Dataset Information

Learning from the past: Taiwan's responses to COVID-19 versus SARS.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

To evaluate the prevalence of infection prevention behaviors in Taiwan-wearing facemasks and alcohol-based hand hygiene (AHH)-and compare their practice rates during SARS and COVID-19.

Methods

We surveyed 2328 Taiwanese from July 29 to August 6, 2020, assessing demographics, information sources, and preventive behaviors during the 2003 SARS outbreaks, 2009 pandemic influenza H1N1, COVID-19, and with post-survey intentions. Characteristics associated with the practice of preventive behaviors in 2020 were identified through logistic regression.

Results

Preventive behaviors were conscientiously practiced by 70.2% of participants. Compared with 2003 SARS/2009 H1N1, the percentages of facemask use (66.6% vs 99.2% [indoors], P < 0.001) and on-person AHH (44.2% vs 65.4% [hand sanitizers], P < 0.001) significantly increasedduring 2020 COVID-19. Highest adherence to preventive behaviors in 2020 was among females (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.72), those receiving government COVID-19 information (aOR, 1.52), participants recruited from primary-care clinics (aOR, 1.43), and those who practiced AHH during 2003 SARS/2009 H1N1 (aOR, 1.37).

Conclusions

Government leadership, healthcare providers risk communication, and public cooperation rapidly mitigated the spread of COVID-19 in Taiwan even before vaccination. Future global efforts must implement such population-based preventive behaviors at a level above the viral-transmission-threshold, particularly in areas with fast-spreading SARS-CoV-2 variants.

SUBMITTER: Yen MY

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8178059 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundFor the clinical care of patients with well-established diseases, randomized trials, literature, and research are supplemented with clinical judgment to understand disease prognosis and inform treatment choices. In the void created by a lack of clinical experience with COVID-19, artificial intelligence (AI) may be an important tool to bolster clinical judgment and decision making. However, a lack of clinical data restricts the design and development of such AI tools, particularly in preparation for an impending crisis or pandemic.ObjectiveThis study aimed to develop and test the feasibility of a "patients-like-me" framework to predict the deterioration of patients with COVID-19 using a retrospective cohort of patients with similar respiratory diseases.MethodsOur framework used COVID-19-like cohorts to design and train AI models that were then validated on the COVID-19 population. The COVID-19-like cohorts included patients diagnosed with bacterial pneumonia, viral pneumonia, unspecified pneumonia, influenza, and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) at an academic medical center from 2008 to 2019. In total, 15 training cohorts were created using different combinations of the COVID-19-like cohorts with the ARDS cohort for exploratory purposes. In this study, two machine learning models were developed: one to predict invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) within 48 hours for each hospitalized day, and one to predict all-cause mortality at the time of admission. Model performance was assessed using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC), sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value. We established model interpretability by calculating SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) scores to identify important features.ResultsCompared to the COVID-19-like cohorts (n=16,509), the patients hospitalized with COVID-19 (n=159) were significantly younger, with a higher proportion of patients of Hispanic ethnicity, a lower proportion of patients with smoking history, and fewer patients with comorbidities (P<.001). Patients with COVID-19 had a lower IMV rate (15.1 versus 23.2, P=.02) and shorter time to IMV (2.9 versus 4.1 days, P<.001) compared to the COVID-19-like patients. In the COVID-19-like training data, the top models achieved excellent performance (AUROC>0.90). Validating in the COVID-19 cohort, the top-performing model for predicting IMV was the XGBoost model (AUROC=0.826) trained on the viral pneumonia cohort. Similarly, the XGBoost model trained on all 4 COVID-19-like cohorts without ARDS achieved the best performance (AUROC=0.928) in predicting mortality. Important predictors included demographic information (age), vital signs (oxygen saturation), and laboratory values (white blood cell count, cardiac troponin, albumin, etc). Our models had class imbalance, which resulted in high negative predictive values and low positive predictive values.ConclusionsWe provided a feasible framework for modeling patient deterioration using existing data and AI technology to address data limitations during the onset of a novel, rapidly changing pandemic.