Search

Background: The outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused substantial changes in lifestyle, responsibilities, and stressors. Such dramatic societal changes might cause overall sleep health to decrease (stress view), to remain unchanged (resilience view), or even to improve (reduced work/schedule burden view).Methods: We addressed this question using longitudinal, cross-sectional, and retrospective recall methodologies in 699 American adult participants in late March 2020, two weeks following the enactment of social distancing and shelter-in-place policies in the United States.Results: Relative to baseline data from mid February 2020, cross-sectional and longitudinal analyses demonstrated that average sleep quality was unchanged, or even improved, early in the pandemic. However, there were clear individual differences: approximately 25% of participants reported that their sleep quality had worsened, which was explained by stress vulnerability, caregiving, adverse life impact, shift work, and presence of COVID-19 symptoms.Conclusions: Therefore, the COVID-19 pandemic has detrimentally impacted some individuals' sleep health while paradoxically benefited other individuals' sleep health by reducing rigid work/school schedules such as early morning commitments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In household telephone surveys, a long field period may be required to maximize the response rate and achieve adequate sample sizes. However, long field periods can be problematic when measures of seasonally affected behavior are sought. Surveys of child care use are one example because child care arrangements vary by season. Options include varying the questions posed about school-year and summer arrangements or posing retrospective questions about child care use for the school year only. This article evaluates the bias associated with the use of retrospective questions about school-year child care arrangements in the 1999 National Survey of America's Families. The authors find little evidence of bias and hence recommend that future surveys use the retrospective approach. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

: PurposeTo evaluate the health status of Gulf War veterans who reported receipt of anthrax vaccination and a small group of Gulf War veterans for whom documentation of anthrax vaccination exists.: MethodsAmong the 11,441 Gulf War veterans who completed a health survey, 4601 reported receiving the anthrax vaccine during the war; 2979 veterans reported not receiving it; 3861 were uncertain. Also, 352 of these respondents were documented by the Department of Defense as having received anthrax vaccination. We compared the medical history of these groups of veterans using multivariate analyses. Finally, we analyzed perception of exposure and its relation to reporting bias.: ResultsThere were statistically significant differences in prevalence for almost all outcomes studied between those who reported having received anthrax vaccination and those who did not so report. However, when we compared the veterans for whom vaccination records exist to the group who self-reported that they had not received the vaccine, the significant differences in prevalence for almost all of the outcomes disappeared.: ConclusionsThe extent of a reporting bias should be carefully considered when one evaluates the health consequences of anthrax vaccination based on self-reported data. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

This article is a summary of discussions held and recommendations made at a workshop for the investigation of waterborne disease outbreaks in Chapel Hill, North Carolina, December 7–8, 1998. Suspected waterborne outbreaks in the United States are primarily investigated by state and local public health officials who may infrequently conduct enteric disease outbreak investigations. Thus, it is important that officials have a formal plan to ensure that epidemiological studies are methodologically sound and that effective collaboration occurs among the epidemiologists, scientists, and engineers who will conduct the investigations. Laboratory support to analyze water samples and clinical specimens should be arranged well in advance of when services may be needed. Enhanced surveillance activities can help officials recognize additional outbreaks and initiate investigations in a timely manner. Epidemiologists should pay more attention early in the investigation to study design, questionnaire development, and sources of bias, especially recall bias, that may affect the interpretation of observed associations. Improved investigations can increase our knowledge about important etiological agents, water systems deficiencies, and sources of water contamination so that waterborne outbreaks can be more effectively prevented. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Research Highlights: Ecological momentary assessments (EMAs) are a fresh approach to measuring behavior by querying the subject in real time. Typical studies of FFO behavior use self-reported survey data. FFOs across the United States collectively own more forested land than any other ownership category, and their actions will impact the public goods these forests provide. Thus, better measures of FFO actions are critical to understanding how these public goods may be affected. Background and Objectives: In this pilot study, we evaluated the potential of ecological momentary assessments to understand family forest owner (FFO) engagement with their woods. We sought to test recruitment, attrition, and participant reaction to the method. Materials and Methods: FFOs belong to woodland owner associations were sent the same questions weekly for a month, asking about woodland engagement. Results: Nearly 90% of participants completed all four surveys and the majority found the method reasonable. Most participants thought about their woods weekly, but a longer time period is needed to measure temporal management trends. Conclusions: This approach may yield real-time and useful information about natural resource engagement to inform conservation-based programming and outreach. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The gold-standard method for collecting patient-reported outcomes (PROs) is the prospective assessment of preoperative to postoperative change. However, this method is not always feasible because of unforeseen cases or emergencies, logistical and infrastructure barriers, and cost issues. In such cases, a retrospective approach serves as a potential alternative, but there are conflicting conclusions regarding the reliability of the recalled preoperative PROs after orthopaedic procedures., Purpose: To assess the agreement between prospectively and retrospectively collected PROs for a common, low-risk procedure., Study Design: Cohort study (Diagnosis); Level of evidence, 3., Methods: Patients who underwent arthroscopic rotator cuff repair between May 2012 and September 2017 at the study institution were identified. All of the patients completed the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) Standard Shoulder Assessment Form preoperatively at their preassessment appointment. Patients were then contacted in the postoperative period and asked to recall their preoperative condition while completing another ASES form., Results: A total of 84 patients completed the telephone survey and were included in this analysis (mean age, 57.40 ± 9.96 years). The mean duration of time from onset of shoulder symptoms to surgery was 9.13 ± 9.08 months. The mean duration of time between surgery and recall ASES administration was 39.12 ± 17.37 months. The mean recall ASES score was significantly lower than the preoperative ASES score (30.69 ± 16.93 vs 51.42 ± 19.14; P < .001). There was poor test-retest reliability between preoperative ASES and recall ASES (intraclass correlation coefficient, 0.292; 95% CI, -0.07, 0.57; P = .068). Greater age at the time of recall, a shorter symptomatic period before surgery, and less severe preoperative shoulder dysfunction were associated with a greater difference between preoperative ASES and recall ASES., Conclusion: Retrospectively reported PROs are subject to significant recall bias. Recalled PROs were almost always lower than their prospectively recorded counterparts. Recalled PROs are more likely to be accurate when reported by younger patients, those with a longer duration of symptoms, and those with more severe preoperative conditions.