Search

Purpose: After the declaration by the World Health Organization signaling the conclusion of the COVID-19 pandemic, most countries lifted mandatory mask-wearing regulations. This study aimed to investigate factors such as risk perception and political ideology associated with continued adherence to mask-wearing among specific populations, particularly when it is no longer deemed necessary. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional study including a sample of 1001 respondents stratified by sex, age (≥ 18 years), and region from January 31 to February 2, 2023, after the mandatory mask regulation was lifted in South Korea. Multivariate logistic regression models were applied to estimate the relationships between risk perceptions, political ideology, and mask-wearing maintenance, adjusting for factors such as sex, age, occupation, and trust in the government. Results: Our results indicated significant associations between age, self-reported household economic status, political ideology, affective risk perception, and perceived effectiveness of the government's COVID-related measures with indoor mask-wearing. Specifically, liberals were more likely to keep mask-wearing indoors than conservatives (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 2.19; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.33– 3.59); and those who perceived a greater affective risk of COVID-19 (aOR: 2.47; 95% CI: 1.96– 3.10), along with those who perceived the government's countermeasures as inadequate, were more inclined to maintain the habit of wearing masks indoors (aOR: 1.90; 95% CI: 1.19– 3.03). Conclusion: Our study highlighted the multifaceted factors influencing mask-wearing behavior in the post-COVID-19 era. Even after adjusting for various confounding factors, such as age, sex, and trust in the government, an association remained between affective risk perception, political ideology, and mask-wearing behavior. However, further research for psychological mechanisms is needed to foster a culture of preventive behaviors proportional to the risk of infection. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and purpose: Previous studies on the weekend effect—a phenomenon where stroke outcomes differ depending on whether the stroke occurred on a weekend—mostly targeted ischemic stroke and showed inconsistent results. Thus, we investigated the weekend effect on 30-day mortality in patients with ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke considering the confounding effect of stroke severity and staffing level. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed data of patients hospitalized for ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2018, which were extracted from the claims database of the National Health Insurance System and the Medical Resource Report by the Health Insurance Review & Assessment Service. The primary outcome measure was 30-day all-cause mortality. Results: In total, 278,632 patients were included, among whom 84,240 and 194,392 had a hemorrhagic and ischemic stroke, respectively, with 25.8% and 25.1% of patients, respectively, being hospitalized during the weekend. Patients admitted on weekends had significantly higher 30-day mortality rates (hemorrhagic stroke 16.84%>15.55%, p<0.0001; ischemic stroke 5.06%>4.92%, p<0.0001). However, in the multi-level logistic regression analysis adjusted for case-mix, pre-hospital, and hospital level factors, the weekend effect remained consistent in patients with hemorrhagic stroke (odds ratio [OR] 1.05, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.00–1.10), while the association was no longer evident in patients with ischemic stroke (OR 1.01, 95% CI 0.96–1.06). Conclusions: Weekend admission for hemorrhagic stroke was significantly associated with a higher mortality rate after adjusting for confounding factors. Further studies are required to understand factors contributing to mortality during weekend admission. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Risk perception research, targeting the general public, necessitates the study of the multi-faceted aspects of perceived risk through a holistic approach. This study aimed to investigate the association between the two dimensions of risk perception of COVID-19, i.e., risk as a feeling and analysis, trust in the current government, political ideologies, and socio-demographic factors in South Korea. This study used a year-long repeated cross-sectional design, in which a national sample (n = 23,018) participated in 23 consecutive telephone surveys from February 2020 to February 2021. Most factors differed in the magnitude and direction of their relationships with the two dimensions of risk perception. However, trust in the current government, alone, delineated an association in the same direction for both dimensions, i.e., those with a lower level of trust exhibited higher levels of cognitive and affective risk perception. Although these results did not change significantly during the one-year observation period, they are related to the political interpretation of risk. This study revealed that affective and cognitive risk perceptions addressed different dimensions of risk perception. These findings could help governments and health authorities better understand the nature and mechanisms of public risk perception when implementing countermeasures and policies in response to the COVID-19 pandemic and other public health emergencies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Disparities in emergency care accessibility exist between health service areas (HSAs). There is limited evidence on whether the presence of an emergency department (ED) that exceeds a certain hospital bed capacity is associated with emergency patient outcomes at the regional level. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of HSAs with or without of regional or local emergency centers with 300 or more hospital beds (EC300 or nEC300, respectively) by comparing the 30-day mortality of patients with severe emergency diseases (SEDs) admitted to the hospital through the ED., Methods: The study retrospectively evaluated data from the National Health Information Database (NHID) of the National Health Insurance Service (NHIS) Claims database and enrolled patients who were admitted from the ED for SEDs. SEDs were defined using ICD-10 (International Classification of Diseases 10th Revision) codes for 28 disease categories with high severity, and 56 HSAs were designated as published by the NHIS. We performed hierarchical logistic regression analysis using multilevel models with the generalized linear mixed model (GLIMMIX) procedure to evaluate whether EC300 was associated with the 30-day mortality of SED patients, adjusting for patient-level, prehospital-level, hospital-level, and HSA-level variables., Results: In total, 662 478 patients were analyzed, of whom 54 839 (8.3%) died within 30 days after hospital discharge. Of the 56 HSAs, 46 (82.1%) were included in the EC300 group. After adjustment for patient-level, prehospital-level, hospital-level, and HSA-level variables, nEC300 was significantly associated with increased 30-day mortality in SED patients (adjusted odds ratio [AOR]: 1.33, 95% CI: 1.137-1.153). In addition, patients who visited EDs with fewer annual SED admissions were associated with higher 30-day mortality., Conclusion: nEC300 had a greater risk of 30-day mortality in patients treated with SEDs than EC300. The results indicate that not only the number of EDs in each HSA is important for ensuring adequate patient outcomes but also the presence of EDs with adequate receiving capacity., (© 2024 The Author(s); Published by Kerman University of Medical Sciences This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.)