Search

Health behaviors that do not effectively prevent disease can negatively impact psychological wellbeing and potentially drain motivations to engage in more effective behavior, potentially creating higher health risk. Despite this, studies linking "moral foundations" (i.e., concerns about harm, fairness, purity, authority, ingroup, and/or liberty) to health behaviors have generally been limited to a narrow range of behaviors, specifically effective ones. We therefore explored the degree to which moral foundations predicted a wider range of not only effective but ineffective (overreactive) preventative behaviors during the COVID-19 pandemic. In Study 1, participants from Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States reported their engagement in these preventative behaviors and completed a COVID-specific adaptation of the Moral Foundations Questionnaire during the pandemic peak. While differences occurred across countries, authority considerations consistently predicted increased engagement in both effective preventative behaviors but also ineffective overreactions, even when controlling for political ideology. By contrast, purity and liberty considerations reduced intentions to engage in effective behaviors like vaccination but had no effect on ineffective behaviors. Study 2 revealed that the influence of moral foundations on U.S participants' behavior remained stable 5-months later, after the pandemic peak. These findings demonstrate that the impact of moral foundations on preventative behaviors is similar across a range of western democracies, and that recommendations by authorities can have unexpected consequences in terms of promoting ineffective—and potentially damaging—overreactive behaviors. The findings underscore the importance of moral concerns for the design of health interventions that selectively promote effective preventative behavior. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The unprecedented pressure of working on the frontline during the Covid-19 pandemic had a demonstrable impact on the mental health and wellbeing of health and social care workers in the early stages of the pandemic, however, less research has focused on workers' experiences over the longer course of the pandemic. Aims: We set out to develop an explanatory model of the processes that helped and hindered the coping of HSCWs working over the course of the Covid-19 pandemic. Method: Twenty HSCWs based in the UK took part in the study. They completed semi-structured interviews 12–18 months after the peak of the first wave in the UK. Interviews were transcribed and analysed using grounded theory methodology. Results: The analysis identified eleven theoretical codes: personal context, organisational resources, organisational response, management, colleagues, decision-making and responsibilities, internal impacts, external impactors, safety, barriers to accessing support and temporal factors. The findings suggest that factors related to the individual themselves, their personal context, the organisation they work in, their managers, the support structures around them and their sense of safety impacted on HSCWs; ability to cope. Some factors changed over time throughout the first year of the pandemic, such as workload and staff illness, which further impacted HSCWs' coping. There were many barriers to accessing support that also impacted coping, including availability, awareness and time. The relationship between the factors that impacted coping are represented in an explanatory model. Conclusions: The findings extend previous studies on the mental health impact on frontline HSCWs working during Covid-19, providing novel insight by developing an explanatory model illustrating the underlying factors that impacted their coping experiences over the course of the pandemic in the UK. The findings from this study may assist in the development of improved and more effective support for HSCWs going forwards. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Infectious disease outbreaks have historically been associated with stigmatisation towards minority groups, specifically those associated with the geographical region that the disease was first identified. We aimed to investigate how the emerging COVID-19 pandemic was experienced by UK-resident individuals of Chinese ethnicity: how their perceived cultural and ethnic identity influenced their experiences, and how early insights into the pandemic in China influenced attitudes and behaviours. We undertook in-depth semi-structured interviews with individuals who self-identified as UK-Chinese. Participants were recruited from three cities in the UK. Interviews were undertaken over the telephone between 9th April 2020 and 16th July 2020. Interviews were digitally recorded and transcribed verbatim. Transcripts were coded using NVivo software and analysed using inductive thematic analysis. Sixteen individuals were interviewed. Three main themes were identified: (1) Attribution of stigma, (2) Pandemic legacies, and (3) Individual versus societal responses. These reflected six sub-themes: (1) Stigmatisation through (mis)identity, (2) Markers of pandemic awareness, (3) Legacies of previous pandemics, (4) Ascription of blame, (5) Extent of freedom, and (6) Implicit faith in government. Experiences of xenophobia included accounts of physical violence. UK-Chinese individuals experienced and perceived widespread xenophobia, in the context of media representations that ascribed blame and exacerbated stigmatisation. Prior experience of respiratory epidemics, and insight into the governmental and societal response in China, contributed to the early adoption of face masks. This in turn marked UK-Chinese individuals as targets for abuse. Awareness is needed to safeguard stigmatized groups from social and economic harm in future infectious disease pandemics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Racial/ethnic minorities have been disproportionately impacted by COVID-19. The effects of COVID-19 on the long-term mental health of minorities remains unclear. To evaluate differences in odds of screening positive for depression and anxiety among various racial and ethnic groups during the latter phase of the COVID-19 pandemic, we performed a cross-sectional analysis of 691,473 participants nested within the prospective smartphone-based COVID Symptom Study in the United States (U.S.) and United Kingdom (U.K). from February 23, 2021 to June 9, 2021. In the U.S. (n=57,187), compared to White participants, the multivariable odds ratios (ORs) for screening positive for depression were 1·16 (95% CI: 1·02 to 1·31) for Black, 1·23 (1·11 to 1·36) for Hispanic, and 1·15 (1·02 to 1·30) for Asian participants, and 1·34 (1·13 to 1·59) for participants reporting more than one race/other even after accounting for personal factors such as prior history of a mental health disorder, COVID-19 infection status, and surrounding lockdown stringency. Rates of screening positive for anxiety were comparable. In the U.K. (n=643,286), racial/ethnic minorities had similarly elevated rates of positive screening for depression and anxiety. These disparities were not fully explained by changes in leisure time activities. Racial/ethnic minorities bore a disproportionate mental health burden during the COVID-19 pandemic. These differences will need to be considered as health care systems transition from prioritizing infection control to mitigating long-term consequences. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A large literature at the crossroads of biology and cognitive psychology has shown that individuals hold generally positive expectations about future events. Despite this evidence, to date it remains unclear whether optimism has positive or negative implications for entrepreneurial activities. We examine this question in the context of the Covid-19 pandemic, which provides a unique way to study the role of optimism on the (in)ability of firms to overcome exogenous shocks. Using a large-scale longitudinal survey covering 1,632 UK firms, we find that entrepreneurs who score high on optimism were more likely to innovate and make organizational changes to their firms during the Covid-19 outbreak. Moreover, optimistic entrepreneurs experienced higher revenue growth during the pandemic. Collectively, our study sheds light on one of the psychological factors explaining why some firms can prosper and some others struggle in the wake of an external shock. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The Covid-19 pandemic in the United Kingdom has seen two waves; the first starting in March 2020 and the second in late October 2020. It is not known whether outcomes for those admitted with severe Covid were different in the first and second waves. Methods: The study population comprised all patients admitted to a 1,500-bed London Hospital Trust between March 2020 and March 2021, who tested positive for Covid-19 by PCR within 3-days of admissions. Primary outcome was death within 28-days of admission. Socio-demographics (age, sex, ethnicity), hypertension, diabetes, obesity, baseline physiological observations, CRP, neutrophil, chest x-ray abnormality, remdesivir and dexamethasone were incorporated as co-variates. Proportional subhazards models compared mortality risk between wave 1 and wave 2. Cox-proportional hazard model with propensity score adjustment were used to compare mortality in patients prescribed remdesivir and dexamethasone. Results: There were 3,949 COVID-19 admissions, 3,195 hospital discharges and 733 deaths. There were notable differences in age, ethnicity, comorbidities, and admission disease severity between wave 1 and wave 2. Twenty-eight-day mortality was higher during wave 1 (26.1% versus 13.1%). Mortality risk adjusted for co-variates was significantly lower in wave 2 compared to wave 1 [adjSHR 0.49 (0.37, 0.65) p<0.001]. Analysis of treatment impact did not show statistically different effects of remdesivir [HR 0.84 (95%CI 0.65, 1.08), p = 0.17] or dexamethasone [HR 0.97 (95%CI 0.70, 1.35) p = 0.87]. Conclusion: There has been substantial improvements in COVID-19 mortality in the second wave, even accounting for demographics, comorbidity, and disease severity. Neither dexamethasone nor remdesivir appeared to be key explanatory factors, although there may be unmeasured confounding present. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The rapid development of COVID-19 vaccines has brought an unprecedented focus on public attitudes to vaccines, with intention to accept a COVID-19 vaccine fluctuating during the pandemic. However, it is unclear how the pandemic may influence attitudes and behaviour in relation to vaccines in general. The aim of the current study is to examine older adults' changes in vaccination attitudes and behaviour over the first year of the pandemic. Methods: In February-March 2020 (before the first COVID-19 national lockdown in the UK), 372 older adults (aged 65+) provided sociodemographic information, self-reported influenza vaccine uptake, and completed two measures of vaccination attitudes: the 5C scale and the Vaccination Attitudes Examination Scale. One-year later, following rollout of COVID-19 vaccines to older adults, participants provided information on their COVID-19 and influenza vaccine uptake in the previous 12 months, and completed the 5C and VAX scales again. Paired samples t-tests were used to examine changes in vaccination attitudes over time. Results: Almost all participants (98.7%) had received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine, and a significant increase in influenza uptake was identified (83.6% in 2020 to 91.6% in 2021). Complacency, mistrust of vaccine benefit, concerns about commercial profiteering, and constraints to vaccination had significantly decreased between Time 1 and Time 2, and collective responsibility had significant increased. However, calculation and worries about unforeseen future effects had increased, indicating that participants now perceived higher risks related to vaccination and were taking a more deliberative information-seeking approach. Conclusion: The results show significant changes in vaccination attitudes across the pandemic. These changes suggest that while older adults became less complacent about the importance of vaccines, concerns about potential risks associated with vaccination increased. It will be important for public health communication to address these concerns for all vaccines offered to this group. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: As war and famine are population level stressors that have been historically linked to menstrual cycle abnormalities, we hypothesized that the COVID-19 pandemic could similarly affect ovulation and menstruation among women. Methodology: We conducted a retrospective cohort study examining changes in ovulation and menstruation among women using the Natural Cycles mobile tracking app. We compared de-identified cycle data from March-September 2019 (pre-pandemic) versus March-September 2020 (during pandemic) to determine differences in the proportion of users experiencing anovulation, abnormal cycle length, and prolonged menses, as well as population level changes in these parameters, while controlling for user-reported stress during the pandemic. Findings: We analyzed data from 214,426 cycles from 18,076 app users, primarily from Great Britain (29.3%) and the United States (22.6%). The average user was 33 years of age; most held at least a university degree (79.9%). Nearly half (45.4%) reported more pandemic-related stress. Changes in average cycle and menstruation lengths were not clinically significant, remaining at 29 and 4 days, respectively. Approximately 7.7% and 19.5% of users recorded more anovulatory cycles and abnormal cycle lengths during the pandemic, respectively. Contrary to expectation, 9.6% and 19.6% recorded fewer anovulatory cycles and abnormal cycle lengths, respectively. Women self-reporting more (32.0%) and markedly more (13.6%) stress during the pandemic were not more likely to experience cycle abnormalities. Conclusions: The COVD-19 pandemic did not induce population-level changes to ovulation and menstruation among women using a mobile app to track menstrual cycles and predict ovulation. While some women experienced abnormalities during the pandemic, this proportion was smaller than that observed prior to the pandemic. As most app users in this study were well-educated women over the age of 30 years, and from high-income countries, their experience of the COVID-19 pandemic might differ in ways that limit the generalizability of these findings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The entire world has suffered a lot since the outbreak of the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) in 2019, so simulation models of COVID-19 dynamics are urgently needed to understand and control the pandemic better. Meanwhile, emotional contagion, the spread of vigilance or panic, serves as a negative feedback to the epidemic, but few existing models take it into consideration. In this study, we proposed an innovative multi-layer hybrid modelling and simulation approach to simulate disease transmission and emotional contagion together. In each layer, we used a hybrid simulation method combining agent-based modelling (ABM) with system dynamics modelling (SDM), keeping spatial heterogeneity while reducing computation costs. We designed a new emotion dynamics model IWAN (indifferent, worried, afraid and numb) to simulate emotional contagion inside a community during an epidemic. Our model was well fit to the data of China, the UK and the US during the COVID-19 pandemic. If there weren't emotional contagion, our experiments showed that the confirmed cases would increase rapidly, for instance, the total confirmed cases during simulation in Guangzhou, China would grow from 334 to 2096, which increased by 528%. We compared the calibrated emotional contagion parameters of different countries and found that the suppression effect of emotional contagion in China is relatively more visible than that in the US and the UK. Due to the experiment results, the proposed multi-layer network model with hybrid simulation is valid and can be applied to the quantitative analysis of the epidemic trends and the suppression effect of emotional contagion in different countries. Our model can be modified for further research to study other social factors and intervention policies in the COVID-19 pandemic or future epidemics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The COVID-19 pandemic continues to impact human health and welfare on a global level. In March 2020, stringent national restrictions were enforced in the UK to protect public health and slow the spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. Restrictions were likely to have resulted in collateral consequences for the health and welfare of horses and ponies, especially those at risk of obesity and laminitis and this issue warranted more detailed exploration. The current study utilised qualitative methodology to investigate the implications of COVID-19 related policies upon equine management and welfare with a focus on horses and ponies at risk of laminitis and obesity. Twenty-four interviews with five sub-groups of key equestrian welfare stakeholders in the UK were conducted between May and July of 2020 to understand the challenges facing equine welfare in the context of laminitis and obesity susceptible animals. Thematic analysis revealed lockdown-associated factors with the potential to compromise welfare of horses and ponies at risk of obesity and laminitis. These included: disparate information and guidance, difficulties enacting public health measures in yard environments, and horses having reduced exercise during the pandemic. Positive examples of clear and consistent information sharing by farriers were reported to have improved horse owner understanding of routine hoof care during lockdown. Analysis suggested that the recommendations for supporting the management-based needs of horses under reduced supervision were not clearly defined, or were not sufficiently disseminated, across the equine industry. These findings support the development of guidelines specific to the care of horses and ponies at risk of obesity and laminitis through collaborative input from veterinary and welfare experts, to reduce the negative impacts of future lockdown events in the UK. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The COVID-19 global pandemic and the lockdown policies enacted to mitigate it have had profound effects on the labour market. Understanding these effects requires us to obtain and analyse data in as close to real time as possible, especially as rules change rapidly and local lockdowns are enacted. This work studies the UK labour market by analysing data from the online job board Reed.co.uk, using topic modelling and geo-inference methods to break down the data by sector and geography. I also study how the salary, contract type, and mode of work have changed since the COVID-19 crisis hit the UK in March. Overall, vacancies were down by 60 to 70% in the first weeks of lockdown. By the end of the year numbers had recovered somewhat, but the total job ad deficit is measured to be over 40%. Broken down by sector, vacancies for hospitality and graduate jobs are greatly reduced, while there were more care work and nursing vacancies during lockdown. Differences by geography are less significant than between sectors, though there is some indication that local lockdowns stall recovery and less badly hit areas may have experienced a smaller reduction in vacancies. There are also small but significant changes in the salary distribution and number of full time and permanent jobs. As well as the analysis, this work presents an open methodology that enables a rapid and detailed survey of the job market in unsettled conditions and describes a web application jobtrender.com that allows others to query this data set. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, social and traditional media have disseminated predictions from experts and nonexperts about its expected magnitude. How accurate were the predictions of 'experts'—individuals holding occupations or roles in subject-relevant fields, such as epidemiologists and statisticians—compared with those of the public? We conducted a survey in April 2020 of 140 UK experts and 2,086 UK laypersons; all were asked to make four quantitative predictions about the impact of COVID-19 by 31 Dec 2020. In addition to soliciting point estimates, we asked participants for lower and higher bounds of a range that they felt had a 75% chance of containing the true answer. Experts exhibited greater accuracy and calibration than laypersons, even when restricting the comparison to a subset of laypersons who scored in the top quartile on a numeracy test. Even so, experts substantially underestimated the ultimate extent of the pandemic, and the mean number of predictions for which the expert intervals contained the actual outcome was only 1.8 (out of 4), suggesting that experts should consider broadening the range of scenarios they consider plausible. Predictions of the public were even more inaccurate and poorly calibrated, suggesting that an important role remains for expert predictions as long as experts acknowledge their uncertainty. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: The study aims to investigate GPs' experiences of how UK COVID-19 policies have affected the management and safety of complex elderly patients, who suffer from multimorbidity, at the primary care level in North West London (NWL). Design: This is a service evaluation adopting a qualitative approach. Setting: Individual semi-structured interviews were conducted between 6 and 22 May 2020, 2 months after the introduction of the UK COVID-19 Action Plan, allowing GPs to adapt to the new changes and reflect on their impact. Participants: Fourteen GPs working in NWL were interviewed, until data saturation was reached. Outcome measures: The impact of COVID-19 policies on the management and safety of complex elderly patients in primary care from the GPs' perspective. Results: Participants' average experience was fourteen years working in primary care for the NHS. They stated that COVID-19 policies have affected primary care at three levels, patients' behaviour, work conditions, and clinical practice. GPs reflected on the impact through five major themes; four of which have been adapted from the Safety Attitudes Questionnaire (SAQ) framework, changes in primary care (at the three levels mentioned above), involvement of GPs in policy making, communication and coordination (with patients and in between medical teams), stressors and worries; in addition to a fifth theme to conclude the GPs' suggestions for improvement (either proposed mitigation strategies, or existing actions that showed relative success). A participant used an expression of "infodemic" to describe the GPs' everyday pressure of receiving new policy updates with their subsequent changes in practice. Conclusion: The COVID-19 pandemic has affected all levels of the health system in the UK, particularly primary care. Based on the GPs' perspective in NWL, changes to practice have offered opportunities to maintain safe healthcare as well as possible drawbacks that should be of concern. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: There are concerns that both the experience of adversities during the COVID-19 pandemic and worries about experiencing adversities will have substantial and lasting effects on mental health. One pathway through which both experience of and worries about adversity may impact health is through effects on sleep. Methods: We used data from 46,284 UK adults in the COVID-19 Social Study assessed weekly from 01/04/2020-12/05/2020 to study the association between adversities and sleep quality. We studied six categories of adversity including both worries and experiences of: illness with COVID-19, financial difficulty, loss of paid work, difficulties acquiring medication, difficulties accessing food, and threats to personal safety. We used random-effect within-between models to account for all time-invariant confounders. Results: Both the total number of adversity experiences and total number of adversity worries were associated with lower quality sleep. Each additional experience was associated with a 1.16 (95% CI = 1.10, 1.22) times higher odds of poor quality sleep while each additional worry was associated with a 1.20 (95% CI = 1.17, 1.22) times higher odds of poor quality sleep. When considering specific experiences and worries, all worries and experiences were significantly related to poorer quality sleep except experiences relating to employment and finances. Having a larger social network offered some buffering effects on associations but there was limited further evidence of moderation by other social or psychiatric factors. Conclusion: Poor sleep may be a mechanism by which COVID-19 adversities are affecting mental health. This highlights the importance of interventions that support adaptive coping strategies during the pandemic. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

During the Covid-19 pandemic, universities in the UK used social media to raise awareness and provide guidance and advice about the disease to students and staff. We explain why some universities used social media to communicate with stakeholders sooner than others. To do so, we identified the date of the first Covid-19 related tweet posted by each university in the country and used survival models to estimate the effect of university-specific characteristics on the timing of these messages. In order to confirm our results, we supplemented our analysis with a study of the introduction of coronavirus-related university webpages. We find that universities with large numbers of students are more likely to use social media and the web to speak about the pandemic sooner than institutions with fewer students. Universities with large financial resources are also more likely to tweet sooner, but they do not introduce Covid-19 webpages faster than other universities. We also find evidence of a strong process of emulation, whereby universities are more likely to post a coronavirus-related tweet or webpage if other universities have already done so. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The over-purchasing and hoarding of necessities is a common response to crises, especially in developed economies where there is normally an expectation of plentiful supply. This behaviour was observed internationally during the early stages of the Covid-19 pandemic. In the absence of actual scarcity, this behaviour can be described as 'panic buying' and can lead to temporary shortages. However, there have been few psychological studies of this phenomenon. Here we propose a psychological model of over-purchasing informed by animal foraging theory and make predictions about variables that predict over-purchasing by either exacerbating or mitigating the anticipation of future scarcity. These variables include additional scarcity cues (e.g. loss of income), distress (e.g. depression), psychological factors that draw attention to these cues (e.g. neuroticism) or to reassuring messages (eg. analytical reasoning) or which facilitate over-purchasing (e.g. income). We tested our model in parallel nationally representative internet surveys of the adult general population conducted in the United Kingdom (UK: N = 2025) and the Republic of Ireland (RoI: N = 1041) 52 and 31 days after the first confirmed cases of COVID-19 were detected in the UK and RoI, respectively. About three quarters of participants reported minimal over-purchasing. There was more over-purchasing in RoI vs UK and in urban vs rural areas. When over-purchasing occurred, in both countries it was observed across a wide range of product categories and was accounted for by a single latent factor. It was positively predicted by household income, the presence of children at home, psychological distress (depression, death anxiety), threat sensitivity (right wing authoritarianism) and mistrust of others (paranoia). Analytic reasoning ability had an inhibitory effect. Predictor variables accounted for 36% and 34% of the variance in over-purchasing in the UK and RoI respectively. With some caveats, the data supported our model and points to strategies to mitigate over-purchasing in future crises. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The nature of the COVID-19 pandemic may require governments to use privacy-encroaching technologies to help contain its spread. One technology involves co-location tracking through mobile Wi-Fi, GPS, and Bluetooth to permit health agencies to monitor people's contact with each other, thereby triggering targeted social-distancing when a person turns out to be infected. The effectiveness of tracking relies on the willingness of the population to support such privacy encroaching measures. We report the results of two large surveys in the United Kingdom, conducted during the peak of the pandemic, that probe people's attitudes towards various tracking technologies. The results show that by and large there is widespread acceptance for co-location tracking. Acceptance increases when the measures are explicitly time-limited and come with opt-out clauses or other assurances of privacy. Another possible future technology to control the pandemic involves "immunity passports", which could be issued to people who carry antibodies for the COVID-19 virus, potentially implying that they are immune and therefore unable to spread the virus to other people. Immunity passports have been considered as a potential future step to manage the pandemic. We probe people's attitudes towards immunity passports and find considerable support overall, although around 20% of the public strongly oppose passports. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To extrapolate the 'mood as information' theory to the unique and ecologically relevant setting of the COVID-19 pandemic; the specific aim was to inform health care providers of the impact of bringing the pandemic to salience during life satisfaction evaluations, assessing whether this 'prime' results in increased or decreased reports of satisfaction which are derived unconsciously. Design: Prospective Randomised Interventional Study. Setting: Renal Transplant Department in a tertiary centre in the United Kingdom. Participants: 200 Renal transplant patients aged between 20 and 88 years. Telephone interviews were undertaken between 1st May, 2020 and 29th May, 2020, at the height of 'shielding' from COVID-19. Interventions: Participants were randomised into 2 groups, with 1 group receiving a simple 'priming question' regarding the COVID pandemic and the other group having no prior contact. Main outcome measurements: Individuals were then asked to rate their own overall lifetime happiness; desire to change; overall life satisfaction and momentary happiness on a scale of 1 to 10 for each measure. Independent sample t-tests were used to compare results between the two groups, with a type 1 error rate below 5% considered statistically significant. Results: Participants' overall happiness with their life as a whole revealed that individuals who were primed with a question about COVID-19 reported increased overall happiness with their life compared to individuals who had not been primed (+0.88, 95% confidence interval 0.42 to 1.35, p = 0.0002). In addition, participants in the primed group reported less desire to change their life when compared to the non-primed group (-1.35, 95% confidence interval -2.06 to -0.65, p = 0.0002). Participants who were primed with the COVID-19 question also reported a higher overall satisfaction with their life than individuals who had not been primed (+1.01, 95% confidence interval 0.50 to 1.52, p = 0.0001). Finally, the participants who received the priming question demonstrated increased reported momentary happiness (+0.64, 95% confidence interval 0.03 to 1.24, p = 0.04). Conclusions: The results demonstrated that bringing salience to the COVID-19 pandemic with a simple question leads to positive changes in both momentary happiness and other components of global life satisfaction, thereby extrapolating evidence for the application of the mood-as-information theory to more extreme life circumstances. Given the importance of patient-reported evaluations, these findings have implications for how, when and where accurate and reproducible measurements of life satisfaction should be obtained. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As the number of cases of COVID-19 continues to grow, local health services are at risk of being overwhelmed with patients requiring intensive care. We develop and implement an algorithm to provide optimal re-routing strategies to either transfer patients requiring Intensive Care Units (ICU) or ventilators, constrained by feasibility of transfer. We validate our approach with realistic data from the United Kingdom and Spain. In the UK, we consider the National Health Service at the level of trusts and define a 4-regular geometric graph which indicates the four nearest neighbours of any given trust. In Spain we coarse-grain the healthcare system at the level of autonomous communities, and extract similar contact networks. Through random search optimisation we identify the best load sharing strategy, where the cost function to minimise is based on the total number of ICU units above capacity. Our framework is general and flexible allowing for additional criteria, alternative cost functions, and can be extended to other resources beyond ICU units or ventilators. Assuming a uniform ICU demand, we show that it is possible to enable access to ICU for up to 1000 additional cases in the UK in a single step of the algorithm. Under a more realistic and heterogeneous demand, our method is able to balance about 600 beds per step in the Spanish system only using local sharing, and over 1300 using countrywide sharing, potentially saving a large percentage of these lives that would otherwise not have access to ICU. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Loneliness is a significant public health issue. The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in lockdown measures limiting social contact. The UK public are worried about the impact of these measures on mental health outcomes. Understanding the prevalence and predictors of loneliness at this time is a priority issue for research. Method: The study employed a cross-sectional online survey design. Baseline data collected between March 23rd and April 24th 2020 from UK adults in the COVID-19 Psychological Wellbeing Study were analysed (N = 1964, 18–87 years, M = 37.11, SD = 12.86, 70% female). Logistic regression analysis examined the influence of sociodemographic, social, health and COVID-19 specific factors on loneliness. Results: The prevalence of loneliness was 27% (530/1964). Risk factors for loneliness were younger age group (OR: 4.67–5.31), being separated or divorced (OR: 2.29), scores meeting clinical criteria for depression (OR: 1.74), greater emotion regulation difficulties (OR: 1.04), and poor quality sleep due to the COVID-19 crisis (OR: 1.30). Higher levels of social support (OR: 0.92), being married/co-habiting (OR: 0.35) and living with a greater number of adults (OR: 0.87) were protective factors. Conclusions: Rates of loneliness during the initial phase of lockdown were high. Risk factors were not specific to the COVID-19 crisis. Findings suggest that supportive interventions to reduce loneliness should prioritise younger people and those with mental health symptoms. Improving emotion regulation and sleep quality, and increasing social support may be optimal initial targets to reduce the impact of COVID-19 regulations on mental health outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]