Plos One
-
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.
-
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.
-
A number of studies have reported the association between the use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI) and angiotensin-II receptor blocker (ARB) medications and the occurrence or severity of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Published results are inconclusive, possibly due to differences in participant comorbidities and sociodemographic backgrounds. Since ACEI and ARB are frequently used anti-hypertension medications, we aim to determine whether the use of ACEI and ARB is associated with the occurrence and severity of COVID-19 in a large study of US Veterans with hypertension. ⋯ In this study of Veterans with hypertension, ACEI was significantly associated with decreased odds of testing positive for COVID-19. With the exception of the association of ACEI with a small non-clinically-important increase in the odds of using mechanical ventilators, neither ACEI nor ARB was found to be associated with clinical severity or mortality among COVID-19-positive Veterans. The results of this study need further corroboration and validation in other cohort samples outside the VA.
-
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.
-
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.