Healthcare workers (HCWs) not adhering to physical distancing recommendations is a risk factor for acquisition of severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). The study objective was to assess the impact of interventions to improve HCW physical distancing on actual distance between HCWs in a real-life setting.

HCWs voluntarily wore proximity beacons to measure the number and intensity of physical distancing interactions between each other in a pediatric intensive care unit. We compared interactions before and after implementing a bundle of interventions including changes to the layout of workstations, cognitive aids, and individual feedback from wearable proximity beacons.

Overall, we recorded 10,788 interactions within 6 feet (∼2 m) and lasting >5 seconds. The number of HCWs wearing beacons fluctuated daily and increased over the study period. On average, 13 beacons were worn daily (32% of possible staff; range, 2–32 per day). We recorded 3,218 interactions before the interventions and 7,570 interactions after the interventions began. Using regression analysis accounting for the maximum number of potential interactions if all staff had worn beacons on a given day, there was a 1% decline in the number of interactions per possible interactions in the postintervention period (incident rate ratio, 0.99; 95% confidence interval, 0.98–1.00; P = .02) with fewer interactions occurring at nursing stations, in workrooms and during morning rounds.

Using quantitative data from wearable proximity beacons, we found an overall small decline in interactions within 6 feet between HCWs in a busy intensive care unit after a multifaceted bundle of interventions was implemented to improve physical distancing.

The objective was to examine risk and protective factors associated with pre- to early-pandemic changes in risk of household food insecurity (FI).

We re-enrolled families from two statewide studies (2017–2020) in an observational cohort (May–August 2020). Caregivers reported on risk of household FI, demographics, pandemic-related hardships, and participation in safety net programmes (e.g. Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) stimulus payment, school meals).

Maryland, USA.

Economically, geographically and racially/ethnically diverse families with preschool to adolescent-age children. Eligibility included reported receipt or expected receipt of the CARES stimulus payment or a pandemic-related economic hardship (n 496).

Prevalence of risk of FI was unchanged (pre-pandemic: 22 %, early-pandemic: 25 %, p = 0·27). Risk of early-pandemic FI was elevated for non-Hispanic Black (adjusted relative risk (aRR) = 2·1 (95 % CI 1·1, 4·0)) and Other families (aRR = 2·6 (1·3, 5·4)) and families earning ≤ 300 % federal poverty level. Among pre-pandemic food secure families, decreased income, job loss and reduced hours were associated with increased early-pandemic FI risk (aRR = 2·1 (1·2, 3·6) to 2·5 (1·5, 4·1)); CARES stimulus payment (aRR = 0·5 (0·3, 0·9)) and continued school meal participation (aRR = 0·2 (0·1, 0·9)) were associated with decreased risk. Among families at risk of FI pre-pandemic, safety net programme participation was not associated with early-pandemic FI risk.

The CARES stimulus payment and continued school meal participation protected pre-pandemic food secure families from early-pandemic FI risk but did not protect families who were at risk of FI pre-pandemic. Mitigating pre-pandemic FI risk and providing stimulus payments and school meals may support children’s health and reduce disparities in response to pandemics.

The aim of the study was to investigate mental health and conspiracy theory beliefs concerning COVID-19 among health care professionals (HCPs).

During lockdown, an online questionnaire gathered data from 507 HCPs (432 females aged 33.86 ± 8.63 and 75 males aged 39.09 ± 9.54).

A post-stratification method to transform the study sample was used; descriptive statistics were calculated.

Anxiety and probable depression were increased 1.5–2-fold and were higher in females and nurses. Previous history of depression was the main risk factor. The rates of believing in conspiracy theories concerning the COVID-19 were alarming with the majority of individuals (especially females) following some theory to at least some extend.

The current paper reports high rates of depression, distress and suicidal thoughts in the HCPs during the lockdown, with a high prevalence of beliefs in conspiracy theories. Female gender and previous history of depression acted as risk factors, while the belief in conspiracy theories might act as a protective factor. The results should be considered with caution due to the nature of the data (online survey on a self-selected but stratified sample).

Globally, the corona virus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has created an interpersonally threatening context within which other people have become a source of possible threat. This study reports on the development and validation of a self-report measure of pandemic paranoia; that is, heightened levels of suspicion and mistrust towards others due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

An international consortium developed an initial set of 28 items for the Pandemic Paranoia Scale (PPS), which were completed by participants from the UK (n = 512), USA (n = 535), Germany (n = 516), Hong Kong (n = 454) and Australia (n = 502) using stratified quota sampling (for age, sex and educational attainment) through Qualtrics and translated for Germany and Hong Kong.

Exploratory factor analysis in the UK sample suggested a 25-item, three-factor solution (persecutory threat; paranoid conspiracy and interpersonal mistrust). Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) on the remaining combined sample showed sufficient model fit in this independent set of data. Measurement invariance analyses suggested configural and metric invariance, but no scalar invariance across cultures/languages. A second-order factor CFA on the whole sample indicated that the three factors showed large loadings on a common second-order pandemic paranoia factor. Analyses also supported the test–retest reliability and internal and convergent validity.

The PPS offers an internationally validated and reliable method for assessing paranoia in the context of a pandemic. The PPS has the potential to enhance our understanding of the impact of the pandemic, the nature of paranoia and to assist in identifying and supporting people affected by pandemic-specific paranoia.

COVID-19 has rapidly spread across the world. Women may be especially vulnerable to depression and anxiety as a result of the pandemic.

This study attempted to assess how gender affects risk perceptions, anxiety levels and behavioural responses to the COVID-19 pandemic in Pakistan, to recommend gender-responsive health policies.

A cross-sectional online survey was conducted. Participants were asked to complete a sociodemographic data form, the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, and questions on their risk perceptions, preventive behaviour and information exposure. Multiple logistic regression analysis was used to assess the effects of factors such as age, gender and household income on anxiety levels.

Of the 1391 respondents, 478 were women and 913 were men. Women considered their chances of survival to be relatively lower than men (59% v. 73%). They were also more anxious (62% v. 50%) and more likely to adopt precautionary behaviour, such as avoiding going to the hospital (78% v. 71%), not going to work (72% v. 57%) and using disinfectants (93% v. 86%). Men were more likely to trust friends, family and social media as reliable sources of COVID-19 information, whereas women were more likely to trust doctors.

Women experience a disproportionate burden of the psychological and social impact of the pandemic compared with men. Involving doctors in healthcare communication targeting women might prove effective. Social media and radio programmes may be effective in disseminating COVID-19-related information to men.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has had a disproportionate impact on people with intellectual disability (PwID). PwID are at higher risk of mental illness and receive psychotropic prescribing ‘off licence' also, to manage distress behaviour. The lockdown and reduction of multidisciplinary face-to-face appointments had an impact on care delivery, the recourse possibly being psychotropic prescribing. It is imperative to comprehend the influence the pandemic had on psychotropic prescribing patterns to enable future planning.

The aim was to understand the impact of the pandemic by comparing psychotropic prescribing patterns during the England lockdown with the prescribing patterns before lockdown in specialist urban and rural psychiatric services for PwID.

Data was collected from Cornwall (rural) and London (urban) intellectual disability services in England as a service evaluation project to rationalise psychotropic prescribing. PwID in both services open across January 2020 to January 2021 were included. Baseline patient demographics including age, gender, ethnicity, intellectual disability level and neurodevelopmental and psychological comorbidities were collected. Baseline psychotropic prescribing and subsequent % change for each psychotropic group for the two services was compared using Pearson's chi-square and z-statistic (two tailed) with significance taken at P < 0.05.

The two centres London (n = 113) and Cornwall (n = 97) were largely comparable but for baseline differences in terms of presence of severe mental illness (37 v. 86, P < 0.001), challenging behaviour (44 v. 57, P < 0.05) and attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (37 v. 3, P < 0.001). There was an overall increase in psychotropic prescribing during lockdown in urban as compared with rural settings (11% v. 2%).

The pandemic caused an increase in psychotropic prescribing associated with lockdown severity and urban settings. Team structures could have played a role.

The COVID-19 pandemic initially doubled the rates of food insecurity across the USA and tripled rates among households with children. Despite the association among food insecurity, chronic disease and psychological distress, narratives depicting the experiences of already food insecure populations are notably underrepresented in the literature. The current study assessed the impact of COVID-19 on clients of a food pantry who were also enrolled in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).

A qualitative study probing the effects of the pandemic on daily living, food needs, food buying and food insecurity. Interview transcripts were analysed using a combined deductive and inductive approach.

Interviews were conducted via telephone between May and June of 2020.

Equal numbers of English- and Spanish-speaking clients (n 40 total).

Three main findings emerged: (1) the pandemic increased economic distress, such as from job loss or increased utility bills due to sustained home occupancy and (2) the pandemic increased food needs, food prices and food shortages. In combination with economic stressors, this led to greater food insecurity; (3) increased economic stress and food insecurity contributed to increased psychological stress, such as from fear of infection, isolation and children being confined at home.

Despite federal legislation and state and local programmes to alleviate food insecurity, COVID-19 exacerbated economic hardship, food insecurity and psychological distress among urban SNAP and food pantry clients. Additional research is needed to identify the most effective policies and programmes to ameliorate the short- and long-term health and economic inequities exacerbated by the pandemic.

During the first wave of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, patients with confirmed cases in New York State accounted for roughly 25% of total US cases, with psychiatric hospital in-patients at particularly high risk for COVID-19 infection.

The beneficial effects of mental health medications, such as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), on the severity of COVID-19 disease outcomes have been documented. Protective effects against infection have also been suggested for these medications. We therefore tested the hypothesis that medication use modifies the risk of COVID-19 infection in a long-stay, chronic in-patient psychiatry setting, where the potential for exposure was likely uniform across the facility, and where these medications were routinely prescribed.

This was a retrospective cohort study of an adult psychiatric facility operated by the New York State Office of Mental Health. Current medication information and COVID-19 status was collected from electronic medical records for 165 people who were in-patients during the period January to July 2020, and logistic regression was employed to model the main effects of medication use on COVID-19 infection.

A significant protective association was observed between antidepressant use and COVID-19 infection (odds ratio (OR) = 0.33, 95% CI 0.15–0.70, adjusted P < 0.05). Analysis of individual antidepressant classes showed that SSRI, serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor and the serotonin-2 antagonist reuptake inhibitor classes of antidepressants, drove this protective effect. Exploratory analyses of individual antidepressants demonstrated an association between lower risk of infection and fluoxetine use (P = 0.023), as well as trazodone use (P = 0.001).

The novel finding of reduced COVID-19 infection risk for psychiatric in-patients taking antidepressants, suggests that antidepressants may be an important weapon in the continued fight against COVID-19 disease. This finding may become particularly salient for in-patient settings if vaccine-resistant strains of the virus appear.