Search

Background: The primary objective worldwide during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic had been controlling disease transmission. However, lockdown measures used to mitigate transmission affected human behavior and altered lifestyles, with a likely impact on chronic non-communicable diseases. More than a year into the pandemic, substantial peer-reviewed literature emerged on altered lifestyles following the varying lockdown measures imposed globally to control the virus spread. We explored the impact of lockdown measures on six lifestyle factors, namely diet, physical activity, sleep, stress, social connectedness, and the use of tobacco, alcohol, or other harmful substances., Methods: We comprehensively searched PubMed and the World Health Organization's global literature database on COVID-19 and retrieved 649 relevant articles for the narrative review. A critical interpretative synthesis of the articles was performed., Results: Most of the articles included in the review identified the negative effect of lockdown measures on each of the lifestyle factors in many parts of the world. Encouraging lifestyle trends were also highlighted in a few articles. Such trends can positively influence the outcome of lifestyle-related chronic diseases, such as obesity and diabetes., Conclusions: The lockdown associated with COVID-19 has largely had a negative impact on the lifestyles of individuals and communities across many countries and cultures. However, some individuals and communities also initiated positive lifestyle-related behavioral changes. If the knowledge generated by studying the impact of COVID-19-related lockdowns on the six lifestyle factors is further consolidated, it could improve chronic disease outcomes. This will help better understand lifestyle behaviors amidst crises and assist in redesigning extreme public health measures such as lockdowns.. It is up to governments, communities, and healthcare/academic entities to derive benefit from lessons learned from the pandemic, with the ultimate objective of better educating and promoting healthy lifestyles among communities., Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed., (Copyright: © 2024 Doraiswamy S et al.)

Background: In this priority-setting exercise, we sought to identify leading research priorities needed for strengthening future pandemic preparedness and response across countries., Methods: The International Society of Global Health (ISoGH) used the Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative (CHNRI) method to identify research priorities for future pandemic preparedness. Eighty experts in global health, translational and clinical research identified 163 research ideas, of which 42 experts then scored based on five pre-defined criteria. We calculated intermediate criterion-specific scores and overall research priority scores from the mean of individual scores for each research idea. We used a bootstrap (n = 1000) to compute the 95% confidence intervals., Results: Key priorities included strengthening health systems, rapid vaccine and treatment production, improving international cooperation, and enhancing surveillance efficiency. Other priorities included learning from the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, managing supply chains, identifying planning gaps, and promoting equitable interventions. We compared this CHNRI-based outcome with the 14 research priorities generated and ranked by ChatGPT, encountering both striking similarities and clear differences., Conclusions: Priority setting processes based on human crowdsourcing - such as the CHNRI method - and the output provided by ChatGPT are both valuable, as they complement and strengthen each other. The priorities identified by ChatGPT were more grounded in theory, while those identified by CHNRI were guided by recent practical experiences. Addressing these priorities, along with improvements in health planning, equitable community-based interventions, and the capacity of primary health care, is vital for better pandemic preparedness and response in many settings., Competing Interests: Disclosure of interest: The authors completed the ICMJE Disclosure of Interest Form (available upon request from the corresponding author) and declare the following activities and/or relationships: IR is the Co-Editor in Chief, PS is the China Regional Editor, and DA is an Editorial Board Member of the Journal of Global Health. To ensure that any possible conflict of interest relevant to the journal has been addressed, this article was reviewed according to best practice guidelines of international editorial organisations., (Copyright © 2024 by the Journal of Global Health. All rights reserved.)

Generally, university students are at risk of burnout. This likely was exacerbated during the COVID-19 pandemic. We aimed to investigate burnout prevalence among university students during the COVID-19 pandemic and examine its distribution across countries, sexes, fields of study, and time-period. PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO, World Health Organization's Global COVID-19 database, Scopus, Epistemonikos, ERIC and Google Scholar were searched (protocol: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/BYRXW ). Studies were independently screened and extracted. Random-effects meta-analysis was performed. Study quality was appraised, and certainty of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. We identified 44 primary studies comprising 26,500 students. Global prevalence rates were 56.3% for high emotional exhaustion (EE), 55.3% for high cynicism (CY) and 41.8% for low personal accomplishment (PA). Prevalence of EE, CY, and PA domains varied significantly across fields of study, countries and WHO and World Bank regions, but not sex. All studies demonstrated good internal validity, although substantial heterogeneity existed between studies. The certainty of evidence was rated as moderate. Considering its potentially severe consequences, burnout is a significant public health concern. The development and implementation of evidence-based localized interventions at organizational and individual levels are necessary to mitigate burnout., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Aim: In this paper, we explore the contextual use of 10 epidemiological terminologies, their significance, and interpretation/misinterpretation in explaining various aspects of the 2019 novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic., Methods and Results: We first establish the different purposes of the terms 'pandemic' and 'Public Health Emergency of International Concern.' We then discuss the confusion caused by using the 'case fatality rate' as opposed to 'infection fatality rate' during the pandemic and the uncertainty surrounding the limited usefulness of identifying someone as 'pre-symptomatic.' We highlight the ambiguity in the 'positivity rate' and the need to be able to generate data on 'excess mortality' during public health emergencies. We discuss the relevance of 'association and causation' in the context of the facemask controversy that existed at the start of the pandemic. We point out how the accepted epidemiological practice of discussing 'herd immunity' in the context of vaccines has been twisted to suit the political motive of a public health approach. Given that a high proportion of COVID-19 cases are asymptomatic, we go on to show how COVID-19 has blurred the lines between 'screening/diagnosis' and 'quarantine/isolation,' while giving birth to the new terminology of 'community quarantine.', Conclusions: Applying the lessons learned from COVID-19 to better understand the above terminologies will help health professionals communicate effectively, strengthen the scientific agenda of epidemiology and public health, and support and manage future outbreaks efficiently.

Introduction: Following the initial COVID-19 surge in the UK, there was a national incentive for elective vascular surgery to be restricted to 'clean' sites to reduce perioperative cross-infection and subsequent mortality. We assessed the risk of dying from perioperatively acquired COVID-19 during the peak of the London outbreak., Methods: Forty-three consecutive patients who had vascular ( n =48) procedures in March and April 2020 at a regional hub serving five London hospitals were analysed. The patients were screened for COVID-19 in the 30-day postoperative period and the main outcome measure was mortality from COVID-19. A comparison was then made with patients who underwent minimally invasive procedures in our integrated interventional radiology department. Median follow-up was 41 days (interquartile range 8-58) overall., Results: Three patients (7%) in the vascular group (median age 61 years, all diabetic, two male) died from COVID-19, all of whom tested positive postoperatively. Two others became positive but recovered. In comparison, two patients (2%) in the interventional radiology group died from COVID-19; however, one was positive prior to their procedure., Conclusion: Only urgent vascular cases should be performed during a COVID-19 surge. However, with growing waiting lists for elective surgery following the pandemic's second wave, further restrictions may not be a viable long-term solution. When prevalence of the disease is lower and if resources allow, resumption of care at 'hot' sites should be considered, if safety measures can be implemented. The advantages of minimally invasive surgery may also reduce risk.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has caused disruptions to the functioning of societies and their health systems. Prior to the pandemic, health systems in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) were particularly stretched and vulnerable. The International Society of Global Health (ISoGH) sought to systematically identify priorities for health research that would have the potential to reduce the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic in LMICs., Methods: The Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative (CHNRI) method was used to identify COVID-19-related research priorities. All ISoGH members were invited to participate. Seventy-nine experts in clinical, translational, and population research contributed 192 research questions for consideration. Fifty-two experts then scored those questions based on five pre-defined criteria that were selected for this exercise: 1) feasibility and answerability; 2) potential for burden reduction; 3) potential for a paradigm shift; 4) potential for translation and implementation; and 5) impact on equity., Results: Among the top 10 research priorities, research questions related to vaccination were prominent: health care system access barriers to equitable uptake of COVID-19 vaccination (ranked 1st), determinants of vaccine hesitancy (4th), development and evaluation of effective interventions to decrease vaccine hesitancy (5th), and vaccination impacts on vulnerable population/s (6th). Health care delivery questions also ranked highly, including: effective strategies to manage COVID-19 globally and in LMICs (2nd) and integrating health care for COVID-19 with other essential health services in LMICs (3rd). Additionally, the assessment of COVID-19 patients' needs in rural areas of LMICs was ranked 7th, and studying the leading socioeconomic determinants and consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic in LMICs using multi-faceted approaches was ranked 8th. The remaining questions in the top 10 were: clarifying paediatric case-fatality rates (CFR) in LMICs and identifying effective strategies for community engagement against COVID-19 in different LMIC contexts., Interpretation: Health policy and systems research to inform COVID-19 vaccine uptake and equitable access to care are urgently needed, especially for rural, vulnerable, and/or marginalised populations. This research should occur in parallel with studies that will identify approaches to minimise vaccine hesitancy and effectively integrate care for COVID-19 with other essential health services in LMICs. ISoGH calls on the funders of health research in LMICs to consider the urgency and priority of this research during the COVID-19 pandemic and support studies that could make a positive difference for the populations of LMICs., Competing Interests: Competing interests: Ana Marušić, Harry Campbell and Igor Rudan are the Co-Editors in Chief of the Journal of Global Health. To ensure that any possible conflict of interest relevant to the journal has been addressed, this article was reviewed according to best practice guidelines of international editorial organisations. The authors completed the ICMJE Unified Competing Interests Form (available upon request from the corresponding author) and declare no further conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2022 by the Journal of Global Health. All rights reserved.)

A recent debate that has gained our attention is that of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) being referred to as a lifestyle disease by the Royal College of General Practitioners (in the title of an online event) for which they later apologized and withdrew the reference. In this commentary, we demystify diseases related to 'lifestyle' and put this in the context of the age-old public health way of classifying diseases as communicable and non-communicable (NCDs). Evidence indicates that unhealthy lifestyles, in addition to causing NCDs, can also result in reduced immunity and/or cause injury to organs predisposing individuals to diseases, and their severity, traditionally defined as 'communicable' such as COVID-19. COVID-19 has demonstrated the nexus between communicable and NCDs as never before in no uncertain terms. Two important messages that have emerged from the pandemic are: (1) there is close proximity of communicable diseases to NCDs; and (2) individual personal hygiene-related lifestyles can influence the occurrence, severity and prevention of communicable diseases such as COVID-19.

While the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic wreaked havoc across the globe, we have witnessed substantial mis- and disinformation regarding various aspects of the disease. We conducted a cross-sectional study using a self-administered questionnaire for the general public (recruited via social media) and healthcare workers (recruited via email) from the State of Qatar, and the Middle East and North Africa region to understand the knowledge of and anxiety levels around COVID-19 (April-June 2020) during the early stage of the pandemic. The final dataset used for the analysis comprised of 1658 questionnaires (53.0% of 3129 received questionnaires; 1337 [80.6%] from the general public survey and 321 [19.4%] from the healthcare survey). Knowledge about COVID-19 was significantly different across the two survey populations, with a much higher proportion of healthcare workers possessing better COVID-19 knowledge than the general public (62.9% vs. 30.0%, p < 0.0001). A reverse effect was observed for anxiety, with a higher proportion of very anxious (or really frightened) respondents among the general public compared to healthcare workers (27.5% vs. 11.5%, p < 0.0001). A higher proportion of the general public tended to overestimate their chance of dying if they become ill with COVID-19, with 251 (18.7%) reporting the chance of dying (once COVID-19 positive) to be ≥25% versus 19 (5.9%) of healthcare workers ( p < 0.0001). Good knowledge about COVID-19 was associated with low levels of anxiety. Panic and unfounded anxiety, as well as casual and carefree attitudes, can propel risk taking and mistake-making, thereby increasing vulnerability. It is important that governments, public health agencies, healthcare workers, and civil society organizations keep themselves updated regarding scientific developments and that they relay messages to the community in an honest, transparent, unbiased, and timely manner.

Competing Interests: Competing interests: The authors completed the ICMJE Unified Competing Interest form (available upon request from the corresponding author), and declare no conflicts of interest.

This paper analyses the effects of the Chinese Economic Policy Uncertainty (CEPU) index on the daily returns of Bitcoin for the period from December 31, 2019 to May 20, 2020. Utilizing the Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) and the Generalized Quantile Regression (GQR) estimation techniques, the paper illustrates that the current CEPU has a positive impact on the returns of Bitcoin. However, the positive impact is statistically significant only at the higher quantiles of the current CEPU. It is concluded that Bitcoin can be used in hedging against policy uncertainties in China since significant rises in uncertainty leads to a higher return in Bitcoin. JEL Codes: G32; G15; C22., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2021 Chen, Lau, Cheema and Koo.)

Introduction: Synthesis of the available evidence on the effectiveness of medical and cloth facemask use by the general public in community settings is required to learn lessons for future respiratory epidemics/pandemics., Method: Search terms relating to facemasks, infection and community settings were used for PubMed, the Cochrane Library Database and Google Scholar. A meta-analysis was conducted using a random-effects model., Results: The review included 12 primary studies on the effectiveness of medical facemask use to prevent influenza, influenza-like illness, SARS-CoV, and SARS-CoV-2 transmission. The meta-analysis demonstrated that facemask use significantly reduces the risk of transmitting these respiratory infections (pooled OR = 0.66, 95% CI 0.54-0.81). Of the 12 studies, 10 clinical trials suggested that respiratory infection incidence is lower with high medical facemask compliance, early use and use in combination with intensive hand hygiene. One cohort study conducted during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic demonstrated that facemasks are effective in reducing SARS-CoV-2 transmission when used before those who are infected develop symptoms. One case-control study reported that controls used medical facemasks more often than cases infected with SARS-CoV (p <  0.05). No primary study on cloth facemask effectiveness to prevent respiratory infection transmission was found., Conclusion: Based on the available evidence, medical facemask use by healthy and sick individuals is recommended for preventing respiratory infection transmission in community settings. Medical facemask effectiveness is dependent on compliance and utilization in combination with preventive measures such as intensive hand hygiene. No direct evidence is currently available in humans supporting the recommendation of cloth facemask use to prevent respiratory infection transmission., (Copyright © 2020. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Introduction: Globally, the COVID-19 pandemic has affected older people disproportionately. Prior to the pandemic, some studies reported that telehealth was an efficient and effective form of health care delivery, particularly for older people. There has been increased use of telehealth and publication of new literature on this topic during the pandemic, so we conducted a scoping review and evidence synthesis for telehealth use in geriatric care to summarize learning from these new data. Methods: We searched PubMed, Embase, and the World Health Organization's COVID-19 global research database for articles published between 1 January and 20 August 2020. We included 79 articles that met our inclusion criteria. The information collected has been synthesized and presented as descriptive statistics. Strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT) have also been discussed. Results: The articles included in our review provide some evidence of effective provision of preventive, curative, and rehabilitative telehealth services for older people, but they highlight a greater focus on curative services and are mostly concentrated in high-income countries. We identified convenience and affordability as the strengths of telehealth use in geriatric care. Weaknesses identified include the inability of telehealth to cater to the needs of older people with specific physical and cognitive limitations. While the threats of increasing inequity and the lack of standardization in the provision of age-friendly telehealth services remain, we identified opportunities for technologic advancements driven by simplicity and user-friendliness for older people. Conclusion: Telehealth offers futuristic promise for the provision of essential health care services for older people worldwide. However, the extent of these services via telehealth appears to be currently limited in low and low-middle income countries. Optimizing telehealth services that can be accessed by older people requires greater government investments and active engagement by broader participation of older people, their caregivers, physicians and other health care providers, technology experts, and health managers.

Background: With over 37.8 million cases and over 1 million deaths worldwide, the COVID-19 pandemic has created a societal and economic upheaval of unparalleled magnitude. A positive transformation has been brought about by innovative solutions in the health care sector that aim to mitigate the impact of COVID-19 on human health. For instance, the use of telehealth has been on the rise amidst this public health emergency., Objective: Given the unprecedented scale of the pandemic with no definitive endpoint, we aimed to scope the existing telehealth-related literature during a defined period of the ongoing pandemic (ie, January to June 2020)., Methods: Our scoping review was guided by the Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewer Manual. We systematically searched PubMed and Embase databases with specific eligibility criteria. Data extracted from the shortlisted articles included first author and affiliation, journal title, publication type, terminologies used to describe telehealth and their accompanying definitions, health discipline or medical specialties and subspecialties wherein telehealth had been applied, the purpose of telehealth use, and the authors' overall sentiment on telehealth use. We collated the available information and used descriptive statistics to analyze the synthesized data., Results: In all, 543 articles published across 331 different journals were included in this scoping review. The Journal of Medical Internet Research and its sister journals featured the highest number of articles (25/543, 4.6%). Nearly all (533/543, 98.2%) articles were in English. The majority of the articles were opinions, commentaries, and perspectives (333/543, 61.3%). Most authors of the articles reviewed were from high-income countries (470/543, 86.6%), especially from the United States of America (237/543, 43.6%). In all, 39 different definitions were used to describe terms equivalent to telehealth. A small percentage (42/543, 7.7%) of the articles focused on the provision of COVID-19-related care. Moreover, 49.7% (270/543) of the articles primarily focused on the provision of multiple components of clinical care, and 23% (125/543) of the articles focused on various specialties and subspecialties of internal medicine. For a vast majority (461/543, 84.9%) of the articles, the authors expressed a celebratory sentiment about the use of telehealth., Conclusions: This review identified considerable emerging literature on telehealth during the first six months of the COVID-19 pandemic, albeit mostly from high-income countries. There is compelling evidence to suggest that telehealth may have a significant effect on advancing health care in the future. However, the feasibility and application of telehealth in resource-limited settings and low- and middle-income countries must be established to avail its potential and transform health care for the world's population. Given the rapidity with which telehealth is advancing, a global consensus on definitions, boundaries, protocols, monitoring, evaluation, and data privacy is urgently needed., (©Sathyanarayanan Doraiswamy, Amit Abraham, Ravinder Mamtani, Sohaila Cheema. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (http://www.jmir.org), 01.12.2020.)

The coronavirus disease (COVID-19), while mild in most cases, has nevertheless caused significant mortality. The measures adopted in most countries to contain it have led to colossal social and economic disruptions, which will impact the medium- and long-term health outcomes for many communities. In this paper, we deliberate on the reality and facts surrounding the disease. For comparison, we present data from past pandemics, some of which claimed more lives than COVID-19. Mortality data on road traffic crashes and other non-communicable diseases, which cause more deaths each year than COVID-19 has so far, is also provided. The indirect, serious health and social effects are briefly discussed. We also deliberate on how misinformation, confusion stemming from contrasting expert statements, and lack of international coordination may have influenced the public perception of the illness and increased fear and uncertainty. With pandemics and similar problems likely to re-occur, we call for evidence-based decisions, the restoration of responsible journalism and communication built on a solid scientific foundation.