Search

The ability of the public to remain psychologically resilient in the face of public health emergencies and disasters (such as the COVID-19 pandemic) is a key factor in the effectiveness of a national response to such events. Community resilience and social capital are often perceived as beneficial and ensuring that a community is socially and psychologically resilient may aid emergency response and recovery. This review presents a synthesis of literature which answers the following research questions: How are community resilience and social capital quantified in research?; What is the impact of community resilience on mental wellbeing?; What is the impact of infectious disease outbreaks, disasters and emergencies on community resilience and social capital?; and, What types of interventions enhance community resilience and social capital? A scoping review procedure was followed. Searches were run across Medline, PsycInfo, and EMBASE, with search terms covering both community resilience and social capital, public health emergencies, and mental health. 26 papers met the inclusion criteria. The majority of retained papers originated in the USA, used a survey methodology to collect data, and involved a natural disaster. There was no common method for measuring community resilience or social capital. The association between community resilience and social capital with mental health was regarded as positive in most cases. However, we found that community resilience, and social capital, were initially negatively impacted by public health emergencies and enhanced by social group activities. Several key recommendations are proposed based on the outcomes from the review, which include: the need for a standardised and validated approach to measuring both community resilience and social capital; that there should be enhanced effort to improve preparedness to public health emergencies in communities by gauging current levels of community resilience and social capital; that community resilience and social capital should be bolstered if areas are at risk of disasters or public health emergencies; the need to ensure that suitable short-term support is provided to communities with high resilience in the immediate aftermath of a public health emergency or disaster; the importance of conducting robust evaluation of community resilience initiatives deployed during the COVID-19 pandemic. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Hygiene behaviors in public toilets are important to prevent the transmission of infectious diseases, especially during the pandemic. All through the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, governments in many countries published guidance on personal hygiene for the general population to prevent disease transmission. This study aimed to investigate improvements in residents' hygiene awareness and behaviors in public toilets before and during the pandemic.Methods: We recruited 316 residents between November and December 2018 before the pandemic, and 314 residents between December 2020 and January 2021 during the pandemic in the same study sites in Hangzhou, a well-developed city in China. Residents' hygiene behaviors in public toilets, hygiene awareness, risk perception, and sociodemographic factors were collected. Bivariate analysis and multivariable logistic regressions were used to test the differences between the two rounds. We conducted an observational study to record the provision of hygiene amenities at toilets during the pandemic.Results: After controlling for sociodemographic factors (gender, marital status, age, education level, and monthly household income), compared with respondents recruited before the pandemic, respondents recruited during the pandemic were more likely to perceive the risks of infection when using public toilets (aOR = 1.77, 95%CI [1.20, 2.60]), and were more likely to be aware of the risks of touching contaminated toilet facilities (aOR = 1.72, 95%CI [1.17, 2.54]) and the risks of not using soap to wash one's hands after using the toilet (aOR = 1.93, 95%CI [1.38, 2.72]). They were more likely to always clean their toilet seat with alcohol (aOR = 1.88, 95%CI [1.01, 3.51]), wash hands with soap (aOR = 1.52, 95%CI [1.09, 2.10]) and dry their hands with a dryer (aOR = 1.78, 95%CI [1.16, 2.71]), but they were less likely to always wash their hands after using the toilets (aOR = 0.57, 95%CI [0.32, 1.00]). Among 70 public toilets observed, 9 provided alcohol for toilet seat disinfection, 52 provided soap, 33 provided paper towels, and 41 had working hand dryers.Conclusions: Despite the overall improvement, residents' hygiene behaviors in public toilets and the supply of hygiene amenities were still suboptimal during the pandemic. Further hygiene education and an adequate supply of hygiene amenities in public toilets are needed to promote residents' hygiene behaviors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Researchers conducting cohort studies may wish to investigate the effect of episodes of COVID-19 illness on participants. A definitive diagnosis of COVID-19 is not always available, so studies have to rely on proxy indicators. This paper seeks to contribute evidence that may assist the use and interpretation of these COVID-indicators.Methods: We described five potential COVID-indicators: self-reported core symptoms, a symptom algorithm; self-reported suspicion of COVID-19; self-reported external results; and home antibody testing based on a 'lateral flow' antibody (IgG/IgM) test cassette. Included were staff and postgraduate research students at a large London university who volunteered for the study and were living in the UK in June 2020. Excluded were those who did not return a valid antibody test result. We provide descriptive statistics of prevalence and overlap of the five indicators.Results: Core symptoms were the most common COVID-indicator (770/1882 participants positive, 41%), followed by suspicion of COVID-19 (n = 509/1882, 27%), a positive symptom algorithm (n = 298/1882, 16%), study antibody lateral flow positive (n = 124/1882, 7%) and a positive external test result (n = 39/1882, 2%), thus a 20-fold difference between least and most common. Meeting any one indicator increased the likelihood of all others, with concordance between 65 and 94%. Report of a low suspicion of having had COVID-19 predicted a negative antibody test in 98%, but positive suspicion predicted a positive antibody test in only 20%. Those who reported previous external antibody tests were more likely to have received a positive result from the external test (24%) than the study test (15%).Conclusions: Our results support the use of proxy indicators of past COVID-19, with the caveat that none is perfect. Differences from previous antibody studies, most significantly in lower proportions of participants positive for antibodies, may be partly due to a decline in antibody detection over time. Subsequent to our study, vaccination may have further complicated the interpretation of COVID-indicators, only strengthening the need to critically evaluate what criteria should be used to define COVID-19 cases when designing studies and interpreting study results. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Since COVID-19 first appeared in the United States (US) in January 2020, US states have pursued a wide range of policies to mitigate the spread of the virus and its economic ramifications. Without unified federal guidance, states have been the front lines of the policy response.Main Text: We created the COVID-19 US State Policy (CUSP) database ( https://statepolicies.com/ ) to document the dates and components of economic relief and public health measures issued at the state level in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Documented interventions included school and business closures, face mask mandates, directives on vaccine eligibility, eviction moratoria, and expanded unemployment insurance benefits. By providing continually updated information, CUSP was designed to inform rapid-response, policy-relevant research in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic and has been widely used to investigate the impact of state policies on population health and health equity. This paper introduces the CUSP database and highlights how it is already informing the COVID-19 pandemic response in the US.Conclusion: CUSP is the most comprehensive publicly available policy database of health, social, and economic policies in response to the COVID-19 pandemic in the US. CUSP documents widespread variation in state policy decisions and implementation dates across the US and serves as a freely available and valuable resource to policymakers and researchers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Health Impact Assessment (HIA) is promoted as a decision-informing tool by public health and governmental agencies. HIA is beneficial when carried out as part of policy development but is also valuable as a methodology when a policy is being implemented to identify and understand the wider health and well-being impacts of policy decisions, particularly when a decision needs to be taken rapidly to protect the population. This paper focusses on a HIA of the 'Staying at Home and Social Distancing Policy' or 'lockdown' in response to the COVID-19 pandemic in Wales conducted by the Welsh national public health institute. It describes the process and findings, captures the learning and discusses how the process has been used to better understand the wider health and well-being impacts of policy decisions beyond direct health harm. It also examines the role of public health institutes in promoting and using HIA.Methods: A HIA was conducted following a standard HIA five step process. A literature review was undertaken alongside 15 qualitative semi-structured interviews with key stakeholders, and relevant health and demographic data were collated. The results were triangulated and analysed to form a holistic assessment of the policy decision and its impacts.Results: A wide range of major health and well-being impacts of the lockdown in Wales were identified across the determinants of health, which included positive and negative social, economic, environmental and mental well-being impacts beyond the impact on direct health. Populations affected included children and young people, those on low incomes and women as well as those whose health has been directly impacted by COVID-19 such as older people. The work highlighted the benefit that HIA can bring in emphasizing impacts which can inform policy and shared learning with others.Conclusion: HIA is a largely underused tool to understand the impact of policy and political decisions, particularly when a decision has been taken at speed. This case study highlights how HIA provide evidence and information for advocacy and further work by public health institutes, health agencies and policy makers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]