Project description:BackgroundThe threats to health, associated restrictions and economic consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic have been linked to increases in mental health difficulties for many. Parents, in particular, have experienced many challenges such as having to combine work with home-schooling their children and other caring responsibilities. Yet, it remains unclear how parental mental health has changed throughout the pandemic or what factors may have mitigated or compounded the impact of the pandemic on parents' mental health.MethodsWe examined monthly survey data from two linked UK-based longitudinal studies: COVID-19: Supporting Parents, Adolescents and Children during Epidemics' (Co-SPACE) and COVID-19: Supporting Parents and Young Children during Epidemics' (Co-SPYCE). Data from 5576 parents/carers of 2-17-year-old children collected between April 2020 and January 2021 was analysed using mixed-effect modelling and latent class growth (mixture) modelling.ResultsParental stress and depression, but not anxiety, were higher during the periods of restrictions. This pattern was most pronounced for parents with primary-school-aged children, those that worked at home or had other adults in the household. Being younger, reporting secondary or below education, working out of home, having secondary-school-aged children or children with special education needs (SEN)/neurodevelopmental disorders (ND) further moderated whether, how and when parental mental health symptoms changed. Although around three quarters of parents reported consistently low mental health symptoms, a substantial minority reported consistently high or increasing symptoms of anxiety, stress and depression. The latter were more likely to be parents who were younger than average, were a single adult in the household, had a pre-existing mental health diagnosis or had a child with special educational needs or a ND.ConclusionsThese findings emphasise how different personal circumstances and pre-existing inequalities shaped how parents were affected by this unprecedented global pandemic and highlight the need for support and consideration to meet the needs of families in the future.

Project description:ImportanceThe COVID-19 pandemic disrupted the normal course of cancer screening and detection in the US. A nationwide analysis of the extent of this disruption using cancer registry data has not been conducted.ObjectiveTo assess the observed and expected cancer rate trends for March through December 2020 using data from all 50 US states and the District of Columbia.Design, settings, and participantsThis was a population-based cross-sectional analysis of cancer incidence trends using data on cases of invasive cancer diagnosis reported to the US Cancer Statistics from January 1, 2018, through December 31, 2020. Data analyses were performed from July 6 to 28, 2023.Exposure(s)Age, sex, race, urbanicity, and state-level response to the COVID-19 pandemic at the time of cancer diagnosis.Main outcomes and measuresUsed time-series forecasting methods to calculate expected cancer incidence rates for March 1 through December 31, 2020, from prepandemic trends (January 2018-February 2020). Measured relative difference between observed and expected cancer incidence rates and numbers of potentially missed cancer cases.ResultsThis study included 1 297 874 cancer cases reported in the US from March 1 through December 31, 2020, with an age-adjusted incidence rate of 326.5 cases per 100 000 population. Of the observed cases, 657 743 (50.7%) occurred in male patients, 757 106 (58.3%) in persons 65 years or older, and 1 066 566 (82.2%) in White individuals. Observed rates of all-sites cancer incidence in the US were 28.6% (95% prediction interval [PI], 25.4%-31.7%) lower than expected during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic response (March-May 2020); 6.3% (95% PI, 3.8%-8.8%) lower in June to December 2020; and overall, 13.0% (95% PI, 11.2%-14.9%) lower during the first 10 months of the pandemic. These differences indicate that there were potentially 134 395 (95% PI, 112 544-156 680) undiagnosed cancers during that time frame. Prostate cancer accounted for the largest number of potentially missed cases (22 950), followed by female breast (16 870) and lung (16 333) cancers. Screenable cancers saw a total rate reduction of 13.9% (95% PI, 12.2%-15.6%) compared with the expected rate. The rate of female breast cancer showed evidence of recovery to previous trends after the first 3 months of the pandemic, but levels remained low for colorectal, cervical, and lung cancers. From March to May 2020, states with more restrictive COVID-19 responses had significantly greater disruptions, yet by December 2020, these differences were nonsignificant for all sites except lung, kidney, and pancreatic cancer.Conclusions and relevanceThis cross-sectional analysis of cancer incidence trends found a substantial disruption to cancer diagnoses in the US during the first 10 months of the COVID-19 pandemic. The overall and differential findings can be used to inform where the US health care system should be looking to make up ground in cancer screening and detection.

Project description:BackgroundThe COVID-19 outbreak has left many people isolated within their homes; these people are turning to social media for news and social connection, which leaves them vulnerable to believing and sharing misinformation. Health-related misinformation threatens adherence to public health messaging, and monitoring its spread on social media is critical to understanding the evolution of ideas that have potentially negative public health impacts.ObjectiveThe aim of this study is to use Twitter data to explore methods to characterize and classify four COVID-19 conspiracy theories and to provide context for each of these conspiracy theories through the first 5 months of the pandemic.MethodsWe began with a corpus of COVID-19 tweets (approximately 120 million) spanning late January to early May 2020. We first filtered tweets using regular expressions (n=1.8 million) and used random forest classification models to identify tweets related to four conspiracy theories. Our classified data sets were then used in downstream sentiment analysis and dynamic topic modeling to characterize the linguistic features of COVID-19 conspiracy theories as they evolve over time.ResultsAnalysis using model-labeled data was beneficial for increasing the proportion of data matching misinformation indicators. Random forest classifier metrics varied across the four conspiracy theories considered (F1 scores between 0.347 and 0.857); this performance increased as the given conspiracy theory was more narrowly defined. We showed that misinformation tweets demonstrate more negative sentiment when compared to nonmisinformation tweets and that theories evolve over time, incorporating details from unrelated conspiracy theories as well as real-world events.ConclusionsAlthough we focus here on health-related misinformation, this combination of approaches is not specific to public health and is valuable for characterizing misinformation in general, which is an important first step in creating targeted messaging to counteract its spread. Initial messaging should aim to preempt generalized misinformation before it becomes widespread, while later messaging will need to target evolving conspiracy theories and the new facets of each as they become incorporated.

Project description:BackgroundPost-COVID-19 condition (also known as long COVID) is an emerging chronic illness potentially affecting millions of people. We aimed to evaluate whether outpatient COVID-19 treatment with metformin, ivermectin, or fluvoxamine soon after SARS-CoV-2 infection could reduce the risk of long COVID.MethodsWe conducted a decentralised, randomised, quadruple-blind, parallel-group, phase 3 trial (COVID-OUT) at six sites in the USA. We included adults aged 30-85 years with overweight or obesity who had COVID-19 symptoms for fewer than 7 days and a documented SARS-CoV-2 positive PCR or antigen test within 3 days before enrolment. Participants were randomly assigned via 2 × 3 parallel factorial randomisation (1:1:1:1:1:1) to receive metformin plus ivermectin, metformin plus fluvoxamine, metformin plus placebo, ivermectin plus placebo, fluvoxamine plus placebo, or placebo plus placebo. Participants, investigators, care providers, and outcomes assessors were masked to study group assignment. The primary outcome was severe COVID-19 by day 14, and those data have been published previously. Because the trial was delivered remotely nationwide, the a priori primary sample was a modified intention-to-treat sample, meaning that participants who did not receive any dose of study treatment were excluded. Long COVID diagnosis by a medical provider was a prespecified, long-term secondary outcome. This trial is complete and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04510194.FindingsBetween Dec 30, 2020, and Jan 28, 2022, 6602 people were assessed for eligibility and 1431 were enrolled and randomly assigned. Of 1323 participants who received a dose of study treatment and were included in the modified intention-to-treat population, 1126 consented for long-term follow-up and completed at least one survey after the assessment for long COVID at day 180 (564 received metformin and 562 received matched placebo; a subset of participants in the metformin vs placebo trial were also randomly assigned to receive ivermectin or fluvoxamine). 1074 (95%) of 1126 participants completed at least 9 months of follow-up. 632 (56·1%) of 1126 participants were female and 494 (43·9%) were male; 44 (7·0%) of 632 women were pregnant. The median age was 45 years (IQR 37-54) and median BMI was 29·8 kg/m2 (IQR 27·0-34·2). Overall, 93 (8·3%) of 1126 participants reported receipt of a long COVID diagnosis by day 300. The cumulative incidence of long COVID by day 300 was 6·3% (95% CI 4·2-8·2) in participants who received metformin and 10·4% (7·8-12·9) in those who received identical metformin placebo (hazard ratio [HR] 0·59, 95% CI 0·39-0·89; p=0·012). The metformin beneficial effect was consistent across prespecified subgroups. When metformin was started within 3 days of symptom onset, the HR was 0·37 (95% CI 0·15-0·95). There was no effect on cumulative incidence of long COVID with ivermectin (HR 0·99, 95% CI 0·59-1·64) or fluvoxamine (1·36, 0·78-2·34) compared with placebo.InterpretationOutpatient treatment with metformin reduced long COVID incidence by about 41%, with an absolute reduction of 4·1%, compared with placebo. Metformin has clinical benefits when used as outpatient treatment for COVID-19 and is globally available, low-cost, and safe.FundingParsemus Foundation; Rainwater Charitable Foundation; Fast Grants; UnitedHealth Group Foundation; National Institute of Diabetes, Digestive and Kidney Diseases; National Institutes of Health; and National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences.

Dataset Information

COVID-19: 10 things I wished I'd known some months ago.

Publications

COVID-19: 10 things I wished I'd known some months ago.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets