Plos One
-
Comparative Study
First and second waves of coronavirus disease-19: A comparative study in hospitalized patients in Reus, Spain.
Many countries have seen a two-wave pattern in reported cases of coronavirus disease-19 during the 2020 pandemic, with a first wave during spring followed by the current second wave in late summer and autumn. Empirical data show that the characteristics of the effects of the virus do vary between the two periods. Differences in age range and severity of the disease have been reported, although the comparative characteristics of the two waves still remain largely unknown. ⋯ Several differences in mortality risk factors were also observed. These results might help to understand the characteristics of the second wave and the behaviour and danger of SARS-CoV-2 in the Mediterranean area and in Western Europe. Further studies are needed to confirm our findings.
-
Hazard perception ability, which develops with driving experience, has been proven to be associated with drivers' traffic involvement. Although classic reaction time-based hazard perception tests have been developed in many developed counties, experience-related differences may not be found in drivers from developing countries due to their increased opportunities to experience hazards on roads. Therefore, the present study aims to develop a hazard prediction test for Chinese drivers based on a predictive paradigm called "What happens next?" and assess its reliability and validity. ⋯ The newly developed hazard prediction test exhibited adequate psychometric properties and provided a practical alternative for assessing drivers' hazard perception ability in China.
-
The coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic has impacted the economy, livelihood, and physical and mental well-being of people worldwide. This study aimed to compare the mental health status during the pandemic in the general population of seven middle income countries (MICs) in Asia (China, Iran, Malaysia, Pakistan, Philippines, Thailand, and Vietnam). All the countries used the Impact of Event Scale-Revised (IES-R) and Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scale (DASS-21) to measure mental health. ⋯ The risk factors for adverse mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic include age <30 years, high education background, single and separated status, discrimination by other countries and contact with people with COVID-19 (p<0.05). The protective factors for mental health include male gender, staying with children or more than 6 people in the same household, employment, confidence in doctors, high perceived likelihood of survival, and spending less time on health information (p<0.05). This comparative study among 7 MICs enhanced the understanding of metal health in the general population during the COVID-19 pandemic.
-
Overcrowding in emergency departments is a serious public health issue. Recent studies have reported that overcrowding in emergency departments affects not only the quality of emergency care but also clinical decisions about admission. However, no studies have examined the characteristics of the patient groups whose admission rate is influenced by such overcrowding. ⋯ There were 73,776 patients in this study. In the analysis of all patient groups, the admission rate increased as the degree of overcrowding rose (the adjusted odds ratio for admission was 1.281 (1.225-1.339) in the high overcrowding group versus the non-overcrowding group). The analysis of the patients in each triage level showed an increase in the admission rate associated with the overcrowding, which was greater in the patient groups with a lower triage level (adjusted odds ratios for admission in the high overcrowding group versus non-overcrowding group: Korean Triage and Acuity Scale level 3 = 1.215 [1.120-1.317], level 4 = 1.294 [1.211-1.382], and level 5 = 1.954 [1.614-2.365]).
-
Carceral facilities are epicenters of the COVID-19 pandemic, placing incarcerated people at an elevated risk of COVID-19 infection. Due to the initial limited availability of COVID-19 vaccines in the United States, all states have developed allocation plans that outline a phased distribution. This study uses document analysis to compare the relative prioritization of incarcerated people, correctional staff, and other groups at increased risk of COVID-19 infection and morbidity. ⋯ This study demonstrates that states' COVID-19 vaccine allocation plans do not prioritize incarcerated people and provide little to no guidance on vaccination protocols if they fall under other high-risk categories that receive earlier priority. Deprioritizing incarcerated people for vaccination misses a crucial opportunity for COVID-19 mitigation. It also raises ethical and equity concerns. As states move forward with their vaccine distribution, further work must be done to prioritize ethical allocation and distribution of COVID-19 vaccines to incarcerated people.