Prevalence and determinants of healthcare avoidance during the COVID-19 pandemic: A population-based cross-sectional study

BackgroundDuring the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, the number of consultations and diagnoses in primary care and referrals to specialist care declined substantially compared to prepandemic levels. Beyond deferral of elective non-COVID-19 care by healthcare providers, it is unclear to what extent healthcare avoidance by community-dwelling individuals contributed to this decline in routine healthcare utilisation. Moreover, it is uncertain which specific symptoms were left unheeded by patients and which determinants predispose to healthcare avoidance in the general population. In this cross-sectional study, we assessed prevalence of healthcare avoidance during the pandemic from a patient perspective, including symptoms that were left unheeded, as well as determinants of healthcare avoidance.Methods and findingsOn April 20, 2020, a paper COVID-19 survey addressing healthcare utilisation, socioeconomic factors, mental and physical health, medication use, and COVID-19–specific symptoms was sent out to 8,732 participants from the population-based Rotterdam Study (response rate 73%). All questionnaires were returned before July 10, 2020. By hand, prevalence of healthcare avoidance was subsequently verified through free text analysis of medical records of general practitioners. Odds ratios (ORs) for avoidance were determined using logistic regression models, adjusted for age, sex, and history of chronic diseases. We found that 1,142 of 5,656 included participants (20.2%) reported having avoided healthcare. Of those, 414 participants (36.3%) reported symptoms that potentially warranted urgent evaluation, including limb weakness (13.6%), palpitations (10.8%), and chest pain (10.2%). Determinants related to avoidance were older age (adjusted OR 1.14 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.08 to 1.21]), female sex (1.58 [1.38 to 1.82]), low educational level (primary education versus higher vocational/university 1.21 [1.01 to 1.46), poor self-appreciated health (per level decrease 2.00 [1.80 to 2.22]), unemployment (versus employed 2.29 [1.54 to 3.39]), smoking (1.34 [1.08 to 1.65]), concern about contracting COVID-19 (per level increase 1.28 [1.19 to 1.38]) and symptoms of depression (per point increase 1.13 [1.11 to 1.14]) and anxiety (per point increase 1.16 [1.14 to 1.18]). Study limitations included uncertainty about (perceived) severity of the reported symptoms and potentially limited generalisability given the ethnically homogeneous study population.ConclusionsIn this population-based cross-sectional study, 1 in 5 individuals avoided healthcare during lockdown in the COVID-19 pandemic, often for potentially urgent symptoms. Healthcare avoidance was strongly associated with female sex, fragile self-appreciated health, and high levels of depression and anxiety. These results emphasise the need for targeted public education urging these vulnerable patients to timely seek medical care for their symptoms to mitigate major health consequences.

Marije J. Splinter and colleagues assess the prevalence of healthcare avoidance during the COIVD-19 pandemic and investigate related determinants     

The impact of lockdowns during the COVID-19 pandemic on fertility intentions

Lockdown edicts during the COVID-19 pandemic have led to concerns about consequences for childbirth plans and decisions. Robust empirical research to either refute or confirm these concerns, however, is lacking. To evaluate the causal impact of lockdowns on fertility, we exploited a large sample of Australians (aged 18–45) from a nationally representative household panel survey and leveraged variation from a unique natural experiment that occurred in Australia in 2020: a lockdown imposed in the state of Victoria, but not elsewhere in Australia. Difference-in-differences models were estimated comparing changes in fertility intentions of persons who resided in Victoria during lockdown, or within four weeks of the lockdown being lifted, and those living elsewhere in Australia. Results revealed a significantly larger decline in reported intentions of having another child among women who lived through the protracted lockdown. The average effect was small, with fertility intentions estimated to fall by between 2.8% and 4.3% of the pre-pandemic mean. This negative effect was, however, more pronounced among those aged over 35 years, the less educated, and those employed on fixed-term contracts. Impacts on men’s fertility intentions were generally negligible, but with a notable exception being Indigenous Australians.     

Incidence of gynaecological cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic: A population-based study in the Netherlands

ObjectiveTo study the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and consequent lockdown on the number of diagnoses of gynaecological malignancies in the Netherlands.MethodsWe performed a retrospective cohort study using data from the Netherlands Cancer Registry (NCR) on women of 18 years and older diagnosed with invasive endometrial, ovarian, cervical or vulvar cancer in the period 2017–2021. Analyses were stratified for age, socioeconomical status (SES) and region.ResultsThe incidence rate of gynaecological cancer was 67/100.000 (n = 4832) before (2017–2019) and 68/100.000 (n = 4833) during (2020) the COVID-19 pandemic. Comparing the number of diagnoses of the two periods for the four types of cancer separately showed no significant difference. During the first wave of COVID-19 (March-June 2020), a clear decrease in number of gynaecological cancer diagnoses was visible (20–34 %). Subsequently, large increases in number of diagnoses were visible (11–29 %). No significant differences in incidence were found between different age groups, SES and regions. In 2021 an increase of 5.9 % in number of diagnoses was seen.ConclusionIn the Netherlands, a clear drop in number of diagnoses was visible for all four types of gynaecological cancers during the first wave, with a subsequent increase in number of diagnoses in the second part of 2020 and in 2021. No differences between SES groups were found. This illustrates good organisation of and access to health care in the Netherlands.     

Association between virtual primary care and emergency department use during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic in Ontario,Canada

Background:Uptake of virtual care increased substantially during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether a shift from in-person to virtual visits by primary care physicians was associated with increased use of emergency departments among their enrolled patients.Methods:We conducted an observational study of monthly virtual visits and emergency department visits from Apr. 1, 2020, to Mar. 31, 2021, using administrative data from Ontario, Canada. We used multivariable regression analysis to estimate the association between the proportion of a physician’s visits that were delivered virtually and the number of emergency department visits among their enrolled patients.Results:The proportion of virtual visits was higher among female, younger and urban physicians, and the number of emergency department visits was lower among patients of female and urban physicians. In an unadjusted analysis, a 1% increase in a physician’s proportion of virtual visits was found to be associated with 11.0 (95% confidence interval [CI] 10.1–11.8) fewer emergency department visits per 1000 rostered patients. After controlling for covariates, we observed no statistically significant change in emergency department visits per 1% increase in the proportion of virtual visits (0.2, 95% CI −0.5 to 0.9).Interpretation:We did not find evidence that patients substituted emergency department visits in the context of decreased availability of in-person care with their family physician during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic. Future research should focus on the long-term impact of virtual care on access and quality of patient care.

Access and continuity are important health system characteristics for the prevention and management of chronic diseases and treatment of nonurgent acute concerns.^1,2 Virtual care has the potential to improve both of these characteristics. It has also been associated with improved therapeutic effects, efficiency gains, patient satisfaction and compliance.³ Despite these potential benefits, virtual care was not widely adopted in Canada before the COVID-19 pandemic. In 2018, only 4% of family physicians in Canada were offering video visits.⁴ Some prepandemic studies found reduced quality and inconsistent results regarding patient experiences with virtual care, even with improved access.^3,5 The pandemic pushed health care systems to rapidly implement virtual primary care; physicians in Canada were directed to restrict in-office visits and provide care virtually whenever possible.⁶ One Ontario-based study found a 5600% increase in virtual visits early in the pandemic, while in-office visits decreased by 79%, compared with the same period in 2019.⁷ Several Canadian studies also reported that emergency department visits declined during the first wave of the pandemic, possibly owing to avoidance of in-person urgent care from fear of contracting SARS-CoV-2.^8–10In later stages of the pandemic, questions arose about the quality of virtual care and the broader system effects of reduced access to in-person care, such as patients substituting emergency department visits when in-person care options were unavailable.^11–13 The impact of virtual care on emergency department use has been studied elsewhere, but we are not aware of published studies in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic in Ontario. Six studies found that virtual care had no impact on use of emergency departments, as described in a review article, but 1 study reported that nurse consultations via telephone were associated with increased emergency department visits.¹⁴ Observational studies found no association between virtual care and subsequent or reduced emergency department use.^15,16 Several studies found that patients self-reported that they would use the emergency department 4%–12% of the time if no virtual care options were available.^15,17,18We aimed to evaluate whether a shift from in-person to virtual visits by primary care physicians in patient enrolment practices was associated with increased use of emergency departments among their enrolled patients during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic.     

Characteristics of chest pain in COVID-19 patients in the emergency department

IntroductionPatients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) can present with chest pain. However, the characteristics of this chest pain are unknown. We performed a single-centre observational study to review and summarise chest pain characteristics in COVID-19 patients at first presentation to the emergency department (ED).MethodsWe collected data on characteristics of ‘chest pain’ reported by COVID-19 patients who attended the ED of Bernhoven Hospital, the Netherlands from 4 through 30 March 2020.ResultsWe included 497 COVID-19 patients, of whom 83 (17%) reported chest pain upon presentation to the ED. Chest pain characteristics were: present since disease onset (88%), retrosternal location (43%), experienced as compressing/pressure pain (61%), no radiation (61%) and linked to heavy coughing (39%). Patients who reported chest pain were younger than those without chest pain (61 vs 73 years; p < 0.001). Patients with syncope were older (75 vs 72 years; p = 0.017), had a shorter duration of symptoms (5 vs 7 days; p < 0.001) and reported fewer respiratory complaints (68% vs 90%; p < 0.001) than those without syncope. Patients with new-onset atrial arrhythmias presented with a shorter duration of symptoms (5 vs 7 days; p = 0.013), experienced fewer respiratory complaints (72% vs 89%; p = 0.012) and more frequently had a history of cardiovascular disease (79% vs 50%; p = 0.003) than patients who presented without arrythmias.ConclusionChest pain and other cardiac symptoms were frequently observed in COVID-19 patients. Treating physicians should be aware that chest pain, arrhythmias and syncope can be presenting symptoms of COVID-19.Supplementary InformationThe online version of this article (10.1007/s12471-022-01730-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.     

Preterm birth and stillbirth rates during the COVID-19 pandemic: a population-based cohort study

BACKGROUND:Conflicting reports have emerged for rates of preterm births and stillbirths during the COVID-19 pandemic. Most of these reports did not account for natural variation in these rates. We aimed to evaluate variations in preterm birth and stillbirth rates before and during the COVID-19 pandemic in Ontario, Canada.METHODS:We conducted a retrospective cohort study using linked population health administrative databases of pregnant people giving birth in any hospital in Ontario between July 2002 and December 2020. We calculated preterm birth and stillbirth rates. We assessed preterm birth at 22–28, 29–32 and 33–36 weeks’ gestation, and stillbirths at term and preterm gestation. We used Laney control P′ charts for the 18-year study period (6-mo observation periods) and interrupted time-series analyses for monthly rates for the most recent 4 years.RESULTS:We evaluated 2 465 387 pregnancies, including 13 781 that resulted in stillbirth. The mean preterm birth rate for our cohort was 7.96% (range 7.32%–8.59%). From January to December 2020, we determined that the preterm birth rate in Ontario was 7.87%, with no special cause variation. The mean stillbirth rate for the cohort was 0.56% (range 0.48%–0.70%). From January to December 2020, the stillbirth rate was 0.53%, with no special cause variation. We did not find any special cause variation for preterm birth or stillbirth subgroups. We found no changes in slope or gap between prepandemic and pandemic periods using interrupted time-series analyses.INTERPRETATION:In Ontario, Canada, we found no special cause variation (unusual change) in preterm birth or stillbirth rates, overall or by subgroups, during the first 12 months of the COVID-19 pandemic compared with the previous 17.5 years.

Preterm birth (birth before 37 weeks’ gestation) is a leading cause of mortality and morbidities in the neonatal period,¹ childhood and adulthood.² Stillbirth has devastating consequences for families.³ The causes of both preterm birth and stillbirth are multifactorial. During the pandemic, reports described reductions in preterm birth rates in Denmark,⁴ the Netherlands,⁵ Ireland⁶ and the United States.⁷ At the same time, increases in stillbirth rates were reported from the United Kingdom,⁸ Italy,⁹ Nepal¹⁰ and India,¹¹ with or without changes in rates of preterm births. Meta-analyses have emerged with differing conclusions.^12,13 Some speculated reasons for reductions in preterm births included reductions in physical activity during pregnancy, reduced stress related to work–life balance, less exposure to infection, fewer medical interventions, reduced travel and pollution,¹⁴ and improved hygiene and rest. Proposed reasons for increases in preterm birth rates include higher stress due to worry about the pandemic, employment or financial challenges, home schooling and reduced maternity services.¹⁵ Less stringent fetal surveillance from reduced attendance at medical appointments for fear of infection, cancellation of face-to-face appointments and reduced staffing for maternity services are possible reasons for increased rates of stillbirths. Thus, it is important to evaluate preterm births and stillbirths simultaneously to understand the true impact.¹⁶Some previous reports compared preterm birth and stillbirth rates during the pandemic to similar time periods in the past few years. However, within a jurisdiction, these rates are known to fluctuate between epochs¹⁷ and, thus, it is preferable to evaluate rates over longer periods to establish whether observed variations are usual (common cause variation) or unusual (special cause variation). Our objective was to evaluate whether the COVID-19 pandemic affected preterm birth or stillbirth rates in Ontario by comparing rates for the early COVID-19 pandemic time period with rates from the previous 17.5 years to identify patterns of variation.     

The changing health impact of vaccines in the COVID-19 pandemic: A modeling study

1. Download : Download high-res image (278KB)
2. Download : Download full-size image

     

Postpartum mental illness during the COVID-19 pandemic: a population-based,repeated cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND:It is unclear whether the clinical burden of postpartum mental illness has increased during the COVID-19 pandemic. We sought to compare physician visit rates for postpartum mental illness in Ontario, Canada, during the pandemic with rates expected based on prepandemic patterns.METHODS:In this population-based, repeated cross-sectional study using linked health administrative databases in Ontario, Canada, we used negative binomial regression to model expected visit rates per 1000 postpartum people for March–November 2020 based on prepandemic data (January 2016–February 2020). We compared observed visit rates to expected visit rates for each month of the pandemic period, generating absolute rate differences, incidence rate ratios (IRRs) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The primary outcome was a visit to a primary care physician or a psychiatrist for any mental disorder. We stratified analyses by maternal sociodemographic characteristics.RESULTS:In March 2020, the visit rate was 43.5/1000, with a rate difference of 3.11/1000 (95% CI 1.25–4.89) and an IRR of 1.08 (95% CI 1.03–1.13) compared with the expected rate. In April, the rate difference (10.9/1000, 95% CI 9.14–12.6) and IRR (1.30, 95% CI 1.24–1.36) were higher; this level was generally sustained through November 2020. From April–November, we observed elevated visit rates across provider types and for diagnoses of anxiety, depressive and alcohol or substance use disorders. Observed increases from expected visit rates were greater for people 0–90 days postpartum compared with 91–365 days postpartum; increases were small among people living in low-income neighbourhoods. Public health units in the northern areas of the province did not see sustained elevations in visit rates after July; southern health units had elevated rates through to November.INTERPRETATION:Increased visits for mental health conditions among postpartum people during the first 9 months of the COVID-19 pandemic suggest an increased need for effective and accessible mental health care for this population as the pandemic progresses.

Postpartum mental illness affects as many as 1 in 5 mothers,¹ and can result in maternal suffering and diminished functioning.² Related impaired mother–infant interactions are linked to poor social, cognitive and behavioural outcomes in children across their lifespan.³ When mental illness becomes chronic and recurrent, its effects can extend to the entire family and across generations.⁴ With emergence of the novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2), the World Health Organization declared a global COVID-19 pandemic on Mar. 11, 2020. Globally, efforts to contain the virus have led to widespread travel restrictions, physical distancing and work limitations, causing broad social and financial disruption that has been associated with substantial mental health effects.^5,6During the COVID-19 pandemic, people have been reporting concerns about postpartum infection,⁷ and difficulty accessing the extended postpartum social support networks and key community programs that protect against mental illness, such as home visits from public health nurses, breastfeeding clinics and support groups, owing to public health measures.⁸ In Canadian surveys, about 50% of pregnant people reported psychological distress in spring 2020,⁹ and alcohol use increased among women, particularly among those with young children.¹⁰ Whether this represents an increased clinical burden of mental illness or need for care is unknown.Using routinely collected health care data from Ontario, Canada, (population of about 14.6 million), we aimed to examine whether rates of maternal visits to physicians for postpartum mental illness from March to November 2020 differed from expected visit rates based on pre-COVID-19 patterns, and to identify variation by provider type, clinical diagnosis, postpartum timing, parity, income, ethnicity and region of residence.     

Pediatric dental emergency management and parental treatment preferences during COVID-19 pandemic as compared to 2019

Pediatric dental emergency management were temporarily suspended during the COVID-19 pandemic, which worsened urgent dental needs. This retrospective study investigated the management of pediatric emergencies during COVID-19 lockdown and the trends in parental preferences from March to July in 2019 and 2020. Pediatric dental emergencies managed during pandemic was collated, procedures were categorized (emergency, restorative, preventive, elective) and trends in parental treatment preference was compared from March-July 2019/2020. Bivariate analysis was performed using fisher-exact test and statistical significance was set at 5%. Total 1081 children were treated during COVID-19 lockdown, and 1509 procedures were performed, of which 20.8% were emergency, 42% restorative, 24.4% preventive, 12.6% elective. In 2019, 7462 children were treated; and except for emergency (10.6%), other procedures were comparable to 2020. Extractions (267) predominated in 2020 followed by sealants (195); but in 2019, pulectomy (1268), scaling (1251) were predominant. None of the residents who performed aerosol procedures got infected with COVID-19 during the lockdown. Emergency dental needs among pediatric patients were very high during the COVID-19 pandemic in South India, and there was not much change in the trend in parental treatment preference in 2019 and 2020. Further, aerosol procedures did not increase the risk of COVID-19 during the pandemic provided proper universal precautions were followed.     

The psychological burden of the COVID-19 pandemic severity

The alarming levels of spread and severity of COVID-19 have dominated global attention. In this time of crisis, there is an urgent need for studies identifying the linkages between the pandemic and social welfare. To help policymakers respond to the situation better, we investigate how the severity of the COVID-19 pandemic can condition people's psychological well-being. Employing the latest weekly panel data within an individual fixed effects framework, we uncover the damaging consequences of the COVID-19 severity, as measured by mortality rate, on the incidences of daily anxiety, worry, displeasure, and depression in the United States. Our work underlines the importance of public spending on mental health, both during and after the pandemic.     

The influence of the COVID-19 pandemic on spring turkey hunting

The rapid rise of COVID-19 and the governmental response to slow the spread of the pandemic occurred prior to, or during, the opening of the spring wild turkey (Meleagris gallopavo) hunting seasons (Mar to May 2020) in the United States. The response of fish and wildlife agencies to the pandemic varied throughout the United States during the spring turkey season. The Nebraska Game and Parks Commission (NGPC) suspended the sale of non-resident, spring turkey hunting permits on 30 March 2020 in a proactive effort to minimize the spread of COVID-19. In this study, we evaluated the extent that the COVID-19 pandemic affected the spring turkey permit sales and harvest in Nebraska, USA. We combined information from NGPC's electronic licensing system, responses from 2017–2019 spring turkey hunter surveys (pre-pandemic), and responses from the 2020 (during the pandemic) spring turkey hunter survey, which included additional questions about the influence of COVID-19 on respondents' hunting experiences. There was an increase in the number of resident hunters (23%) and resident permits sold (26%) and a decrease in the number of non-resident hunters (−88%) and non-resident permits sold (−89%) in 2020 as compared to the 3 years prior. Further, non-residents, more so than Nebraska residents, claimed that the COVID-19 pandemic affected their spring turkey hunting in their precautions taken, overall satisfaction, pre-season planning for the spring turkey season, and plans made prior to the outbreak. Wildlife agencies should prepare for the potential effects that significant disruptions (like that observed with the COVID-19 pandemic) might have on hunting participation, especially if a significant portion of revenue is derived from non-resident permit sales, and develop plans and policies so that they can react appropriately.     

Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on patients and health professionals of a radiation oncology department at a Spanish tertiary hospital

BackgroundThe sanitary emergency created by the COVID-19 pandemic forced us to take exceptional measures that affect decision-making and administration of treatments with radiotherapy. The aim of the study was to analyze the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on patients and professionals in a radiation oncology department.Materials and methodsWe implement a plan with the objectives of maintaining radiotherapy treatment in those patients who need it and, at the same time, reducing the risk of spreading the virus to staff and patients. This plan included measures aimed at limiting the patient’s stay in hospital, selecting those patients in whom radiotherapy cannot be delayed and protecting against infection through the use of physical protective measures.ResultsBetween March 16 and May 31, 2020, 360 patients received radiotherapy in our department. In 14 patients (4.7%) the start of treatment was delayed by an average of 28 days. Four patients had a positive COVID-19 polymerase chain reaction (PCR ) (6.6% and 1.1% of tested and all patients, respectively). Among the professionals, two PCR s were positive (16.6% and 4% of tested and all individuals, respectively). In the serology analysis 4 out of 50 department members were IgG positive (8%).ConclusionsDespite the fact that our department is located in a region with a high incidence of COVID-19 infection, the impact of the pandemic on our patients and staff has been moderate. The implementation of measures against infection and an adequate selection of patients for treatment allows radiation oncology departments to maintain clinical activity.