Diagnostic testing is an important tool to combat the COVID-19 pandemic, yet access to and uptake of testing vary widely 3 years into the pandemic. The WHO recommends the use of COVID-19 self-testing as an option to help expand testing access. We aimed to calculate the cost of providing COVID-19 self-testing across countries and distribution modalities.
We estimated economic costs from the provider perspective to calculate the total cost and the cost per self-test kit distributed for three scenarios that differed by costing period (pilot, annual), the number of tests distributed (actual, planned, scaled assuming an epidemic peak) and self-test kit costs (pilot purchase price, 50% reduction).
We used data collected between August and December 2022 in Brazil, Georgia, Malaysia, Ethiopia and the Philippines from pilot implementation studies designed to provide COVID-19 self-tests in a variety of settings—namely, workplace and healthcare facilities.
Across all five countries, 173 000 kits were distributed during pilot implementation with the cost/test distributed ranging from $2.44 to $12.78. The cost/self-test kit distributed was lowest in the scenario that assumed implementation over a longer period (year), with higher test demand (peak) and a test kit price reduction of 50% ($1.04–3.07). Across all countries and scenarios, test procurement occupied the greatest proportion of costs: 58–87% for countries with off-site self-testing (outside the workplace, for example, home) and 15–50% for countries with on-site self-testing (at the workplace). Staffing was the next key cost driver, particularly for distribution modalities that had on-site self-testing (29–35%) versus off-site self-testing (7–27%).
Our results indicate that it is likely to cost between $2.44 and $12.78 per test to distribute COVID-19 self-tests across common settings in five heterogeneous countries. Cost-effectiveness analyses using these results will allow policymakers to make informed decisions on optimally scaling up COVID-19 self-test distribution programmes across diverse settings and evolving needs.
We conducted an updated systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the effect of colchicine treatment on clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19.
Systematic review and meta-analysis.
We searched PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, medRxiv and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to January 2023.
All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that investigated the efficacy of colchicine treatment in patients with COVID-19 as compared with placebo or standard of care were included. There were no language restrictions. Studies that used colchicine prophylactically were excluded.
We extracted all information relating to the study characteristics, such as author names, location, study population, details of intervention and comparator groups, and our outcomes of interest. We conducted our meta-analysis by using RevMan V.5.4 with risk ratio (RR) and mean difference as the effect measures.
We included 23 RCTs (28 249 participants) in this systematic review. Colchicine did not decrease the risk of mortality (RR 0.99; 95% CI 0.93 to 1.05; I2=0%; 20 RCTs, 25 824 participants), with the results being consistent among both hospitalised and non-hospitalised patients. There were no significant differences between the colchicine and control groups in other relevant clinical outcomes, including the incidence of mechanical ventilation (RR 0.75; 95% CI 0.48 to 1.18; p=0.22; I2=40%; 8 RCTs, 13 262 participants), intensive care unit admission (RR 0.77; 95% CI 0.49 to 1.22; p=0.27; I2=0%; 6 RCTs, 961 participants) and hospital admission (RR 0.74; 95% CI 0.48 to 1.16; p=0.19; I2=70%; 3 RCTs, 8572 participants).
The results of this meta-analysis do not support the use of colchicine as a treatment for reducing the risk of mortality or improving other relevant clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. However, RCTs investigating early treatment with colchicine (within 5 days of symptom onset or in patients with early-stage disease) are needed to fully elucidate the potential benefits of colchicine in this patient population.
CRD42022369850.
The study aims to investigate the perceptions of patients with thyroid cancer on the potential impact of diagnosis and treatment delays during the COVID-19 pandemic.
This study involved qualitative semi-structured telephone interviews. The interviews were transcribed verbatim, analysed using the thematic framework analysis method and reported using the Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research.
Participants in the study were treated and/or managed at hospital sites across New South Wales and Victoria, Australia.
17 patients with thyroid cancer were interviewed and included in the analysis (14 females and 3 males).
The delays experienced by patients ranged from 12 months. The patients reported about delays to diagnostic tests, delays to surgery and radioactive iodine treatment, perceived disease progression and, for some, the financial burden of choosing to go through private treatment to minimise the delay. Most patients also reported not wanting to experience delays any longer than they did, due to unease and anxiety.
This study highlights an increased psychological burden in patients with thyroid cancer who experienced delayed diagnosis and/or treatment during COVID-19. The impacts experienced by patients during this time may be similar in the case of other unexpected delays and highlight the need for regular clinical review during delays to diagnosis or treatment.
The paediatric population represents a quarter of the world’s population, and like adult patients, they have also suffered immeasurably from the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Immunisation is an effective strategy for reducing the number of COVID-19 cases. With the advancements in vaccination for younger age groups, parents or guardians have raised doubts and questions about adverse effects and the number of doses required. Therefore, systematic reviews focusing on this population are needed to consolidate evidence that can help in decision-making and clinical practice. This protocol aims to assess the safety of COVID-19 vaccines in paediatric patients and evaluate the correlation between the number of vaccine doses and side effects.
We will search the PubMed, ClinicalTrials.gov, Web of Science, Embase, CINAHL, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature, Scopus and Cochrane databases for randomised and quasi-randomised clinical trials that list the adverse effects of the COVID-19 vaccine and assess its correlation with the number of doses, without any language restrictions. Two reviewers will select the studies according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, extract data and asses for risk of bias using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. The Review Software Manager (RevMan V.5.4.1) will be used to synthesise the data. We will use the Working Group’s Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluations to grade the strength of the evidence of the results.
Formal ethical approval is not required as no primary data are collected. This systematic review will be disseminated through a peer-reviewed publication.
CRD42023390077.
Government guidance to manage COVID-19 was challenged by low levels of health and digital literacy and lack of information in different languages. ‘Covid Confidence’ sessions (CC-sessions) were evaluated to assess their effectiveness in counteracting misinformation and provide an alternative source of information about the pandemic.
We worked with community anchor organisations to co-ordinate online CC-sessions serving three economically deprived, ethnically mixed, neighbourhoods. We conducted a qualitative, participatory process evaluation, in tandem with the CC-sessions to explore whether a popular opinion leader/local champion model of health promotion could mobilise pandemic responses. Group discussions were supplemented by final interviews to assess changes in community capacity to mobilise.
Sheffield, England, September 2020 to November 2021.
Community leaders, workers and volunteers representing a variety of local organisations resulted in 314 attendances at CC-sessions. A group of local health experts helped organisations make sense of government information.
CC-sessions fostered cross-organisational relationships, which enabled rapid community responses. Community champions successfully adapted information to different groups. Listening, identifying individual concerns and providing practical support enabled people to make informed decisions on managing exposure and getting vaccinated. Some people were unable to comply with self-isolation due to overcrowded housing and the need to work. Communities drew on existing resources and networks.
CC-sessions promoted stronger links between community organisations which reduced mistrust of government information. In future, government efforts to manage pandemics should partner with communities to codesign and implement prevention and control measures.
To assess the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on people experiencing incarceration (PEI), focusing particularly on clinical outcomes compared with the general population.
Systematic review with narrative synthesis in accordance with the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination’s good practice guidelines.
Medline, Social Policy and Practice, Criminology Connection, ASSIA, EMBASE, SCOPUS, Web Of Science, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Cochrane COVID-19 reviews, COVID-19 Evidence Reviews and L*OVE COVID-19 Evidence databases were searched up to 21 October 2022.
We included studies presenting data specific to adults ≥18 years experiencing incarceration, with exposure to SARS-CoV-2 infection. All studies with a comparison group, regardless of study design and country were included. Studies with no comparison group data or not measuring clinical outcomes/health inequalities were excluded. Studies focussing on detained migrants, forensic hospitals, prison staff and those not in English were also excluded.
Two reviewers extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Data underwent narrative synthesis using a framework analysis based on the objectives, for infection rates, testing, hospitalisation, mortality, vaccine uptake rates and mental health outcomes. There was no scope for meta-analysis, due to the heterogeneity of evidence available.
4516 references were exported from the databases and grey literature searched, of which 55 met the inclusion criteria. Most were from the USA and were retrospective analyses. Compared with the general population, PEI were usually found to have higher rates of SARS-CoV-2 infection and poorer clinical outcomes. Conflicting data were found regarding vaccine uptake and testing rates compared with the general population. The mental health of PEI declined during the pandemic. Certain subgroups were more adversely affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, such as ethnic minorities and older PEI.
PEI have poorer COVID-19 clinical outcomes than the general public, as shown by largely low-quality heterogenous evidence. Further high-quality research of continuing clinical outcomes and appropriate mitigating interventions is required to assess downstream effects of the pandemic on PEI. However, performing such research in the context of incarceration facilities is highly complex and potentially challenging. Prioritisation of resources for this vulnerable group should be a focus of national policy in the event of future pandemics.
CRD42022296968.
This study aimed to evaluate the predictive value of admission D-dimer levels for in-hospital mortality in patients with COVID-19 and acute ischaemic stroke.
Cohort (prospective).
Tertiary referral hospital in the capital city of Indonesia conducted from June to December 2021.
60 patients with acute ischaemic stroke and COVID-19 were included. Patients were classified into D-dimer groups (low and high) according to a 2 110 ng/mL cut-off value, determined via receiver operating characteristic analysis.
The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality, with admission D-dimer levels as the major predictor. Secondary outcomes included associations between other demographic and clinical variables and the admission D-dimer value. Kaplan-Meier method was used to carry out survival analysis, with univariable and multivariable Cox regression performed to assess the association of D-dimer levels and other confounding variables (including demographic, clinical and laboratory parameters) with in-hospital mortality.
The findings demonstrated an association between elevated admission D-dimer levels (≥2 110 ng/mL) and an increased likelihood of death during hospitalisation. The adjusted HR was 14.054 (95% CI 1.710 to 115.519; p=0.014), demonstrating an increase in mortality risk after accounting for confounders such as age and diabetes history. Other significant predictors of mortality included a history of diabetes and increased white blood cell count.
Admission D-dimer levels may be a useful predictive indicator for the likelihood of death during hospitalisation in individuals with COVID-19 and acute ischaemic stroke.
Assessing excess deaths from benchmarks across causes of death during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic and identifying morbidities most frequently mentioned alongside COVID-19 deaths in the death record.
Descriptive study of death records between 11 March 2020 and 27 July 2020, from the New York City Bureau of Vital Statistics. Mortality counts and percentages were compared with the average for the same calendar period of the previous 2 years. Distributions of morbidities from among forty categories of conditions were generated citywide and by sex, race/ethnicity and four age groups. Causes of death were assumed to follow Poisson processes for Z-score construction.
Within the study period, 46 563 all-cause deaths were reported; 132.9% higher than the average for the same period of the previous 2 years (19 989). Of those 46 563 records, 19 789 (42.5%) report COVID-19 as underlying cause of death. COVID-19 was the most prevalent cause across all demographics, with respiratory conditions (prominently pneumonia), hypertension and diabetes frequently mentioned morbidities. Black non-Hispanics had greater proportions of mentions of pneumonia, hypertension, and diabetes. Hispanics had the largest proportion of COVID-19 deaths (52.9%). Non-COVID-19 excess deaths relative to the previous 2-year averages were widely reported.
Mortality directly due to COVID-19 was accompanied by significant increases across most other causes from their reference averages, potentially suggesting a sizable COVID-19 death undercount. Indirect effects due to COVID-19 may partially account for some increases, but findings are hardly dispositive. Unavailability of vaccines for the time period precludes any impact over excess deaths. Respiratory and cardiometabolic-related conditions were most frequently reported among COVID-19 deaths across demographic characteristics.
The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on adolescent’s mental health and relationships has received growing attention, yet the challenges and support needs of adolescents living in existing deprivation are not well understood. The current qualitative study, part of a broader project cocreating mental health and life-skill workshops with young people, documents adolescents’ lived experience and support needs 4 years on from the COVID-19 pandemic.
20 semi-structured interviews and 6 focus groups were transcribed and thematically analysed in NVivo V.12 to inform codesigned workshops to support adolescents’ needs.
Islington borough in North London, United Kingdom.
20 adolescents aged 14–25 years (mean=18.3; 60% female, 60% white) from Islington with a history of difficulties (eg, mental health, deprivation, court order) were referred by Islington local authority teams to our study.
Thematic analyses revealed eight themes on adolescents’ COVID-19 experiences and five associated suggestions on ‘support needs’: health challenges and support; relationships and support; routines and support; educational challenges and learning support; inequality and support; distrust; loss of opportunities and grief.
In our qualitative study, adolescents spoke of positive reflections, challenges, and need for support 4 years on from the COVID-19 pandemic. Many adolescents shared their lived experiences for the first time with someone else and wished they would have the space and time to acknowledge this period of loss. Adolescents living with existing inequality and deprivation before the pandemic have reported sustained and exacerbated impacts during the pandemic, hence coproduced support for adolescents should be a priority.
SCALE-UP II aims to investigate the effectiveness of population health management interventions using text messaging (TM), chatbots and patient navigation (PN) in increasing the uptake of at-home COVID-19 testing among patients in historically marginalised communities, specifically, those receiving care at community health centres (CHCs).
The trial is a multisite, randomised pragmatic clinical trial. Eligible patients are >18 years old with a primary care visit in the last 3 years at one of the participating CHCs. Demographic data will be obtained from CHC electronic health records. Patients will be randomised to one of two factorial designs based on smartphone ownership. Patients who self-report replying to a text message that they have a smartphone will be randomised in a 2x2x2 factorial fashion to receive (1) chatbot or TM; (2) PN (yes or no); and (3) repeated offers to interact with the interventions every 10 or 30 days. Participants who do not self-report as having a smartphone will be randomised in a 2x2 factorial fashion to receive (1) TM with or without PN; and (2) repeated offers every 10 or 30 days. The interventions will be sent in English or Spanish, with an option to request at-home COVID-19 test kits. The primary outcome is the proportion of participants using at-home COVID-19 tests during a 90-day follow-up. The study will evaluate the main effects and interactions among interventions, implementation outcomes and predictors and moderators of study outcomes. Statistical analyses will include logistic regression, stratified subgroup analyses and adjustment for stratification factors.
The protocol was approved by the University of Utah Institutional Review Board. On completion, study data will be made available in compliance with National Institutes of Health data sharing policies. Results will be disseminated through study partners and peer-reviewed publications.
ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT05533918 and
Time is a fundamental component of acute stroke and transient ischaemic attack (TIA) care, thus minimising prehospital delays is a crucial part of the stroke chain of survival. COVID-19 restrictions were introduced in Ireland in response to the pandemic, which resulted in major societal changes. However, current research on the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on prehospital care for stroke/TIA is limited to early COVID-19 waves. Thus, we aimed to investigate the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on ambulance time intervals and suspected stroke/TIA call volume for adults with suspected stroke and TIA in Ireland, from 2018 to 2021.
We conducted a secondary data analysis with a quasi-experimental design.
We used data from the National Ambulance Service in Ireland. We defined the COVID-19 period as ‘1 March 2020–31 December 2021’ and the pre-COVID-19 period ‘1 January 2018–29 February 2020’.
We compared five ambulance time intervals: ‘allocation performance’, ‘mobilisation performance’, ‘response time’, ‘on scene time’ and ‘conveyance time’ between the two periods using descriptive and regression analyses. We also compared call volume for suspected stroke/TIA between the pre-COVID-19 and COVID-19 periods using interrupted time series analysis.
We included all suspected stroke/TIA cases ≥18 years who called the National Ambulance Service from 2018 to 2021.
40 004 cases were included: 19 826 in the pre-COVID-19 period and 19 731 in the COVID-19 period. All ambulance time intervals increased during the pandemic period compared with pre-COVID-19 (p
A ’shock' like a pandemic has a negative impact on the prehospital phase of care for time-sensitive conditions like stroke/TIA. System evaluation and public awareness campaigns are required to ensure maintenance of prehospital stroke pathways amidst future healthcare crises. Thus, this research is relevant to routine and extraordinary prehospital service planning.
Early evidence on COVID-19 vaccine efficacy came from randomised trials. Many important questions subsequently about vaccine effectiveness (VE) have been addressed using real-world studies (RWS) and have informed most vaccination policies globally. As the questions about VE have evolved during the pandemic so have data, study design, and analytical choices. This scoping review aims to characterise this evolution and provide insights for future pandemic planning—specifically, what kinds of questions are asked at different stages of a pandemic, and what data infrastructure and methods are used?
We will identify relevant studies in the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health VIEW-hub database, which curates both published and preprint VE RWS identified from PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, the WHO COVID Database, MMWR, Eurosurveillance, medRxiv, bioRxiv, SSRN, Europe PMC, Research Square, Knowledge Hub, and Google. We will include RWS of COVID-19 VE that reported COVID-19-specific or all-cause mortality (coded as ‘death’ in the ‘effectiveness studies’ data set).
Information on study characteristics; study context; data sources; design and analytic methods that address confounding will be extracted by single reviewer and checked for accuracy and discussed in a small group setting by methodological and analytic experts. A timeline mapping approach will be used to capture the evolution of this body of literature.
By describing the evolution of RWS of VE through the COVID-19 pandemic, we will help identify options for VE studies and inform policy makers on the minimal data and analytic infrastructure needed to support rapid RWS of VE in future pandemics and of healthcare strategies more broadly.
As data is in the public domain, ethical approval is not required. Findings of this study will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications, conference presentations, and working-papers to policy makers.
While glucocorticoid (GC) treatment initiated for COVID-19 reduces mortality, it is unclear whether GC treatment prior to COVID-19 affects mortality. Long-term GC use raises infection and thromboembolic risks. We investigated if patients with oral GC use prior to COVID-19 had increased mortality overall and by selected causes.
Population-based observational cohort study.
Population-based register data in Sweden.
All patients infected with COVID-19 in Sweden from January 2020 to November 2021 (n=1 200 153).
Any prior oral GC use was defined as ≥1 GC prescription during 12 months before index. High exposure was defined as ≥2 GC prescriptions with a cumulative prednisolone dose ≥750 mg or equivalent during 6 months before index. GC users were compared with COVID-19 patients who had not received GCs within 12 months before index. We used Cox proportional hazard models and 1:2 propensity score matching to estimate HRs and 95% CIs, controlling for the same confounders in all analyses.
3378 deaths occurred in subjects with any prior GC exposure (n=48 806; 6.9%) and 14 850 among non-exposed (n=1 151 347; 1.3%). Both high (HR 1.98, 95% CI 1.87 to 2.09) and any exposure (1.58, 1.52 to 1.65) to GCs were associated with overall death. Deaths from pulmonary embolism, sepsis and COVID-19 were associated with high GC exposure and, similarly but weaker, with any exposure. High exposure to GCs was associated with increased deaths caused by stroke and myocardial infarction.
Patients on oral GC treatment prior to COVID-19 have increased mortality, particularly from pulmonary embolism, sepsis and COVID-19.
Dipeptidase-1 (DPEP-1) is a recently discovered leucocyte adhesion receptor for neutrophils and monocytes in the lungs and kidneys and serves as a potential therapeutic target to attenuate inflammation in moderate-to-severe COVID-19. We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the DPEP-1 inhibitor, LSALT peptide, to prevent specific organ dysfunction in patients hospitalised with COVID-19.
Phase 2a randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blinded, trial.
Hospitals in Canada, Turkey and the USA.
A total of 61 subjects with moderate-to-severe COVID-19.
Randomisation to LSALT peptide 5 mg intravenously daily or placebo for up to 14 days.
The primary endpoint was the proportion of subjects alive and free of respiratory failure and/or the need for renal replacement therapy (RRT). Numerous secondary and exploratory endpoints were assessed including ventilation-free days, and changes in kidney function or serum biomarkers.
At 28 days, 27 (90.3%) and 28 (93.3%) of subjects in the placebo and LSALT groups were free of respiratory failure and the need for RRT (p=0.86). On days 14 and 28, the number of patients still requiring more intensive respiratory support (O2 ≥6 L/minute, non-invasive or invasive mechanical ventilation or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation) was 6 (19.4%) and 3 (9.7%) in the placebo group versus 2 (6.7%) and 2 (6.7%) in the LSALT group, respectively (p=0.14; p=0.67). Unadjusted analysis of ventilation-free days demonstrated 22.8 days for the LSALT group compared with 20.9 in the placebo group (p=0.4). LSALT-treated subjects had a significant reduction in the fold expression from baseline to end of treatment of serum CXCL10 compared with placebo (p=0.02). Treatment-emergent adverse events were similar between groups.
In a Phase 2 study, LSALT peptide was demonstrated to be safe and tolerated in patients hospitalised with moderate-to-severe COVID-19.
We aimed to define the epidemiology of COVID-19 outbreaks in aged care facilities (ACFs) during the postvaccine period, including vaccine effectiveness (VE) for this high-risk group.
Systematic review and meta-analysis.
Ovid Medline, Ovid Embase, Scopus, Web of Science and Cochrane databases were searched through 1 September 2023.
Any original observational studies and trials reporting data on COVID-19 outbreaks among the partially/fully vaccinated residents from ACFs during or after the worldwide implementation of vaccine roll-out.
We estimated the attack rate, case fatality rate, mortality rate and VE during postvaccine period. Random effect model was adopted for meta-analysis. Quality assessment on all included studies was performed using the Meta Quality Appraisal Tool.
38 articles were included from 12 countries reporting 79 outbreaks with 1708 confirmed cases of COVID-19 from 78 ACFs. The pooled attack rate was 28% (95% CI 20% to 37%) among the fully vaccinated residents. Two-thirds (62.5%) of the index cases were unvaccinated healthcare professionals (eg, physicians, nurses) and caregivers. Unvaccinated residents had a significantly higher rates (12%) (95% CI 7% to 19%) of mortality compared with the vaccinated residents (2%) (95% CI% 1 to 4%) and the post-COVID-19 vaccine estimates for case fatality rate (13% vs 23%) and hospitalisation rate (17% vs 37%) were substantially lower. VE in preventing disease among residents in ACFs was 73% (95% CI 49% to 86). Overall, the included studies were heterogeneous in nature, however, the risk of bias was low to moderate.
Our study reaffirmed the impact of vaccination as a key public health measure to minimise the burden of COVID-19 in ACFs. Facilities with higher crowding indexes should be prioritised for vaccination and should advocate for higher vaccination targets among staff and residents as a critical intervention strategy to minimise disease burden in this vulnerable population.
Fatigue, headache, problems sleeping and numerous other symptoms have been reported to be associated with long COVID. However, many of these symptoms coincide with symptoms reported by the general population, possibly exacerbated by restrictions/precautions experienced during the COVID-19 pandemic. This study examines the symptoms reported by individuals who tested positive for COVID-19 compared with those who tested negative.
Observational study.
The study was conducted on adult residents in Alberta, Canada, from October 2021 to February 2023.
We evaluated self-reported symptoms in 7623 adults with positive COVID-19 tests and 1520 adults who tested negative, using surveys adapted from the internationally standardised International Severe Acute Respiratory and emerging Infection Consortium (ISARIC)-developed COVID-19 long-term follow-up tools. These individuals had an index COVID-19 test date between 1 March 2020 and 31 December 2022 and were over 28 days post-COVID-19 testing.
The primary outcomes were to identify the symptoms associated with COVID-19 positivity and risk factors for reporting symptoms.
Fatigue was the top reported symptom (42%) among COVID-19-positive respondents, while headache was the top reported symptom (32%) in respondents who tested negative. Compared with those who tested negative, COVID-19-positive individuals reported 1.5 times more symptoms and had higher odds of experiencing 31 out of the 40 listed symptoms during the postinfectious period. These symptoms included olfactory dysfunction, menstruation changes, cardiopulmonary and neurological symptoms. Female sex, middle age (41–55 years), Indigeneity, unemployment, hospital/intensive care unit (ICU) admission at the time of testing and pre-existing health conditions independently predicted a greater number and variety of symptoms.
Our results provide evidence that COVID-19 survivors continue to experience a significant number and variety of symptoms. These findings can help inform targeted strategies for the unequally affected population. It is important to offer appropriate management for symptom relief to those who have survived the acute COVID-19 illness.
A hard lockdown was presumed to lead to delayed diagnosis and treatment of serious diseases, resulting in higher acuity at admission. This should be elaborated based on the estimated acuity of the cases, changes in findings during hospitalisation, age structure and biological sex.
Retrospective monocentric cross-sectional study.
German Neuroradiology Department at a .
In 2019, n=1158 patients were admitted in contrast to n=884 during the first hard lockdown in 2020 (11th–13th week).
Three radiologists evaluated the initial case acuity, classified them into three groups (not acute, subacute and acute), and evaluated if there was a relevant clinical deterioration. The data analysis was conducted using non-parametric methods and multivariate regression analysis.
A 24% decrease in the number of examinations from 2019 to 2020 (p=0.025) was revealed. In women, the case acuity increased by 21% during the lockdown period (p=0.002). A 30% decrease in acute cases in men was observable (in women 5% decrease). Not acute cases decreased in both women and men (47%; 24%), while the subacute cases remained stable in men (0%) and decreased in women (28%). Regression analysis revealed the higher the age, the higher the acuity (p
The lockdown led to a decrease in neuroradiological consultations, with delays in seeking medical care. In women, the number of most severe cases remained stable, whereas the mean case acuity and age increased. This could be due to greater pandemic-related anxiety among women, however, with severe symptoms they were seeking for medical help. In contrast in men, the absolute number of most severe cases decreased, whereas the mean acuity and age remained nearly unaffected. This could be attributable to a reduced willingness to seek for medical consultation.
To estimate the impacts of demographic factors and income disparities on the case fatality rate (CFR) of COVID-19 in Hong Kong, taking into account the influence of reporting delays (ie, the duration between symptom onset and case confirmation).
Retrospective observational longitudinal study.
A total of 7406 symptomatic patients with residence information reported between 23 January 2020 and 2 October 2021.
The study examined the disparity in COVID-19 deaths associated with the factors such as age (≥65 vs 0–64 years old groups), gender and the income level of districts (low income vs non-low income). The severe reporting delay (>10 days) was considered as the mediator for mediation analysis. A Cox proportional hazards regression model was constructed.
We found that CFR was 3.07% in the low-income region, twofold higher than 1.34% in the other regions. Although the severe reporting delay was associated with a hazard ratio (HR) of about 1.9, its mediation effect was only weakly present for age, but not for gender or income level. Hence, high CFR in Hong Kong was largely attributed to the direct effects of the elderly (HR 25.967; 95% CI 14.254 to 47.306) and low income (HR 1.558; 95% CI 1.122 to 2.164).
The disparity in COVID-19 deaths between income regions is not due to reporting delays, but rather to health inequities in Hong Kong. These risks may persist after the discontinuation of test-and-trace measures and extend to other high-threat respiratory pathogens. Urgent actions are required to identify vulnerable groups in low-income regions and understand the underlying causes of health inequities.
COVID-19 has caused severe disruption to clinical services in Bangladesh but the extent of this, and the impact on healthcare professionals is unclear. We aimed to assess the perceived levels of anxiety, depression and burnout among doctors and nurses during COVID-19 pandemic.
We undertook an online survey using RedCap, directed at doctors and nurses across four institutions in Bangladesh (The Sheikh Russel Gastro Liver Institute & Hospital (SRNGIH), Dhaka Medical College Hospital (DMCH), Mugda Medical College Hospital (MMCH) and M Abdur Rahim Medical College (MARMC) Hospital). We collected information on demographics, awareness of well-being services, COVID-19-related workload, as well as anxiety, depression and burnout using two validated questionnaires: the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) and the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI).
Of the 3000 participants approached, we received responses from 2705 (90.2%). There was a statistically significant difference in anxiety, depression and burnout scores across institutions (p
We identified a high prevalence of perceived anxiety, depression and burnout among doctors and nurses during the COVID-19 pandemic. This was worse in staff engaged in COVID-19-related activities. These findings could help healthcare organisations to plan for future similar events.
To explore how healthcare practitioners (HCPs) made decisions about the implementation of digital health technologies (DHTs) in their clinical practice before and during the COVID-19 pandemic.
A multimethods study, comprising semistructured interviews conducted prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, supplemented with an online survey that was conducted during the pandemic with a different sample, to ensure the qualitative findings remained relevant within the rapidly changing healthcare context. Participants were recruited through HCP networks, snowballing and social media. Data were analysed thematically.
Phone interviews and online survey.
HCPs represented a range of professions from primary and secondary care across England, with varied socioeconomic deprivation.
24 HCPs were interviewed, and 16 HCPs responded to the survey. In the interviews, HCPs described three levels where decisions were made, which determined who would have access to what DHTs: health organisation, HCP and patient levels. These decisions resulted in the unequal implementation of DHTs across health services, created barriers for HCPs using DHTs in their practice and influenced HCPs’ decisions on which patients to supply DHTs with. In the survey, HCPs described being provided support to overcome some of the barriers at the organisation and HCP level during the pandemic. However, they cited similar concerns to pre-pandemic about barriers patients faced using DHTs (eg, digital literacy). In the absence of centralised guidance on how to manage these barriers, health services made their own decisions about how to adapt their services for those who struggled with DHTs.
Decision-making at the health organisation, HCP and patient levels influences inequalities in access to DHTs for HCPs and patients. The mobilisation of centralised information and resources during the pandemic can be viewed as good practice for reducing barriers to use of DHTs for HCPs. However, attention must also be paid to reducing barriers to accessing DHTs for patients.