Search

Background The COVID-19 pandemic poses serious threats to public health globally, and the emerging mutations in SARS-CoV-2 genomes has become one of the major challenges of disease control. In the second epidemic wave in Nigeria, the roles of co-circulating SARS-CoV-2 Alpha (ie, B.1.1.7) and Eta (ie, B.1.525) variants in contributing to the epidemiological outcomes were of public health concerns for investigation. Methods We developed a mathematical model to capture the transmission dynamics of different types of strains in Nigeria. By fitting to the national-wide COVID-19 surveillance data, the transmission advantages of SARS-CoV-2 variants were estimated by likelihood-based inference framework. Results The reproduction numbers were estimated to decrease steadily from 1.5 to 0.8 in the second epidemic wave. In December 2020, when both Alpha and Eta variants were at low prevalent levels, their transmission advantages (against the wild type) were estimated at 1.51 (95% credible intervals (CrI) = 1.48, 1.54), and 1.56 (95% CrI = 1.54, 1.59), respectively. In January 2021, when the original variants almost vanished, we estimated a weak but significant transmission advantage of Eta against Alpha variants with 1.14 (95% CrI = 1.11, 1.16). Conclusions Our findings suggested evidence of the transmission advantages for both Alpha and Eta variants, of which Eta appeared slightly more infectious than Alpha. We highlighted the critical importance of COVID-19 control measures in mitigating the outbreak size and relaxing the burdens to health care systems in Nigeria.

Background Since the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic in Wuhan, China, which has now spread globally, the health systems continue to face challenges in the provision of health care, there is a risk of exposure for both the physicians and the patients. While there is significant progress in the adoption of technology in health care. This study sought to examine the adverse effects of the measures put in place by the government to curb the spread of COVID-19 and come up with an intervention to prevent worse outcomes for chronic conditions. Methods Booking registers for four specialty clinics in Machakos Level 5 Hospital were reviewed to identify patients who missed clinic appointments for follow-up. An automated data collection tool (ODK-collect) was used for data collection. COVID-19 Machakos App was developed to facilitate follow-up and referral of patients to the nearest facilities, capturing and posting of information in real-time to a central database. The mobile App also facilitated the tracking of patients and aided doctors to give feedback on whether the patients reported to the referred facilities. The doctors were also able to capture doctors’ notes on the patients' status while ensuring the confidentiality and privacy of the patients. An interactive dashboard was developed to generate analytics reports and summaries to monitor clinic attendance and trends in the provision of health care during the pandemic period. Results Register data showed 977 (81.5%) out of a total of 1199 patients had missed their scheduled appointments. Among the 977, 746 (76%) were residents of Machakos County and qualified for follow-up. Missed appointments varied by clinic: Cancer Clinic 12 (1.6) %), Diabetes Clinic 212 (28.4%), Hypertension 293 (39.3%), and Paediatrics Clinic 229 (30.7%). Contact was made and follow-up was attempted for 746 patients, of which 453 patients (60.7%) were successful. The follow-up distribution of the 453 patients varied by the clinic as follows: Cancer Clinic 10, Diabetes Clinic 146, Hypertension 185, and Paediatrics Clinic 112. During the follow-up process, 331 patients from diabetes and hypertension clinics were requested to choose a preferred or nearby facility to be referred to. 191 (58%) patients chose Machakos Level 5 Hospital as their preferred facility and 137 (41%) patients chose to be referred to level 3 or 4 hospitals within the County. Three deaths were reported from the medical (Hypertension) clinic. Through the developed App, a total, 82 (60%) patients out of the 137 were reviewed at the referral facilities jointly with a specialist at Machakos Level 5 Hospital. For the duration of the study, some patients reported worse conditions by the time of review after missing scheduled appointments. Conclusions This intervention demonstrated that mobile phone technology could be leveraged to provide specialty treatment services remotely to mitigate against worse patient outcomes. The study reveals that there is a dire need to integrate technological interventions in the provision of health care services to ensure continuity.

Background Vaccine acceptance and hesitancy among the general population and health care workers play an important role in successfully controlling the Coronavirus Disease (COVID)-19 pandemic. While there is evidence for vaccine hesitancy across the globe, wide variation in factors influencing vaccine acceptance has been reported, mainly from High-Income Countries (HIC). However, the evidence from Low- and Middle-Income Countries (LMICs) remains unclear. The objective of this review was to describe the determinants of vaccine acceptance and strategies to address those in an LMIC context. Methods The World Health Organization’s (WHO) Measuring Behavioral and Social Drivers of Vaccination (BeSD) Increasing Vaccination Model was employed to identify factors that influenced vaccine acceptance. All evidence related to supply-side and demand-side determinants and social and health system processes were examined. A comprehensive search for published literature was conducted in three databases and grey literature in relevant websites of government, multinational agencies, and COVID-19 resource aggregators, followed by a narrative synthesis. Results Overall, the results showed that the vaccine acceptance rates differed across LMICs, with a wide variety of reasons cited for vaccine hesitancy. Vaccine acceptance was reportedly greater among males, those with higher education, elevated socio-economic status, the unmarried, those employed as health care workers. Evidence suggested that exposure to misinformation about COVID-19 vaccines and public concerns over the safety of vaccines may contribute to lower acceptance rates. Strategies to increase vaccine acceptance rates included direct engagement with communities through influencers, including community leaders and health experts; clear and transparent communication about COVID-19 vaccines, financial and non-financial incentives; and strong endorsement from health care workers. Trust in government was identified as a significant enabler of vaccine acceptance. Conclusions There is a need for measures to address public acceptability, trust and concern over the safety and benefit of approved vaccines. Local context is essential to consider while developing programs to promote vaccine uptake. The governments worldwide also need to strategize to develop plans to address the anxiety and vaccine related concerns of community regarding vaccine hesitancy. There is a need for further research to evaluate strategies to address vaccine hesitancy in LMIC.

Background: Around the globe, various self-quarantine, social distancing, and school-closure policies were implemented during the coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) outbreak to reduce disease transmission. Many economies/territories were compelled to consider digital learning modalities. In particular, increased digital learning engagement with digital devices and mounting psychosocial stress due to social isolation are likely to pose adverse risks for youth visual health globally. This study examines the association between increased digital device use, psychosocial stress, and myopia symptoms among Chinese youth during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: This is a retrospective observational population study consisting of 3918 participants enrolled in primary, secondary, and university in China. Participants are recruited through an online survey, which included self-reported information on daily digital device use, psychosocial stress level, condition of visual acuity, and demographic information. We utilize statistical tools including χ2 test, paired sample t test, and multiple multivariate logistic regression. Results: Each hour increase in digital device use is associated with 1.25 odds ratio OR (95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.21-1.30; P < 0.001) increased risk of developing myopic symptoms, each additional hour of digital device use weighted by near-view and blue-light exposure is associated with OR = 1.04 OR (95% CI = 1.03-1.05; P < 0.001) and OR = 2.25 (95% CI = 1.94-2.60; P < 0.001) increased risk respectively. Subjects reporting under stressful conditions are between OR = 1.98 (95% CI = 1.67-2.36; P < 0.001) and OR = 2.03 (95% CI = 1.71-2.42; P < 0.001) more likely to develop myopic symptoms, relative to those citing less stress. Conclusions: The COVID-19 pandemic led to favorable conditions for myopigenic behavioral changes characterized by extended sedentary engagement with digital devices, which are significantly associated with higher risks of myopia incidence. Relatedly, psychosocial stress accompanying prolonged social isolation during the pandemic is a less noticeable, albeit significant risk factor for myopia development.

Background: There is uncertainty with respect to SARS-CoV-2 transmission in children (0-19 years) with controversy on effectiveness of school-closures in controlling the pandemic. It is of equal importance to evaluate the risk of transmission in children who are often asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic carriers that may incidentally transmit SARS-CoV-2 in different settings. We conducted this review to assess transmission and risks for SARS-CoV-2 in children (by age-groups or grades) in community and educational-settings compared to adults. Methods: Data for the review were retrieved from PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, WHO COVID-19 Database, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) Database, WanFang Database, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS), Google Scholar, and preprints from medRixv and bioRixv) covering a timeline from December 1, 2019 to April 1, 2021. Population-screening, contact-tracing and cohort studies reporting prevalence and transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in children were included. Data were extracted according to PRISMA guidelines. Meta-analyses were performed using Review Manager 5.3. Results: Ninety studies were included. Compared to adults, children showed comparable national (risk ratio (RR) = 0.87, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.71-1.060 and subnational (RR = 0.81, 95% CI = 0.66-1.01) prevalence in population-screening studies, and lower odds of infection in community/household contact-tracing studies (odds ratio (OR) = 0.62, 95% CI = 0.46-0.84). On disaggregation, adolescents observed comparable risk (OR = 1.22, 95% CI = 0.74-2.04) with adults. In educational-settings, children attending daycare/preschools (OR = 0.53, 95% CI = 0.38-0.72) were observed to be at lower-risk when compared to adults, with odds of infection among primary (OR = 0.85, 95% CI = 0.55-1.31) and high-schoolers (OR = 1.30, 95% CI = 0.71-2.38) comparable to adults. Overall, children and adolescents had lower odds of infection in educational-settings compared to community and household clusters. Conclusions: Children (

Additional material: Online Supplementary Document available at http://jogh.org/documents/2021/jogh-11-05011-s001.pdf . Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Background: Variation in the approaches taken to contain the SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) pandemic at country level has been shaped by economic and political considerations, technical capacity, and assumptions about public behaviours. To address the limited application of learning from previous pandemics, this study aimed to analyse perceived facilitators and inhibitors during the pandemic and to inform the development of an assessment tool for pandemic response planning. Methods A cross-sectional electronic survey of health and non-health care professionals (5 May - 5 June 2020) in six languages, with respondents recruited via email, social media and website posting. Participants were asked to score inhibitors (−10 to 0) or facilitators (0 to +10) impacting country response to COVID-19 from the following domains - Political, Economic, Sociological, Technological, Ecological, Legislative, and wider Industry (the PESTELI framework). Participants were then asked to explain their responses using free text. Descriptive and thematic analysis was followed by triangulation with the literature and expert validation to develop the assessment tool, which was then compared with four existing pandemic planning frameworks. Results 928 respondents from 66 countries (57% health care professionals) participated. Political and economic influences were consistently perceived as powerful negative forces and technology as a facilitator across high- and low-income countries. The 103-item tool developed for guiding rapid situational assessment for pandemic planning is comprehensive when compared to existing tools and highlights the interconnectedness of the 7 domains. Conclusions The tool developed and proposed addresses the problems associated with decision making in disciplinary silos and offers a means to refine future use of epidemic modelling. This study did not receive any external funding.

Background Infectious outbreaks, most recently coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), have required pervasive public health strategies, termed lockdown measures, including quarantine, social distancing, and closure of workplaces and educational establishments. Although evidence analysing immediate effects is expanding, repercussions following lockdown measures remain poorly understood. This systematic review aims to analyse the biopsychosocial consequences after lockdown measures end according to short, medium, and long-term impacts. Methods PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, PsycInfo, Web of Science, and Scopus databases were searched from inception to January 12, 2021. Reference lists were manually reviewed. Eligible studies analysed biopsychosocial functioning after lockdown measures secondary to recent infectious outbreaks ended. Lockdown measures were defined as quarantine, isolation, workplace or educational closures, social or physical distancing, and national or local closure of public institutions deemed non-essential. Studies exclusively researching outcomes during lockdown measures, examined infectious participants, or analysed lockdown measures not pertaining to an infectious outbreak were excluded. Two independent reviewers extracted data and assessed bias with a third resolving discrepancies. Data was extracted from published reports with further information requested from authors where necessary. The mixed methods appraisal tool assessed study quality, languages were restricted to English, German, Italian, and French and narrative synthesis was applied. Results Of 5149 identified studies, 40 were eligible for inclusion. Psychological distress, economic repercussions, social, biological, and behavioural ramifications were observed. Short to medium-term effects comprised reactions relating to early trauma processing whereas medium to long-term repercussions manifested in maladaptive behaviours and mental health deterioration. Increased alcohol intake, stigmatisation, and economic effects were also identified consequences. High-risk groups included health care workers, children, elderly, inpatients, those with pre-existing psychiatric diagnoses, and socially isolated individuals. Conclusions Supporting vulnerable groups and offering education, workplace modifications, financial, and social assistance may mitigate negative repercussions. Establishing a rapid and comprehensive evidence base appraising the efficacy of such interventions and identifying areas for development is essential. This review was limited by study heterogeneity and lack of randomisation in available literature. Given the unprecedented nature and progression of COVID-19, the relevance of previous outcomes remains uncertain. Protocol registration PROSPERO registration CRD42020181134

Background: Nurses represent the major proportion of frontline health care professionals delivering 24/7 services to patients with an increased vulnerability towards COVID-19 infection. Mental health issues among nurses during the COVID-19 pandemic are poorly reported across the globe. Henceforth, a systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to explore the prevalence and determinants of mental health outcomes (anxiety, stress, depression, PTSD, insomnia) among nurses across the globe due to the COVID-19. Methods: A PRISMA compliant systematic review (PROSPERO-CRD 42020204120) was carried out to identify articles from multiple databases reporting the prevalence of mental health outcomes among nurses. Proportion random effect analysis, I2 statistic, quality assessment, and sensitivity analysis were carried out. Results: Pooled data on mental health outcomes were generated from 25 cross-sectional studies: 32% anxiety (95% confidence interval (CI) = 21%-44%, n (number of studies) = 21, N (sample size) = 13 641), 40.6% stress (95% CI = 25.4%-56.8%, n = 10, N = 4204), 32% depression (95% CI = 21%-44%, n = 17, N = 12 294), 18.6% PTSD (95% CI = 4.8%-38%, n = 3, N = 638), 38.3% insomnia (95% CI = 5.8%-78.6%, n = 2, N = 261) and significant risk factors for mental ailments includes; caring for COVID-19 patients, being a female, low self-efficacy, resilience, social support and having physical symptoms (sore-throat, breathlessness, cough, lethargy, myalgia, fever). Conclusion: The study results highlighted a higher proportion of poor mental health outcomes namely, anxiety, stress, depression, PTSD and insomnia among nurses from different parts of the world. Poor mental health outcomes among nurses warrants the need to implement proactive psychological interventions to deter the collapse of health care systems in responding to the pandemic and in particular all possible efforts should be undertaken to mitigate the risk factors. Health care organizations should provide support to nurses with sufficient flexibility. The disaster preparedness plan envisaged by nations should have provisions to address the mental health of nurses. Greater investment in addressing the global shortage of nurses should be given priority in national health policies. Attractive salary packages should be offered to nurses to prevent their emigration from low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Registration: PROSPERO (CRD42020204120).

Background: The currently prevailing global threat of COVID-19 caused the publication numbers on coronaviruses to explode. The awareness of the scientific and public community is enormous. But what about the sense of all these undertakings and what can be learned about the future for a better understanding? These questions were answered with established bibliometric analyses of the time until the avalanche of publications unfolded. Methods: Chronological, geographical aspects of publication output on coronavirus were also evaluated under the influence of epidemiological and socio-economic parameters. Results: The trend in publication and citation numbers shows the strong influence of the past pandemics SARS and MERS with an untypical decline afterward. Research is becoming increasingly multidisciplinary over time. The USA and China, as the countries with the highest number of publications, are being displaced by other countries in the consideration of socio-economic and epidemiological aspects, which shows the effect of regional interest in corona research. A significant correlation was found between the number of SARS cases per country and related publications, while no correlation was found for MERS cases and articles. Conclusions: The results underline the need for sustainable and forward-looking approaches that should not end with the containment of COVID-19.

Background We are communicating the results of investigating statistics on SARS-CoV-2-related pneumonias in Russia: percentage, mortality, cases with other viral agents, cases accompanied by secondary bacterial pneumonias, age breakdown, clinical course and outcome. Methods We studied two sampling sets (Set 1 and Set 2). Set 1 consisted of results of testing 3382 assays of out-patients and hospital patients (5-88 years old) with community-acquired and hospital-acquired pneumonia of yet undetermined aetiology. Set 2 contained results of 1204 assays of hospital patients (12-94 years old) with pneumonia and COVID-19 already diagnosed by molecular biological techniques in test laboratories. The results were collected in twelve Russian cities/provinces in time range 2 March – 5 May 2020. Assays were analysed for 10 bacterial, 15 viral, 2 fungal and 2 parasitic aetiological agents. Results In Set 1, 4.35% of total pneumonia cases were related to SARS-CoV-2, with substantially larger proportion (18.75%) of deaths of pneumonia with COVID-19 diagnosed. However, studying Set 2, we revealed that 52.82% patients in it were also positive for different typical and atypical aetiological agents usually causing pneumonia. 433 COVID-19 patients (35.96%) were tested positive for various bacterial aetiological agents, with Streptococcus pneumoniae, Staphylococcus aureus and Haemophilus influenzae infections accounting for the majority of secondary pneumonia cases. Conclusions SARS-CoV-2, a low-pathogenic virus itself, becomes exceptionally dangerous if secondary bacterial pneumonia attacks a COVID-19 patient as a complication. An essential part of the severest complications and mortality associated with COVID-19 in Russia in March-May 2020, may be attributed to secondary bacterial pneumonia and to a much less extent viral co-infections. The problem of hospital-acquired bacterial infection is exceptionally urgent in treating SARS-CoV-2 patients. The risk of secondary bacterial pneumonia and its further complications, should be given very serious attention in combating SARS-CoV-2.

BackgroundCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), the most hectic pandemic of the era, is increasing exponentially and taking thousands of lives worldwide. This study aimed to assess the prevalence of pre-existing morbidities among COVID-19 infected patients and their mortality risks against each type of pre-existing morbidity category.MethodsTo conduct this systematic review and meta-analysis, Medline, Web of Science, Scopus, and CINAHL databases were searched using specified relavent keywords. Further searches were conducted using the reference list of the selected studies, renowned pre-print servers (e.g., medRxiv, bioRixv, SSRN), and relevant journal websites. Studies written in the English language included if those were conducted among COVID-19 patients with and without comorbidities and presented survivor vs. non-survivor counts or hazard/odds of deaths or survivors against types of pre-existing morbidities. Comorbidities reported in the selected studies were grouped into eight categories. The pooled likelihoods of deaths in each category were estimated using a fixed or random-effect model, based on the heterogeneity assessment. Publication bias was assessed by visual inspection of the funnel plot asymmetry and Egger’s regression test. Trim and Fill method was used if there any publication bias was found.ResultsA total of 42 studies included in this study comprised of 39,398 samples. The most common pre-existing morbidities in COVID-19 infected patients were hypertension (36.5%), cardiovascular disease (11.9%), and diabetes (22.0%). The higher likelihood of deaths was found among COVID-19 patients who had pre-existing cardiovascular diseases (OR: 3.32, 95% CI: 2.79-3.95), immune and metabolic disorders (OR: 2.39, 95% CI: 2.00-2.85), respiratory diseases (OR: 2.02, 95% CI: 1.80-2.26), cerebrovascular diseases (OR: 4.12, 95% CI: 3.04-5.58), any types of cancers (OR: 2.22, 95% CI: 1.63-3.03), renal (OR: 3.02, 95% CI: 2.60-3.52), and liver diseases (OR: 1.44, 95% CI: 1.21-1.71).ConclusionsThis study provides evidence of a higher likelihood of deaths among COVID-19 patients against morbidity categories. These findings could potentially help healthcare providers to sort out the most endangered COVID-19 patients by comorbidities, take precautionary measures during hospitalization, assess susceptibility to death, and prioritize their treatment, which could potentially reduce the number of fatalities in COVID-19.