To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge-org.demo.remotlog.com
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
The aim of this study was to examine whether exposure to previous traumatic events is a risk factor for stress reactions during this pandemic. Capitalizing on a 29-year longitudinal study of Israeli ex-prisoners of war (ex-POWs) and combat veterans, we examined whether captivity is a risk factor for fear of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and COVID-19-induced acute stress disorder (COVID-19 ASD) beyond the effects of combat exposure and other stressful life events. In addition, we examined the contribution of captivity experiences (severity of captivity, experience of solitary confinement, and suffering during captivity) and veterans' appraisal of the impact of their war-related experiences on adjustment to the current quarantine and isolation to fear of COVID-19 and COVID-19 ASD.
Methods
One-hundred-and-twenty Israeli ex-POWs from 1973 Yom Kippur War and 65 matched controls (combat veterans from the same war) filled out self-report questionnaires 18 (T1), 35 (T2), 42 (T3), and 47 (T4) years after the war.
Results
Findings revealed that although ex-POWs and controls did not differ in their level of exposure to COVID-19, ex-POWS reported higher levels of fear of COVID-19 and COVID-19 ASD than controls. Suffering during captivity, measured at 1991, and participants' appraisal of the extent to which their war-related experiences affected adjustment to COVID-19 were significantly associated with fear of COVID-19 and COVID-19 ASD.
Conclusions
The findings of the study demonstrate the long-term effects of exposure to traumatic experiences (captivity) during young adulthood on adjustment to an unrelated collective stress, such as COVID-19, 40 years later.
As a response to the acute strain placed on the National Health Service during the first wave of coronavirus disease 2019 in the UK, a number of junior doctors including ENT trainees were redeployed to other clinical specialties. This presented these trainees with novel challenges and opportunities.
Methods
A qualitative study was performed to explore these experiences, undertaking semi-structured interviews with ENT trainees between 17th and 30th July. Participants were recruited through purposeful sampling. Interview transcripts underwent thematic analysis using Dedoose software.
Results
Seven ENT trainees were interviewed, ranging from specialty trainee years four to eight (‘ST4’ to ‘ST8’) in grade. Six core themes were identified: organisation of redeployment, utilisation of skill set, emotional impact of redeployment, redeployed team dynamics, concerns about safety and impact on training.
Conclusion
The ENT trainees’ experiences of redeployment described highlight some important lessons and considerations for future redeployments.
We describe the case of a 2-month-old born with hypoplastic left heart syndrome who presented with fever and vomiting and was found to be infected with the novel corona virus (COVID-19). He underwent treatment with supplemental oxygen, heparin, and dexamethasone. After a 6-day hospitalisation, he recovered remarkably well without major adverse effects.
The molecular epidemiology of the virus and mapping helps understand the epidemics' evolution and apply quick control measures. This study provides genomic evidence of multiple severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) introductions into Sri Lanka and virus evolution during circulation. Whole-genome sequences of four SARS-CoV-2 strains obtained from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) positive patients reported in Sri Lanka during March 2020 were compared with sequences from Europe, Asia, Africa, Australia and North America. The phylogenetic analysis revealed that the sequence of the sample of the first local patient collected on 10 March, who contacted tourists from Italy, was clustered with SARS-CoV-2 strains collected from Italy, Germany, France and Mexico. Subsequently, the sequence of the isolate obtained on 19 March also clustered in the same group with the samples collected in March and April from Belgium, France, India and South Africa. The other two strains of SARS-CoV-2 were segregated from the main cluster, and the sample collected from 16 March clustered with England and the sample collected on 30 March showed the highest genetic divergence to the isolate of Wuhan, China. Here we report the first molecular epidemiological study conducted on circulating SARS-CoV-2 in Sri Lanka. The finding provides the robustness of molecular epidemiological tools and their application in tracing possible exposure in disease transmission during the pandemic.
The COVID-19 pandemic has impacted millions of lives globally. To learn more about this disease and find potential diagnostic, therapeutic, and preventative products, the healthcare community has initiated a staggering number of clinical trials.
Methods:
ClinicalTrials.gov was reviewed to determine if trial sponsor type had a relationship to time to COVID-19 response, which was defined as the date from disease discovery in Wuhan, China to ClinicalTrials.gov study “First Posted” date.
Results:
A total of 673 United States (US) sponsored, interventional study listings were retrieved, of which 293 (43.5%) were Industry-sponsored, 349 (51.9%) were Academic sponsored, and 31 (4.6%) were Other sponsor types. Of the Academic studies, 181 (51.9%) were Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) hubs. The average response time for all sponsor types was 189 days, with Academic sponsors having the shortest average response time of 172.6 days (P < 0.001). CTSA hubs had a significantly (P < 0.001) shorter average response time (168.1 days) compared to all other sponsor types (197.4 days). However, while shorter in duration by 9.4 days, response time was not significantly different from non-CTSA sponsors (177.5 days; P = 0.238). Additionally, ANOVA indicated significant relationships (P < 0.001) between funding type, study phase, number of sites, and enrollment size on response time.
Conclusions:
Studies posted with the shortest response time were Academic-sponsored trials and included smaller sized investigations of repurposed approved or investigational drugs for the treatment of COVID-19 symptoms. A small second wave of study postings occurred approximately 4 months later, and included small, unique therapies targeting prevention or treatment of COVID-19.
We investigated whether countries with higher coverage of childhood live vaccines [BCG or measles-containing-vaccine (MCV)] have reduced risk of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-related mortality, while accounting for known systems differences between countries. In this ecological study of 140 countries using publicly available national-level data, higher vaccine coverage, representing estimated proportion of people vaccinated during the last 14 years, was associated with lower COVID-19 deaths. The associations attenuated for both vaccine variables, and MCV coverage became no longer significant once adjusted for published estimates of the Healthcare access and quality index (HAQI), a validated summary score of healthcare quality indicators. The magnitude of association between BCG coverage and COVID-19 death rate varied according to HAQI, and MCV coverage had little effect on the association between BCG and COVID-19 deaths. While there are associations between live vaccine coverage and COVID-19 outcomes, the vaccine coverage variables themselves were strongly correlated with COVID-19 testing rate, HAQI and life expectancy. This suggests that the population-level associations may be further confounded by differences in structural health systems and policies. Cluster randomised studies of booster vaccines would be ideal to evaluate the efficacy of trained immunity in preventing COVID-19 infections and mortality in vaccinated populations and on community transmission.
Over the last year, COVID-19 has emerged as a highly transmissible and lethal infection. As we address this global pandemic, its disproportionate impact on Black, Indigenous, and Latinx communities has served to further magnify the health inequities in access and treatment that persist in our communities. These sobering realities should serve as the impetus for reexamination of the root causes of inequities in our health system. An increased commitment to strategic partnerships between academic and nonacademic health systems, industry, local communities, and policy-makers may serve as the foundation. Here, we examine the impact of the recent COVID-19 pandemic on health care inequities and propose a strategic roadmap for integration of clinical and translational research into our understanding of health inequities.
The COVID-19 pandemic changed the clinical research landscape in America. The most urgent challenge has been to rapidly review protocols submitted by investigators that were designed to learn more about or intervene in COVID-19. International Review Board (IRB) offices developed plans to rapidly review protocols related to the COVID-19 pandemic. An online survey was conducted with the IRB Directors at Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) institutions as well as two focus groups. Across the CTSA institutions, 66% reviewed COVID-19 protocols across all their IRB committees, 22% assigned protocols to just one committee, and 10% created a new committee for COVID-19 protocols. Fifty-two percent reported COVID-19 protocols were reviewed much faster, 41% somewhat faster, and 7% at the same speed as other protocols. Three percent reported that the COVID-19 protocols were reviewed with much better quality, 32% reported slightly better quality, and 65% reported the reviews were of the same quality as similar protocols before the COVID-19 pandemic. IRBs were able to respond to the emergent demand for reviewing COVID-19 protocols. Most of the increased review capacity was due to extra effort by IRB staff and members and not changes that will be easily implemented across all research going forward.
The recipients of NIH’s Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) have worked for over a decade to build informatics infrastructure in support of clinical and translational research. This infrastructure has proved invaluable for supporting responses to the current COVID-19 pandemic through direct patient care, clinical decision support, training researchers and practitioners, as well as public health surveillance and clinical research to levels that could not have been accomplished without the years of ground-laying work by the CTSAs. In this paper, we provide a perspective on our COVID-19 work and present relevant results of a survey of CTSA sites to broaden our understanding of the key features of their informatics programs, the informatics-related challenges they have experienced under COVID-19, and some of the innovations and solutions they developed in response to the pandemic. Responses demonstrated increased reliance by healthcare providers and researchers on access to electronic health record (EHR) data, both for local needs and for sharing with other institutions and national consortia. The initial work of the CTSAs on data capture, standards, interchange, and sharing policies all contributed to solutions, best illustrated by the creation, in record time, of a national clinical data repository in the National COVID-19 Cohort Collaborative (N3C). The survey data support seven recommendations for areas of informatics and public health investment and further study to support clinical and translational research in the post-COVID-19 era.
The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) emergency has led to numerous attempts to assess the impact of the pandemic on population mental health. The findings indicate an increase in depression and anxiety but have been limited by the lack of specificity about which aspects of the pandemic (e.g. viral exposure or economic threats) have led to adverse mental health outcomes.
Methods
Network analyses were conducted on data from wave 1 (N = 2025, recruited 23 March–28 March 2020) and wave 2 (N = 1406, recontacts 22 April–1 May 2020) of the COVID-19 Psychological Research Consortium Study, an online longitudinal survey of a representative sample of the UK adult population. Our models included depression (PHQ-9), generalized anxiety (GAD-7) and trauma symptoms (ITQ); and measures of COVID-specific anxiety, exposure to the virus in self and close others, as well as economic loss due to the pandemic.
Results
A mixed graphical model at wave 1 identified a potential pathway from economic adversity to anxiety symptoms via COVID-specific anxiety. There was no association between viral exposure and symptoms. Ising network models using clinical cut-offs for symptom scores at each wave yielded similar findings, with the exception of a modest effect of viral exposure on trauma symptoms at wave 1 only. Anxiety and depression symptoms formed separate clusters at wave 1 but not wave 2.
Conclusions
The psychological impact of the pandemic evolved in the early phase of lockdown. COVID-related anxiety may represent the mechanism through which economic consequences of the pandemic are associated with psychiatric symptoms.
Coronavirus-related conspiracy theories (CT) have been found to be associated with fewer pandemic containment-focused behaviors. It is therefore important to evaluate associated cognitive factors. We aimed to obtain first endorsement rate estimates of coronavirus-related conspiracy beliefs in a German-speaking general population sample and investigate whether delusion-related reasoning biases and paranoid ideation are associated with such beliefs.
Methods
We conducted a cross-sectional non-probability online study, quota-sampled for age and gender, with 1684 adults from Germany and German-speaking Switzerland. We assessed general and specific coronavirus conspiracy beliefs, reasoning biases [jumping-to-conclusions bias (JTC), liberal acceptance bias (LA), bias against disconfirmatory evidence (BADE), possibility of being mistaken (PM)], and paranoid ideation, using established experimental paradigms and self-report questionnaires.
Results
Around 10% of our sample endorsed coronavirus-related CT beliefs at least strongly, and another 20% to some degree. Overall endorsement was similar to levels observed in a UK-based study (Freeman et al., 2020b). Higher levels of conspiracy belief endorsement were associated with greater JTC, greater LA, greater BADE, higher PM, and greater paranoid ideation. Associations were mostly small to moderate and best described by non-linear relationships.
Conclusions
A noticeable proportion of our sample recruited in Germany and German-speaking Switzerland endorsed coronavirus conspiracy beliefs strongly or to some degree. These beliefs are associated with reasoning biases studied in delusion research. The non-probability sampling approach limits the generalizability of findings. Future longitudinal and experimental studies investigating conspiracy beliefs along the lines of reasoning are encouraged to validate reasoning aberrations as risk factors.
Data reported to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Healthcare Safety Network (CDC NHSN) were analyzed to understand the potential impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on central-line–associated bloodstream infections (CLABSIs) in acute-care hospitals. Descriptive analysis of the standardized infection ratio (SIR) was conducted by location, location type, geographic area, and bed size.
Transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) is possible among symptom-free individuals. Patients are avoiding medically necessary healthcare visits for fear of becoming infected in the healthcare setting. We screened 489 symptom-free healthcare workers for SARS-CoV-2 and found no positive results, strongly suggesting that the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 was <1%.
Pandemics and subsequent lifestyle restrictions such as ‘lockdowns’ may have unintended consequences, including alterations in body weight. This systematic review assesses the impact of pandemic confinement on body weight and identifies contributory factors. A comprehensive literature search was performed in seven electronic databases and in grey sources from their inception until 1 July 2020 with an update in PubMed and Scopus on 1 February 2021. In total, 2361 unique records were retrieved, of which forty-one studies were identified eligible: one case–control study, fourteen cohort and twenty-six cross-sectional studies (469, 362 total participants). The participants ranged in age from 6 to 86 years. The proportion of female participants ranged from 37 % to 100 %. Pandemic confinements were associated with weight gain in 7·2–72·4 % of participants and weight loss in 11·1–32·0 % of participants. Weight gain ranged from 0·6 (sd 1·3) to 3·0 (sd 2·4) kg, and weight loss ranged from 2·0 (sd 1·4) to 2·9 (sd 1·5) kg. Weight gain occurred predominantly in participants who were already overweight or obese. Associated factors included increased consumption of unhealthy food with changes in physical activity and altered sleep patterns. Weight loss during the pandemic was observed in individuals with previous low weight, and those who ate less and were more physically active before lockdown. Maintaining a stable weight was more difficult in populations with reduced income, particularly in individuals with lower educational attainment. The findings of this systematic review highlight the short-term effects of pandemic confinements.
Engineering controls play an important role in reducing the spread of severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2).1 Established technologies such as air filtration, and novel approaches such as ultraviolet (UV)-C light or plasma air ionization, have the potential to support the fight against the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic.2 We tested the efficacy of an air purification system (APS) combining UV-C light and high-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filtration in a controlled environment using SARS-CoV-2 as test organism. The APS successfully removed the virus from the air using UV-C light by itself and in combination with HEPA air filtration.