multivariate model (OR: 11.2, p = 0.031). Our study underscores the significance of monitoring Il-6 and WBC levels within 48 hours of ICU admission, potentially influencing COVID-19 patient outcomes. These insights may reshape therapeutic strategies and ICU protocols for critically ill patients.
Topics: Humans; COVID-19; Male; Female; Critical Illness; Middle Aged; Prognosis; Aged; Retrospective Studies; Intensive Care Units; Risk Factors; Interleukin-6; SARS-CoV-2; Adult; Hospital Mortality; Pneumonia, Ventilator-Associated; Logistic Models; Leukocyte Count
PubMed: 38935767
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0302248 -
PloS One 2024At some point in their career, many healthcare workers will experience psychological distress associated with being unable to take morally or ethically correct action,...
OBJECTIVE
At some point in their career, many healthcare workers will experience psychological distress associated with being unable to take morally or ethically correct action, as it aligns with their own values; a phenomenon known as moral distress. Similarly, there are increasing reports of healthcare workers experiencing long-term mental and psychological pain, alongside internal dissonance, known as moral injury. This review examined the triggers and factors associated with moral distress and injury in Health and Social Care Workers (HSCW) employed across a range of clinical settings with the aim of understanding how to mitigate the effects of moral distress and identify potential preventative interventions.
METHODS
A systematic review was conducted and reported according to recommendations from Cochrane and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Searches were conducted and updated regularly until January 2024 on 2 main databases (CENTRAL, PubMed) and three specialist databases (Scopus, CINAHL, PsycArticles), alongside hand searches of study registration databases and other systematic reviews reference lists. Eligible studies included a HSCW sample, explored moral distress/injury as a main aim, and were written in English or Italian. Verbatim quotes were extracted, and article quality was assessed via the CASP toolkit. Thematic analysis was conducted to identify patterns and arrange codes into themes. Specific factors like culture and diversity were explored, and the effects of exceptional circumstances like the pandemic.
RESULTS
Fifty-one reports of 49 studies were included in the review. Causes and triggers were categorised under three domains: individual, social, and organisational. At the individual level, patients' care options, professionals' beliefs, locus of control, task planning, and the ability to make decisions based on experience, were indicated as elements that can cause or trigger moral distress. In addition, and relevant to the CoVID-19 pandemic, was use/access to personal protection resources. The social or relational factors were linked to the responsibility for advocating for and communication with patients and families, and professionals own support network. At organisational levels, hierarchy, regulations, support, workload, culture, and resources (staff and equipment) were identified as elements that can affect professionals' moral comfort. Patients' care, morals/beliefs/standards, advocacy role and culture of context were the most referenced elements. Data on cultural differences and diversity were not sufficient to make assumptions. Lack of resources and rapid policy changes have emerged as key triggers related to the pandemic. This suggests that those responsible for policy decisions should be mindful of the potential impact on staff of sudden and top-down change.
CONCLUSION
This review indicates that causes and triggers of moral injury are multifactorial and largely influenced by the context and constraints within which professionals work. Moral distress is linked to the duty and responsibility of care, and professionals' disposition to prioritise the wellbeing of patients. If the organisational values and regulations are in contrast with individuals' beliefs, repercussions on professionals' wellbeing and retention are to be expected. Organisational strategies to mitigate against moral distress, or the longer-term sequalae of moral injury, should address the individual, social, and organisational elements identified in this review.
Topics: Humans; Health Personnel; Morals; Social Workers; Qualitative Research; COVID-19; Psychological Distress; Stress, Psychological
PubMed: 38935754
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0303013 -
Kidney360 Jun 2024
Topics: Humans; COVID-19; Renal Insufficiency, Chronic; SARS-CoV-2; Female; Male; Middle Aged; Aged; Pandemics
PubMed: 38935492
DOI: 10.34067/KID.0000000000000439 -
JMIR Public Health and Surveillance Jun 2024Information on the public's preferences for current public health and social measures (PHSMs) and people's mental health under PHSMs is insufficient.
BACKGROUND
Information on the public's preferences for current public health and social measures (PHSMs) and people's mental health under PHSMs is insufficient.
OBJECTIVE
This study aimed to quantify the public's preferences for varied PHSMs and measure the level of pandemic fatigue in the COVID-19 normalization stage in China.
METHODS
A nationwide cross-sectional study with a discrete choice experiment and psychometric scales was conducted to assess public preferences for and attitudes toward PHSMs, using the quota sampling method. The COVID-19 Pandemic Fatigue Scale (CPFS) was used to screen fatigue levels among respondents. The multinomial logit model, latent class model, and Mann-Whitney test were used for statistical analysis. We also conducted subgroup analysis based on sex, age, monthly income, mental health status, and pandemic fatigue status.
RESULTS
A total of 689 respondents across China completed the survey. The discrete choice experiment revealed that respondents attached the greatest importance to the risk of COVID-19 infection within 3 months (45.53%), followed by loss of income within 3 months (30.69%). Vulnerable populations (low-income populations and elderly people) were more sensitive to the risk of infection, while younger respondents were more sensitive to income loss and preferred nonsuspension of social places and transportation. Migrants and those with pandemic fatigue had less acceptance of the mandatory booster vaccination and suspension of transportation. Additionally, a higher pandemic fatigue level was observed in female respondents, younger respondents, migrants, and relatively lower-income respondents (CPFS correlation with age: r=-0.274, P<.001; correlation with monthly income: r=-0.25, P<.001). Mandatory booster COVID-19 vaccination was also not preferred by respondents with a higher level of pandemic fatigue, while universal COVID-19 booster vaccination was preferred by respondents with a lower level of pandemic fatigue.
CONCLUSIONS
Pandemic fatigue is widely prevalent in respondents across China, and respondents desired the resumption of normal social life while being confronted with the fear of COVID-19 infection in the normalization stage of COVID-19 in China. During future pandemics, the mental burden and adherence of residents should be considered for the proper implementation of PHSMs.
Topics: Humans; COVID-19; China; Male; Female; Adult; Cross-Sectional Studies; Middle Aged; Public Health; Young Adult; Fatigue; Pandemics; Adolescent; Aged; Choice Behavior; Surveys and Questionnaires
PubMed: 38935420
DOI: 10.2196/45840 -
JMIR Research Protocols Jun 2024Governments and public health agencies worldwide experienced difficulties with social media-mediated infodemics on the internet during the COVID-19 pandemic. Existing...
Experiences of Governments and Public Health Agencies Regarding Crisis Communication During the COVID-19 Pandemic in the Digital Age: Protocol for a Systematic Review of Qualitative Studies.
BACKGROUND
Governments and public health agencies worldwide experienced difficulties with social media-mediated infodemics on the internet during the COVID-19 pandemic. Existing public health crisis communication strategies need to be updated. However, crisis communication experiences of governments and public health agencies worldwide during the COVID-19 pandemic have not been systematically compiled, necessitating updated crisis communication strategies.
OBJECTIVE
This systematic review aims to collect and organize the crisis communication experiences of senders (ie, governments and public health agencies) during the COVID-19 pandemic. Our focus is on exploring the difficulties that governments and public health agencies experienced, best practices in crisis communication by governments and public health agencies during the COVID-19 pandemic in times of infodemic, and challenges that should be overcome in future public health crises.
METHODS
We plan to begin the literature search on May 1, 2024. We will search PubMed, MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, PsycARTICLES, Communication Abstracts, and Web of Science. We will filter our database searches to search from the year 2020 and beyond. We will use a combination of keywords by referring to the SPIDER (Sample, Phenomenon of Interest, Design, Evaluation, and Research type) tool to search the abstracts in databases. We intend to include qualitative studies on crisis communication by governments and public health agencies (eg, officials, staff, health professionals, and researchers) to the public. Quantitative data-based studies will be excluded. Only papers written in English will be included. Data on study characteristics, study aim, participant characteristics, methodology, theoretical framework, object of crisis communication, and key results will be extracted. The methodological quality of eligible studies will be assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal checklist for qualitative research. A total of 2 independent reviewers will share responsibility for screening publications, data extraction, and quality assessment. Disagreement will be resolved through discussion, and the third reviewer will be consulted, if necessary. The findings will be summarized in a table and a conceptual diagram and synthesized in a descriptive and narrative review.
RESULTS
The results will be systematically integrated and presented in a way that corresponds to our research objectives and interests. We expect the results of this review to be submitted for publication by the end of 2024.
CONCLUSIONS
To our knowledge, this will be the first systematic review of the experiences of governments and public health agencies regarding their crisis communication to the public during the COVID-19 pandemic. This review will contribute to the future improvement of the guidelines for crisis communication by governments and public health agencies to the public.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
PROSPERO CRD42024528975; https://tinyurl.com/4fjmd8te.
INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)
PRR1-10.2196/58040.
Topics: COVID-19; Humans; Public Health; Pandemics; Qualitative Research; Systematic Reviews as Topic; Government; Communication; Social Media; SARS-CoV-2
PubMed: 38935414
DOI: 10.2196/58040 -
JAMA Network Open Jun 2024Several reports suggest an increase in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) symptoms during the COVID-19 pandemic. This nationwide study assessed new ADHD...
IMPORTANCE
Several reports suggest an increase in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) symptoms during the COVID-19 pandemic. This nationwide study assessed new ADHD diagnoses and ADHD prevalence before and during the pandemic.
OBJECTIVE
To investigate trends in new ADHD diagnoses, prevalence, and ADHD medication use from 2015 to 2022 in Finland.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS
This longitudinal cohort study comprised the entire Finnish population. ADHD diagnoses and medication use were obtained from nationwide registers and assessed at 3 time points: in 2015 and before (2020) and after (2022) the pandemic. Data were analyzed from January 2015 to June 2022.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
New ADHD diagnoses, ADHD lifetime prevalence, and ADHD medication use.
RESULTS
The cohort comprised 5 572 420 individuals (2 819 645 women [50.6%]). Lifetime prevalence of ADHD increased by 2.7-fold during 2015 to 2022; prevalence was 1.02% in 2015 (95% CI, 1.01%-1.03%), 1.80% in 2020 (95% CI, 1.79%-1.81%), and 2.76% in 2022 (95% CI, 2.75%-2.77%). Young men aged 13 to 20 years had the highest lifetime prevalence of 11.68% (95% CI, 11.56%-11.81%) in 2022. New ADHD diagnoses doubled during the pandemic, from 238 per 100 000 in 2020 to 477 per 100 000 in 2022. The pandemic-associated incremental increase in new diagnoses was 18.60% (95% CI, 16.47%-20.49%; 9482 per 50 897 cases). Young women aged 13 to 20 years had a 2.6-fold increase in new diagnoses during the pandemic, from 577 per 100 000 in 2020 to 1488 per 100 000 in 2022, and women aged 21 to 30 years had a 3.0-fold increase, from 361 per 100 000 to 1100 per 100 000. New diagnoses increased by 2.9-fold among those older than 55 years (from 5 per 100 000 to 13 per 100 000 in women and from 5 per 100 000 to 14 per 100 000 in men). Boys younger than 13 years had the highest absolute rate of new ADHD diagnoses in 2022 (1745 per 100 000), but boys and young men younger than 21 years did not show a significant incremental increase in new diagnoses. Lifetime prevalence of ADHD medication purchases was 0.57% (95% CI, 0.56%-0.58%) in 2015 (31 771 [55.62%] of those with ADHD diagnosis), 1.15% (95% CI, 1.14%-1.16%) in 2020 (64 034 [63.83%]), and 1.69% (95% CI 1.68%-1.70%) in 2022 (92 557 [61.43%]), respectively.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
In this nationwide cohort study, new ADHD diagnoses and ADHD prevalence showed significant increase in Finland during the pandemic. ADHD medication use did not increase in relation to ADHD diagnoses. These results highlight potential adverse outcomes of pandemic-associated changes in living conditions.
Topics: Humans; Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity; Finland; COVID-19; Female; Male; Adult; Adolescent; Prevalence; Longitudinal Studies; Young Adult; SARS-CoV-2; Child; Middle Aged; Pandemics; Registries; Child, Preschool
PubMed: 38935377
DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.18204 -
Indian Journal of Public Health Oct 2023
Topics: Humans; COVID-19; Influenza, Human; SARS-CoV-2; India; Pandemics
PubMed: 38934839
DOI: 10.4103/ijph.ijph_1755_22