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
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.
This SHEA white paper identifies knowledge gaps and challenges in healthcare epidemiology research related to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) with a focus on core principles of healthcare epidemiology. These gaps, revealed during the worst phases of the COVID-19 pandemic, are described in 10 sections: epidemiology, outbreak investigation, surveillance, isolation precaution practices, personal protective equipment (PPE), environmental contamination and disinfection, drug and supply shortages, antimicrobial stewardship, healthcare personnel (HCP) occupational safety, and return to work policies. Each section highlights three critical healthcare epidemiology research questions with detailed description provided in supplementary materials. This research agenda calls for translational studies from laboratory-based basic science research to well-designed, large-scale studies and health outcomes research. Research gaps and challenges related to nursing homes and social disparities are included. Collaborations across various disciplines, expertise and across diverse geographic locations will be critical.
Mass asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid amplified testing of healthcare personnel (HCP) was performed at a large tertiary health system. A low period-prevalence of positive HCP was observed. Of those who tested positive, half had mild symptoms in retrospect. HCP with even mild symptoms should be isolated and tested.
To investigate risk factors for healthcare worker (HCW) infection in viral respiratory pandemics: severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), SARS CoV-1, influenza A H1N1, influenza H5N1. To improve understanding of HCW risk management amid the COVID-19 pandemic.
Design:
Systematic review and meta-analysis.
Methods:
We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Cochrane CENTRAL databases from conception until July 2020 for studies comparing infected HCWs (cases) and noninfected HCWs (controls) and risk factors for infection. Outcomes included HCW types, infection prevention practices, and medical procedures. Pooled effect estimates with pathogen-specific stratified meta-analysis and inverse variance meta-regression analysis were completed. We used the GRADE framework to rate certainty of evidence. (PROSPERO no. CRD42020176232, 6 April 2020.)
Results:
In total, 54 comparative studies were included (n = 191,004 HCWs). Compared to nonfrontline HCWs, frontline HCWs were at increased infection risk (OR, 1.66; 95% CI, 1.24–2.22), and the risk was greater for HCWs involved in endotracheal intubations (risk difference, 35.2%; 95% CI, 21.4–47.9). Use of gloves, gown, surgical mask, N95 respirator, face protection, and infection training were each strongly protective against infection. Meta-regression showed reduced infection risk in frontline HCWs working in facilities with infection designated wards (OR, −1.04; 95% CI, −1.53 to −0.33, P = .004) and performing aerosol-generating medical procedures in designated centers (OR, −1.30; 95% CI, −2.52 to −0.08; P = .037).
Conclusions:
During highly infectious respiratory pandemics, widely available protective measures such as use of gloves, gowns, and face masks are strongly protective against infection and should be instituted, preferably in dedicated settings, to protect frontline HCW during waves of respiratory virus pandemics.
We quantitatively assessed the fit failure rate of N95 respirators according to the number of donning/doffing and hours worn.
Design:
Experimental study.
Setting:
A tertiary-care referral center in South Korea.
Participants:
In total, 10 infection control practitioners participated in the fit test.
Methods:
The first experiment comprised 4 consecutive 1-hour donnings and fit tests between each donning. The second experiment comprised 2 consecutive 3-hour donnings and fit tests between each donning. The final experiment comprised fit tests after an 1-hour donning or a 2-hour donning.
Results:
For 1-hour donnings, 60%, 70%, and 90% of the participants had fit failures after 2, 3, and 4 consecutive donnings, respectively. For 3-hour donnings, 50% had fit failure after the first donning and 70% had failures after 2 consecutive donnings. All participants passed the fit test after refitting whenever fit failure occurred. The final experiment showed that 50% had fit failure after a single use of 1 hour, and 30% had fit failure after a single use of 2 hours.
Conclusions:
High fit-failure rates were recorded after repeated donning and extended use of N95 respirators. Caution is needed for reuse (≥1 time) and extended use (≥1 hour) of N95 respirators in high-risk settings such as those involving aerosol-generating procedures. Although adequate refitting may recover the fit factor, the use of clean gloves and strict hand hygiene afterward should be ensured when touching the outer surfaces of N95 respirators for refitting.
Cognitive therapies are developed on the principle that specific cognitive appraisals are key determinants in the development and maintenance of mental health disorders. It is likely that particular appraisals of the coronavirus pandemic will have explanatory power for subsequent mental health outcomes in the general public. To enable testing of this hypothesis we developed a questionnaire assessing coronavirus-related cognitions.
Methods
12 285 participants completed online a 46-item pool of cognitions about coronavirus and six measures of different mental health problems. The sample was randomly split into derivation and validation samples. Exploratory factor analyses determined the factor structure, selection of items, and model fit in the derivation sample. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) then tested this model in the validation sample. Associations of the questionnaire with mental health outcomes were examined.
Results
The 26-item, seven-factor, Oxford Psychological Investigation of Coronavirus Questionnaire [TOPIC-Q] was developed. CFA demonstrated a good model fit (χ2 = 2108.43, df = 278, p < 0.001, comparative fit index (CFI) = 0.950, Tucker−Lewis index (TLI) = 0.942, root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) = 0.033, standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) = 0.038). The factors were: cognitions about (1) safety and vulnerability, (2) negative long-term impact, (3) having the virus, (4) spreading the virus, (5) social judgment, (6) negative self, and (7) being targeted. The questionnaire explained significant variance in depression (45.8%), social anxiety (37.3%), agoraphobia (23.2%), paranoia (27.3%), post-traumatic stress disorder (57.1%), and panic disorder (31.4%). Cognitions about negative long-term impact had the greatest explanatory power across disorders.
Conclusions
TOPIC-Q provides a method to assess appraisals of the pandemic, which is likely to prove helpful both in longitudinal studies assessing mental health outcomes and in delivery of psychological therapy.
The aim of this study was to investigate the changes in Chinese residents’ psychological state and its influencing factors after the Wuhan shutdown on January 23, 2020.
Methods:
Two surveys were conducted on February 1-5 and February 20-24, separately, using an online self-administrated questionnaire among 3145 and 3814 participants, respectively. Subjective indicators of daily-life changes include level of attention, risk of infection, impact of daily life, self-perceived health status, and mental health help-seeking. Individual scores on changes in anxiety, depression, and stress were generated by 6-item, 4-item, and 3-item questions. A multivariate regression model was fitted in each survey, separately and combined.
Results:
A total of 6959 residents participated in the study, with 32.78% male and 67.22% female, people living in Wuhan and other cities in Hubei Province accounted for 25.22% and 18.85%, respectively. One week after the Wuhan shutdown, their anxiety, depression, and stress had all increased. Compared with the first survey, the changes in the scores of anxiety, depression, and stress in the second survey were decreased (β = −1.220, −0.798, and −0.623, all P < 0.001). The level of attention, risk of infection, and self-perceived health status tended to be positively associated with the changes in the scores of anxiety, depression, and stress.
Conclusions:
The study showed that the lives and psychological conditions of residents had undergone negative changes after the Wuhan shutdown, but the measures taken during this period were effective. These results may provide guidance for public health policies in other countries and regions.
The COVID-19 pandemic is giving way to increases in military engagements in health-related activities at the domestic level. This article situates these engagements amid issues of continuity, change, and resistance in contemporary redefinitions of military health roles. It positions the COVID-19 pandemic as a pivotal moment in global health military practice. I identify three emerging trends within national military responses to COVID-19: (1) Minimal technical military support; (2) Blended civil-military responses; and (3) Military-led responses. The dynamics that underpin each type of military involvement follow context-specific military political legacies. These levels of involvement also relate to national public health approaches and the degree of capacity within health care systems. Each identified trend points towards specific trajectories for the future co-constitution of global and local civil-military engagements.
This study was a retrospective multicentre cohort study of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) diagnosed at 24 hospitals in Jiangsu province, China as of 15 March 2020. The primary outcome was the occurrence of acute respiratory failure during hospital stay. Of 625 patients, 56 (9%) had respiratory failure. Some selected demographic, epidemiologic, clinical and laboratory features as well as radiologic features at admission and treatment during hospitalisation were significantly different in patients with and without respiratory failure. The multivariate logistic analysis indicated that age (in years) (odds ratio [OR], 1.07; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.03–1.10; P = 0.0002), respiratory rate (breaths/minute) (OR, 1.23; 95% CI: 1.08–1.40; P = 0.0020), lymphocyte count (109/l) (OR, 0.18; 95% CI: 0.05–0.69; P = 0.0157) and pulmonary opacity score (per 5%) (OR, 1.38; 95% CI: 1.19–1.61; P < 0.0001) at admission were associated with the occurrence of respiratory failure. Older age, increased respiratory rate, decreased lymphocyte count and greater pulmonary opacity score at admission were independent risk factors of respiratory failure in patients with COVID-19. Patients having these risk factors need to be intensively managed during hospitalisation.
SARS-CoV2 infects respiratory epithelial cells via its cellular receptor angiotensin-converting enzyme 2, causing a viral pneumonia with pronounced inflammation resulting in significant damage to the lungs and other organ systems, including the kidneys, though symptoms and disease severity are quite variable depending on the intensity of exposure and presence of underlying conditions that may affect the immune response. The resulting disease, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), can cause multi-organ system dysfunction in patients requiring hospitalisation and intensive care treatment. Serious infections like COVID-19 often negatively affect nutritional status, and the resulting nutritional deficiencies may increase disease severity and impair recovery. One example is the viral infection measles, where associated vitamin A (VA) deficiency increases disease severity and appropriately timed supplementation during recovery reduces mortality and hastens recovery. VA may play a similar role in COVID-19. First, VA is important in maintaining innate and adaptive immunity to promote clearance of a primary infection as well as minimise risks from secondary infections. Second, VA plays a unique role in the respiratory tract, minimising damaging inflammation, supporting repair of respiratory epithelium and preventing fibrosis. Third, VA deficiency may develop during COVID-19 due to specific effects on lung and liver stores caused by inflammation and impaired kidney function, suggesting that supplements may be needed to restore adequate status. Fourth, VA supplementation may counteract adverse effects of SARS-CoV2 on the angiotensin system as well as minimises adverse effects of some COVID-19 therapies. Evaluating interactions of SARS-CoV2 infection with VA metabolism may thus provide improved COVID-19 therapy.
Since December 2019, the clinical symptoms of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and its complications are evolving. As the number of COVID patients requiring positive pressure ventilation is increasing, so is the incidence of subcutaneous emphysema (SE). We report 10 patients of COVID-19, with SE and pneumomediastinum. The mean age of the patients was 59 ± 8 years (range, 23–75). Majority of them were men (80%), and common symptoms were dyspnoea (100%), fever (80%) and cough (80%). None of them had any underlying lung disorder. All patients had acute respiratory distress syndrome on admission, with a median PaO2/FiO2 ratio of 122.5. Eight out of ten patients had spontaneous pneumomediastinum on their initial chest x-ray in the emergency department. The median duration of assisted ventilation before the development of SE was 5.5 days (interquartile range, 5–10 days). The highest positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) was 10 cmH2O for patients recieving invasive mechanical ventilation, while 8 cmH2O was the average PEEP in patients who had developed subcutaneous emphysema on non-invasive ventilation. All patients received corticosteroids while six also received tocilizumab, and seven received convalescent plasma therapy, respectively. Seven patients died during their hospital stay. All patients either survivor or non-survivor had prolonged hospital stay with an average of 14 days (range 8−25 days). Our findings suggest that it is lung damage secondary to inflammatory response due to COVID-19 triggered by the use of positive pressure ventilation which resulted in this complication. We conclude that the development of spontaneous pneumomediastinum and SE whenever present, is associated with poor outcome in critically ill COVID-19 ARDS patients.
Research within security studies has struggled to determine whether infectious disease (ID) represents an existential threat to national and international security. With the emergence of SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19), it is imperative to reexamine the relationship between ID and global security. This article addresses the specific threat to security from COVID-19, asking, “Is COVID-19 a threat to national and international security?” To investigate this question, this article uses two theoretical approaches: human security and biosecurity. It argues that COVID-19 is a threat to global security by the ontological crisis posed to individuals through human security theory and through high politics, as evidenced by biosecurity. By viewing security threats through the lens of the individual and the state, it becomes clear that ID should be considered an international security threat. This article examines the relevant literature and applies the theoretical framework to a case study analysis focused on the United States.
Is there such a thing as corona solidarity? Does voluntary mutual aid solve the problems caused by COVID-19? I argue that the answer to the first question is “yes” and to the second “no.” Not that the answer to the second question could not, in an ideal world, be “yes,” too. It is just that in this world of global capitalism and everybody looking out for themselves, the kind of communal warmth celebrated by the media either does not actually exist or is too weak to rule out the uglier manifestations of group togetherness, driven partly by the pandemic. I make my point by offering two approaches to understanding what solidarity is. According to the first, it is essentially partiality: “us” against “them.” According to the second, it can be many things, including the impartial promotion of the good of others. I show that the second reading would make it possible for mutual aid to solve the problems caused by COVID-19 and other crises. This would happen at the expense of conceptual clarity, but that is a minor concern. The major concern is that the more natural manifestations of group togetherness are incited by negative feelings. This is par for the course within the narrower reading of solidarity, but it means that the potentially positive ideas of identity, care, communal values, and special relations are displayed in violent confrontation instead of a calm recognition of the threats that most of us face together.
Bergamo province was badly hit by the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) epidemic. We organised a public-funded, multidisciplinary follow-up programme for COVID-19 patients discharged from the emergency department or from the inpatient wards of ‘Papa Giovanni XXIII’ Hospital, the largest public hospital in the area. As of 31 July, the first 767 patients had completed the first post-discharge multidisciplinary assessment. Patients entered our programme at a median time of 81 days after discharge. Among them, 51.4% still complained of symptoms, most commonly fatigue and exertional dyspnoea, and 30.5% were still experiencing post-traumatic psychological consequences. Impaired lung diffusion was found in 19%. Seventeen per cent had D-dimer values two times above the threshold for diagnosis of pulmonary embolism (two unexpected and clinically silent pulmonary thrombosis were discovered by investigating striking D-dimer elevation). Survivors of COVID-19 exhibit a complex array of symptoms, whose common underlying pathology, if any, has still to be elucidated: a multidisciplinary approach is fundamental, to address the different problems and to look for effective solutions.
It remains unclear whether the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is having an impact on suicide rates (SR). Economic insecurity and mental disorders are risk factors for suicide, which may increase during the pandemic.
Methods
Data on suicide events in a major city in Germany, and the corresponding life years (LY) were provided by the local authorities. For the year 2020, periods without restrictions on freedom of movement and social contact were compared with periods of moderate and severe COVID-19 restrictions. To avoid distortions due to seasonal fluctuations and linear time trends, suicide risk during the COVID-19 pandemic was compared with data from 2010 to 2019 using an interrupted time series analysis.
Results
A total of 643 suicides were registered and 6 032 690 LY were spent between 2010 and 2020. Of these, 53 suicides and 450 429 LY accounted for the year 2020.
In 2020, SR (suicides per 100 000 LY) were lower in periods with severe COVID-19 restrictions (SR = 7.2, χ2 = 4.033, p = 0.045) compared with periods without restrictions (SR = 16.8). A comparison with previous years showed that this difference was caused by unusually high SR before the imposition of restrictions, while SR during the pandemic were within the trend corridor of previous years (expected suicides = 32.3, observed suicides = 35; IRR = 1.084, p = 0.682).
Conclusions
SR during COVID-19 pandemic are in line with the trend in previous years. Careful monitoring of SR in the further course of the COVID-19 crisis is urgently needed. The findings have regional reference and should not be over-generalised.
To evaluate otorhinolaryngological manifestations of coronavirus disease 2019 infection and the time required for their resolution.
Methods
A prospective analysis was conducted of coronavirus disease 2019 patients presenting from 1 April 2020 to 30 July 2020. The otorhinolaryngological manifestations were evaluated based on patient history. The time required for symptom resolution was evaluated separately for intensive care unit and non-intensive care unit patients.
Results
A total of 600 patients were included in the study; 13.3 per cent required the intensive care unit and 2.2 per cent expired. The otorhinolaryngological manifestations were: sore throat (88 per cent), fever (78.8 per cent), anosmia or hyposmia (63.6 per cent), ageusia or hypogeusia (63.5 per cent), rhinorrhoea (51.3 per cent), nasal obstruction (33.5 per cent), sneezing (30.3 per cent), and breathing difficulty (18.6 per cent). The time required for symptom resolution was longest for breathing difficulty (23.6 days for intensive care unit and 8.2 days for non-intensive care unit patients).
Conclusion
Otorhinolaryngological symptoms are one of the main presentations of coronavirus disease 2019 infection. The increased prevalence of medical co-morbidities in patients requiring intensive care unit and in deceased patients is also highlighted.
As the on-going severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 pandemic, we aimed to understand whether economic reopening (EROP) significantly influenced coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) incidence. COVID-19 data from Texas Health and Human Services between March and August 2020 were analysed. COVID-19 incidence rate (cases per 100 000 population) was compared to statewide for selected urban and rural counties. We used joinpoint regression analysis to identify changes in trends of COVID-19 incidence and interrupted time-series analyses for potential impact of state EROP orders on COVID-19 incidence. We found that the incidence rate increased to 145.1% (95% CI 8.4–454.5%) through 4th April, decreased by 15.5% (95% CI −24.4 −5.9%) between 5th April and 30th May, increased by 93.1% (95% CI 60.9–131.8%) between 31st May and 11th July and decreased by 13.2% (95% CI −22.2 −3.2%) after 12 July 2020. The study demonstrates the EROP policies significantly impacted trends in COVID-19 incidence rates and accounted for increases of 129.9 and 164.6 cases per 100 000 populations for the 24- or 17-week model, respectively, along with other county and state reopening ordinances. The incidence rate decreased sharply after 12th July considering the emphasis on a facemask or covering requirement in business and social settings.
Individuals with mental illness have poorer physical health, nutritional status, and lowered life expectancy. Optimising their physical and nutritional status has become an increasingly important therapeutic goal. Current experience with COVID-19 has further emphasised the susceptibility to physical illness and poorer outcomes amongst individuals with mental illness and those who are nutritionally compromised. Although life as we knew it has been suspended until the widespread roll-out of a vaccine, individuals can take immediate action to improve physical and mental health by attending to and optimising their nutritional well-being. Clinicians within mental health services have a crucial role to play in assisting such change, and reminding their patients of the importance of pursuing a healthy and balanced diet.
Hispanic/Latino populations are disproportionately impacted by coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in the United States. The impact of state reopening on COVID-19 in this population after stay-at-home orders is unknown. We evaluated the incidence, prevalence and trends during reopening of severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) at a major federally qualified health centre in Providence, Rhode Island. A total of 14 505 patients were tested for SARS-CoV-2 from 19 March to 18 August 2020, of which, data on 13 318 (91.8%) patients were available; 70.0% were Hispanic/Latino, and 2905 were positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection. The urban Hispanic/Latino population was almost five times more likely to test positive for SARS-CoV-2 (risk ratio 4.97, 95% CI 2.59–9.53, P < 0.001) compared to non-Hispanic White. The positivity rates among the urban Hispanic/Latino population remained >10% during all phases of reopening. The trends of the incidence rates showed similar associations to those we observed for positivity rates. Public health interventions to address SARS-CoV-2 in Hispanic/Latino communities are urgently needed, even in latter phases of state reopening.