Understanding the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on paediatric non-COVID-19-related care, as well as patient and caregiver concerns and stressors, is critical for informing healthcare delivery. It was hypothesised that high care disruptions and psychological stress would be observed among paediatric and adult CHD patients in the early phase of the pandemic.

A cross-sectional, international, electronic survey study was completed. Eligible participants included parents of children with acquired or CHD, adults with CHD, or caregivers of adults with CHD.

A total of 1220 participants from 25 countries completed the survey from 16 April to 4 May, 2020. Cardiac care disruption was significant with 38% reporting delays in pre-pandemic scheduled cardiac surgeries and 46% experiencing postponed cardiac clinic visits. The majority of respondents (75%) endorsed moderate to high concern about the patient with heart disease becoming ill from COVID-19. Worry about returning for in-person care was significantly greater than worry of harm to patient due to postponed care. Clinically significant psychological stress was high across the sample including children (50%), adults with CHD (42%), and caregivers (42%).

The early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic contributed to considerable disruptions in cardiac care for patients with paediatric and adult CHD. COVID-19-related fears are notable with potential to impact willingness to return to in-person care. Psychological stress is also very high necessitating intervention. Further study of the impact of delays in care on clinical outcomes is warranted.

To describe epidemiologic and genomic characteristics of a severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) outbreak in a large skilled-nursing facility (SNF), and the strategies that controlled transmission.

This cohort study was conducted during March 22–May 4, 2020, among all staff and residents at a 780-bed SNF in San Francisco, California.

Contact tracing and symptom screening guided targeted testing of staff and residents; respiratory specimens were also collected through serial point prevalence surveys (PPSs) in units with confirmed cases. Cases were confirmed by real-time reverse transcription–polymerase chain reaction testing for SARS-CoV-2, and whole-genome sequencing (WGS) was used to characterize viral isolate lineages and relatedness. Infection prevention and control (IPC) interventions included restricting from work any staff who had close contact with a confirmed case; restricting movement between units; implementing surgical face masking facility-wide; and the use of recommended PPE (ie, isolation gown, gloves, N95 respirator and eye protection) for clinical interactions in units with confirmed cases.

Of 725 staff and residents tested through targeted testing and serial PPSs, 21 (3%) were SARS-CoV-2 positive: 16 (76%) staff and 5 (24%) residents. Fifteen cases (71%) were linked to a single unit. Targeted testing identified 17 cases (81%), and PPSs identified 4 cases (19%). Most cases (71%) were identified before IPC interventions could be implemented. WGS was performed on SARS-CoV-2 isolates from 4 staff and 4 residents: 5 were of Santa Clara County lineage and the 3 others were distinct lineages.

Early implementation of targeted testing, serial PPSs, and multimodal IPC interventions limited SARS-CoV-2 transmission within the SNF.

Care homes are vulnerable to widespread transmission of severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) with poor outcomes for staff and residents. Infection control interventions in care homes need to not only be effective in containing the spread of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) but also feasible to implement in this special setting which is both a healthcare institution and a home.

We developed an agent-based model that simulates the transmission dynamics of COVID-19 via contacts between individuals, including residents, staff members, and visitors in a care home setting. We explored a representative care home in Scotland in our base case and explore other care home setups in an uncertainty analysis. We evaluated the effectiveness of a range of intervention strategies in controlling the spread of COVID-19.

In the presence of the reference interventions that have been implemented in many care homes, including testing of new admissions, isolation of symptomatic residents, and restricted public visiting, routine testing of staff appears to be the most effective and practical approach. Routine testing of residents is no more effective as a reference strategy while routine testing of both staff and residents only shows a negligible additive effect. Modeling results are very sensitive to transmission probability per contact, but the qualitative finding is robust to varying parameter values in our uncertainty analysis.

Our model predictions suggest that routine testing should target staff in care homes in conjunction with adherence to strict hand hygiene and using personal protective equipment to reduce risk of transmission per contact.

Our aim was to estimate provisional willingness to receive a coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine, identify predictive socio-demographic factors, and, principally, determine potential causes in order to guide information provision.

A non-probability online survey was conducted (24th September−17th October 2020) with 5,114 UK adults, quota sampled to match the population for age, gender, ethnicity, income, and region. The Oxford COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy scale assessed intent to take an approved vaccine. Structural equation modelling estimated explanatory factor relationships.

71.7% (n=3,667) were willing to be vaccinated, 16.6% (n=849) were very unsure, and 11.7% (n=598) were strongly hesitant. An excellent model fit (RMSEA=0.05/CFI=0.97/TLI=0.97), explaining 86% of variance in hesitancy, was provided by beliefs about the collective importance, efficacy, side-effects, and speed of development of a COVID-19 vaccine. A second model, with reasonable fit (RMSEA=0.03/CFI=0.93/TLI=0.92), explaining 32% of variance, highlighted two higher-order explanatory factors: ‘excessive mistrust’ (r=0.51), including conspiracy beliefs, negative views of doctors, and need for chaos, and ‘positive healthcare experiences’ (r=−0.48), including supportive doctor interactions and good NHS care. Hesitancy was associated with younger age, female gender, lower income, and ethnicity, but socio-demographic information explained little variance (9.8%). Hesitancy was associated with lower adherence to social distancing guidelines.

COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy is relatively evenly spread across the population. Willingness to take a vaccine is closely bound to recognition of the collective importance. Vaccine public information that highlights prosocial benefits may be especially effective. Factors such as conspiracy beliefs that foster mistrust and erode social cohesion will lower vaccine up-take.

Freeman et al. (2020a, Psychological Medicine, 21, 1–13) argue that there is widespread support for coronavirus conspiracy theories in England. We hypothesise that their estimates of prevalence are inflated due to a flawed research design. When asking respondents to their survey to agree or disagree with pro-conspiracy statements, they used a biased set of response options: four agree options and only one disagree option (and no ‘don't know’ option). We also hypothesise that due to these flawed measures, the Freeman et al. approach under-estimates the strength of the correlation between conspiracy beliefs and compliance. Finally, we hypothesise that, due to reliance on bivariate correlations, Freeman et al. over-estimate the causal connection between conspiracy beliefs and compliance.

In a pre-registered study, we conduct an experiment embedded in a survey of a representative sample of 2057 adults in England (fieldwork: 16−19 July 2020).

Measured using our advocated ‘best practice’ approach (balanced response options, with a don't know option), prevalence of support for coronavirus conspiracies is only around five-eighths (62.3%) of that indicated by the Freeman et al. approach. We report mixed results on our correlation and causation hypotheses.

To avoid over-estimating prevalence of support for coronavirus conspiracies, we advocate using a balanced rather than imbalanced set of response options, and including a don't know option.

To evaluate emotional (depression) and behavioural (nutritional behaviours, physical activity status and sleep patterns) of Turkish adult individuals during the COVID-19 pandemic period.

Cross-sectional online survey. The participants filled out a questionnaire (developed by using Google Forms) that contained descriptive characteristics, nutritional behaviours, sleep patterns, physical activity status, anthropometric measurements, COVID-19-related level of knowledge and the questions of the Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale through e-mail or social media (WhatsApp).

Turkey.

Totally, 1120 adult individuals who completed an online survey between April and May 2020.

It was determined that 29·1 % of the individuals showed mild, 34·2 % moderate and 23·4 % severe depression symptoms during the pandemic period. A significant relationship was found between gender, age and educational status, marital status and depression levels of the individuals, respectively (χ2 = 35·292, χ2 = 103·46, χ2 = 24·524 and χ2 = 86·208, P < 0·05). The top three foods consumed most during the pandemic period are tea and coffee (66·6 %), pastry (e.g. cake and cookie) (56·4 %) and desserts (49·6 %). During the pandemic period, 42·5 % of the individuals stated that they slept more and 40·2 % stated that there was no change in their sleep patterns. Daily physical activity durations were determined as 8·25 ± 1·77 h for sleep, 4·21 ± 2·68 h for lying down, 5·42 ± 2·64 h for sitting and 6·16 ± 4·82 h for standing activities.

It was determined that the individuals showed different levels of depression symptoms during the pandemic period. Especially, carbohydrate food consumption increased, and physical activity status and sleep patterns changed due to the increased time spent sitting and lying.

To assess food insecurity and its association with changes in nutritional habits among Belgian adults during confinement due to COVID-19.

Three cross-sectional online health surveys were conducted during March–May 2020. Multinomial logistic regression models were used to determine associations between self-reported changes in fruit, vegetable, soft drink and sweet and salted snack consumption or weight as dependent variables and food insecurity indicators as independent variables, adjusted for gender, household composition, educational attainment and household income.

Belgium.

In total, 8640 adults recruited by convenience sampling.

About 10·4 % of Belgians often or sometimes feared food shortages, 5·0 % were often or sometimes short of food without money to buy more and 10·3 % often or sometimes could not afford to eat a healthy diet during confinement. These percentages were highest among single-parent families (26·7, 14·4 and 23·4 %, respectively). Adults who often or sometimes feared that food would run out during confinement had significantly higher odds of decreased v. unchanged fruits (3·53; 95 % CI = 2·06, 6·05) and vegetables (5·42; 95 % CI = 2·90, 10·11) consumption and significantly higher odds of increased v. unchanged soft drink consumption (3·79; 95 % CI = 2·20, 6·54). Similar results were found for adults who often or sometimes ran out of food and for adults who often or sometimes were not able to afford a healthy diet.

Food insecurity during the COVID-19 confinement measures in Belgium was associated with adverse changes in most dietary behaviours. A strong government response is needed to tackle malnutrition and food insecurity to protect public health from ongoing and future pandemics.

We assessed the magnitude of unidentified coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in our healthcare personnel (HCP) early in the COVID-19 pandemic, and we evaluated risk factors for infection to identify areas for improvement in infection control practice in a northern California academic medical center.

We reviewed anti–severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) receptor-binding domain (RBD) IgG serologic test results and self-reported risk factors for seropositivity among 10,449 asymptomatic HCP who underwent voluntary serology testing between April 20 and May 20, 2020.

In total, 136 employees (1.3%) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 IgG. This included 41 individuals (30.1%) who had previously tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 by nasopharyngeal reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) between March 13 and April 16, 2020. In multivariable analysis, employees of Hispanic ethnicity (odds ratio [OR], 2.01; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.22–3.46) and those working in environmental services, food services, or patient transport (OR, 4.81; 95% CI, 2.08–10.30) were at increased risk for seropositivity compared to other groups. Employees reporting a household contact with COVID-19 were also at higher risk for seropositivity (OR, 3.25; 95% CI, 1.47–6.44), but those with a work, exposure alone were not (OR, 1.27; 95% CI, 0.58–2.47). Importantly, one-third of seropositive individuals reported no prior symptoms, no suspected exposures, and no prior positive RT-PCR test.

In this study, SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity among HCP early in the northern California epidemic appeared to be quite low and was more likely attributable to community rather than occupational exposure.