• COVID-19
• Publicationsclose
• KR close

AbstractChina detected the first case of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection with Delta variant in May 2021. We assessed control strategies against this variant of concern. We constructed a robust transmission model to assess the effectiveness of interventions against the Delta variant in Guangzhou with initial quarantine/isolation, followed by social distancing. We also assessed the effectiveness of alternative strategies and that against potentially more infectious variants. The effective reproduction number (Rt) fell below 1 when the average daily number of close contacts was reduced to ≤ 7 and quarantine/isolation was implemented on average at the same day of symptom onset in Guangzhou. Simulations showed that the outbreak could still be contained when quarantine is implemented on average 1 day after symptom onset while the average daily number of close contacts was reduced to ≤ 9 per person one week after the outbreak's beginning. Early quarantine and reduction of close contacts were found to be important for containment of the outbreaks. Early implementation of quarantine/isolation along with social distancing measures could effectively suppress spread of the Delta and more infectious variants.

Distance-based learning has become one of the common alternative learning options. Currently, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, many academic programmes, including programmes with internship requirements, have switched their teaching and learning strategies from on-campus learning to online platforms. This study aims to understand the experiences and sense-making processes of student-teachers who have completed their student-teaching internships online during the COVID-19 pandemic. To understand the feedback, experiences, and sense-making processes of this group of student-teachers, it is important to collect first-hand sharing. More importantly, the trend of distance learning-based student-teaching internships will be developed during and after the COVID-19 pandemic. The results of this study will serve as one of the first reports about student-teachers' experiences.

We examine how social contacts and feelings of solidarity shape experiences of loneliness during the COVID-19 lockdown in early 2020. From the PsyCorona database, we obtained longitudinal data from 23 countries, collected between March and May 2020. The results demonstrated that although online contacts help to reduce feelings of loneliness, people who feel more lonely are less likely to use that strategy. Solidarity played only a small role in shaping feelings of loneliness during lockdown. Thus, it seems we must look beyond the current focus on online contact and solidarity to help people address feelings of loneliness during lockdown. Finally, online contacts did not function as a substitute for face-to-face contacts outside the home—in fact, more frequent online contact in earlier weeks predicted more frequent face-to-face contacts in later weeks. As such, this work provides relevant insights into how individuals manage the impact of restrictions on their social lives.

Background/Purpose During pandemics like SARS-CoV-2, healthcare providers' well-being and morale are in particular at stake. Burnout may substantially hinder the well-being and morale of healthcare providers, challenging our efforts at disease containment. This study investigated the relationship between perceived COVID-19 stigma and burnout symptoms among physicians and nurses. We further aimed to identify potential factors that may moderate this relationship, including profession, clinical contact with COVID-19 patients, and prior experience with 2003 SARS-CoV-1. Methods We used a web-based, structured survey from March 12th to 29th, 2020 to collect cross-sectional, self-reported data. Participants were provided with a link to the survey which took them on average 5-8 minutes. Survey consisted of demographic characteristics, clinical experiences, perceived COVID-19 related stigma, and burnout symptoms. Linear regression with bootstrapping techniques was adopted to test the relations between stigma and burnout, as well as other potential moderators, while adjusting for demographic and clinical factors. Results Of the 1421 consented respondents, 357 identified as physicians while 1064 identified as nurses. Participants reported some levels of stigma, and noticeable burnout symptoms. Burnout symptoms were positively correlated with COVID-19 stigma, profession, and currently care for confirmed/suspected COVID-19 patients. The interaction between stigma and profession (Stigma × Nurses) but no other interaction terms reached the significance level, suggesting that the slope for nurses was flatter than the slope for physicians. Conclusion The study results suggest that COVID-19 stigma may contribute to burnout among physicians and nurses, and this relation may not vary across clinical roles and experiences but profession.

Background: The first large coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak outside China occurred in Daegu. In response, we developed infection prevention measures for surgical patients during the outbreak at our hospital and retrospectively reviewed the outcomes of COVID-19–related surgical patients.Methods: We reviewed the medical records of 118 COVID-19–related surgical patients and monitored their clinical outcomes until March 31, 2021. We also interviewed healthcare workers who participated in their perioperative care at Kyungpook National University Chilgok Hospital. The perioperative management guidelines for COVID-19–related patients were prepared through multidisciplinary discussions, including the infection control department, surgical departments, and anesthesiology department before and during the COVID-19 outbreak.Results: One standard operating room was temporarily converted to a negative-pressure room by increasing the exhaust air volume, creating a relative pressure of −11.3 Pa. The healthcare workers were equipped with personal protective equipment according to the patient's classification of the risk of COVID-19 transmission. The 118 COVID-19–related patients underwent emergent surgery in the negative-pressure room, including three COVID-19–confirmed patients and five COVID-19–exposed patients. Conclusion: All surgeries of the COVID-19–related patients were performed without specific adverse events or perioperative COVID-19 transmission. Our experience setting up a negative-pressure operating room and conservative perioperative protocol to prevent COVID-19 transmission will help plan and execute infection control measures in the future.

AbstractBackgroundThe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) resulted in a marked decrease in the number of patient visits for acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and delayed patient response and intervention in several countries. This study evaluated the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on the number of patients, patient response time (pain-to-door), and intervention time (door-to-balloon) for patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI).MethodsPatients with STEMI or NSTEMI visiting a hospital in South Korea who underwent primary coronary intervention during the COVID-19 pandemic (January 29, 2020, to December 31, 2020) were compared with those in the equivalent period in 2018 to 2019. Patient response and intervention times were compared for the COVID-19 pandemic window (2020) and the equivalent period in 2018 to 2019.ResultsWe observed no decrease in the number of patients with STEMI (P=0.50) and NSTEMI (P=0.94) during the COVID-19 pandemic compared to that in the previous years. Patient response times (STEMI: P=0.34; NSTEMI: P=0.89) during the overall COVID-19 pandemic period did not differ significantly. However, we identified a significant decrease in time to intervention among patients with STEMI (14%; p<0.01) during the early COVID-19 pandemic.ConclusionsWe found that the number of patient with STEMI and NSTEMI was consistent during the COVID-19 pandemic and that no time delays in patient response and intervention occurred. However, the door-to-balloon time among patients with STEMI significantly reduced during the early COVID-19 pandemic, which could be attributed to reduced emergency care utilization during the early pandemic.

ObjectivesTo identify neurological aspects of Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and to investigate COVID-19 infected patients with and without olfactory dysfunction in relation to polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assay results for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) in the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF).MethodsPubMed and EMBASE databases were searched until March 26, 2021, for observational studies with COVID-19 patients that had performed CSF PCR assay due to the neurologic symptom and reported anosmia status.ResultsInitially, 2,387 studies were identified;167 studies performed SARS-CoV-2 CSF PCR assay, of which our review comprised 45 observational studies that conducted CSF PCR assay for SARS-CoV-2 in 101 patients and reported anosmia status in 55 of 101 patients. Central and peripheral neurological manifestations observed in COVID-19 patients were diverse. The most common neurological diagnoses were Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) and its variants (24%), followed by encephalopathy (21%). The SARS-CoV-2 PCR assay was positive in only four CSF samples, of which two patients had olfactory dysfunction while the others did not.ConclusionsThe neurological spectrum of COVID-19 is diverse, and direct neuroinvasion of SARS-CoV-2 is rare. The neuroprotection against SARS-CoV-2 in COVID-19 patients with anosmia is controversial, as an equal number of patients with and without olfactory dysfunction had positive CSF PCR results for SARS-CoV-2 in our study, and further studies are required to provide more insight into this topic.

Abstract Background Participating in voluntary exercise training is important to meet occupational requirements as well as firefighters’ health and safety. The purpose of this study is to identify salient beliefs associated with voluntary exercise training among firefighters in the pandemic era by comparing outcomes with those from a previous elicitation study, which was carried out before the COVID-19 outbreak. Methods A total of 57 firefighters are recruited to participate in an elicitation study. Participants are requested to respond to six open-ended questions related to voluntary exercise training. Content analysis is used to create categories that combine similar factors in each belief. Beliefs mentioned by more than 30% of participants are used for comparison with the results of the previous research. Results “Improves my physical ability” (n = 44) and “cause injury” (n = 17) are identified as behavioral beliefs in the present study, whereas “makes me tired” and “takes too much time” were also elicited in Lee’s study. Normative beliefs are “family members” (n = 45) and “colleagues” (n = 27) and these results are consistent with those in Lee’s study. “Lack of time” (n = 28), “exercise facilities” (n = 19), and “COVID-19” (n = 19) are elicited as control beliefs in the present study, whereas “physical condition” (n = 21) and “exercise partners” (n = 14) were elicited as other control beliefs, and “COVID-19” was not mentioned in Lee’s study. Conclusion This study can contribute valuable information about salient beliefs associated with exercise training behavior among firefighters, particularly under pandemic conditions. Future researchers should develop tailored exercise training programs for firefighters based on current elicited beliefs.

AbstractRisk factors for COVID-19-related outcomes have been variably reported. We used the standardised LACE index to examine admissions and in-hospital mortality associated with COVID-19. Data were collected in the pre-pandemic period (01-04-2019 to 29-02-2020) from 10,173 patients (47.7% men: mean age ± standard deviation = 68.3 years ± 20.0) and in the pandemic period (01-03-2019 to 31-03-2021) from 12,434 patients. With the latter, 10,982 were without COVID-19 (47.4% men: mean age = 68.3 years ± 19.6) and 1452 with COVID-19 (58.5% men: mean age = 67.0 years ± 18.4). Admissions and mortality were compared between pre-pandemic and pandemic patients, according to LACE index. Admission rates rose disproportionately with higher LACE indices amongst the COVID-19 group. Mortality rates amongst the pre-pandemic, pandemic non-COVID-19 and COVID-19 groups with LACE index scores < 4 were 0.7%, 0.5%, 0%; for scores 4–9 were 5.0%, 3.7%, 8.9%; and for scores ≥ 10 were: 24.2%, 20.4%, 43.4%, respectively. The area under the curve receiver operating characteristic for predicting mortality by LACE index was 76% for COVID-19 and 77% for all non-COVID-19 patients. The risk of age and sex-adjusted mortality did not differ from the pre-pandemic group for COVID-19 patients with LACE index scores < 4. However, risk increased drastically for scores from 4 to 9: odds ratio = 3.74 (95% confidence interval = 2.63–5.32), and for scores ≥ 10: odds ratio = 4.02 (95% confidence interval = 3.38–4.77). In conclusion, patients with LACE index scores ≥ 4 have disproportionally greater risk of COVID-19 hospital admissions and deaths, in support of previous studies in patients without COVID-19. However, of importance, our data also emphasise their increased risk in patients with COVID-19. Because the LACE index has a good predictive power of mortality, it should be considered for routine use to identify high-risk COVID-19 patients.