Exercise and sports after COVID-19-Guidance from a clinical perspective.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Halle M
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8250714 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundCOVID-19 is a droplet-transmitted potentially fatal coronavirus pandemic affecting the world in 2020. The WHO recommended social distancing and human-to-human contact was discouraged to control the transmission. It has put many countries in a state of lockdown and sporting events (including the 2020 Olympics) have been affected. Participation in sports and exercise, typically regarded as healthy activities, were also debated. The local professional football leagues, governed by the Hong Kong Football Association, ultimately postponed all matches after much deliberation on the transmission risk for the spectators and on-field players. Large spectating crowds are well-known to be infectious hazards, but the infection risk for on-field players is less recognized. Aside from watching professionals exercise, many people opted to hike in the countryside during the weekends to avoid city crowds. This led to a widespread discussion on the issue of wearing a facemask during outdoor activities.MethodsA small sample of video footage of professional football players were analysed to track each players' time of close body contact and frequency of infection-risky behaviours to investigate the risk of virus transmission during football games.To investigate the physiological effect of wearing a facemask during exercise, we conducted a controlled laboratory, within-subject, repeated measures study of 23 healthy volunteers of various sporting backgrounds. They underwent graded treadmill walking at 4 km per hour for 6 min with and without wearing a surgical mask in a randomized order with sufficient resting time in between trials. The heart rate and the rate of perceived exertion (RPE) were recorded.ResultsIn a 90 min match, the average duration of close contact between professional football players was 19 min and each player performed an average of 52 episodes of infection-risky behaviours. The heart rate and RPE of subjects wearing a facemask was 128 beats per minute and 12.7 respectively. In those without a facemask, the results were a heart rate of 124 beats per minute and a RPE of 10.8.ConclusionThis suggests that the infection risk was high for the players, even without spectators. The laboratory study to investigate the physiological effect of wearing a facemask found that it significantly elevated heart rate and perceived exertion. Those participating in exercise need to be aware that facemasks increase the physiological burden of the body, especially in those with multiple underlying comorbidities. Elite athletes, especially those training for the upcoming Olympics, need to balance and reschedule their training regime to balance the risk of deconditioning versus the risk of infection. The multiple infection-control measures imposed by the Hong Kong national team training centre was highlighted to help strike this balance. Amidst a global pandemic affecting millions; staying active is good, but staying safe is paramount.
| S-EPMC7386263 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The COVID-19 outbreak has brought our lives to a sudden and complete lockdown. While the numbers of confirmed cases and deaths continue to rise, people around the world are taking brave actions to mitigate transmission and save lives. The role that sports play in this pandemic is unprecedented, fascinating, and reveals the immense impact sports has on every aspect of our lives. We must all do our part to keep each other safe until this outbreak subsides and sports and humanity are back to being greater than ever.Level of evidenceLevel V.
| S-EPMC7151370 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background: The novel coronavirus pneumonia (COVID-19), which was first detected in Wuhan City, has now became a pandemic that affecting patients around the world. Particularly, the community patient population are at high risk of infection and are facing potential failure of proper medication use during the pandemic.Objective: To discuss community pharmacists' role and the content of pharmaceutical care (PC) during the novel coronavirus pandemic to promote effective prevention and control and safe drug use of the community patient population.Method: Collect and summarize the experience Chinese community pharmacies gained from providing pharmacy services during the COVID-19 outbreak, and taking patients' PC needs into consideration, analyze and discuss the methods and strategies that community pharmacies and pharmacists shall use to provide PC during the pandemic.Results: Community pharmacy management teams shall support PC services by providing adequate supply of COVID-19 related medications and preventative products, following environment regulations, and providing sufficient staff trainings. Pharmacists shall use various approaches to provide PC services in drug dispensing, consulting and referrals, chronic disease management, safe use of infusions, patient education, home care guidance and psychological support to promote the COVID-19 pandemic control and ensure safe medication use of community patients during the pandemic.Conclusion: PC services in communities during the COVID-19 shall possess different properties due to disease characteristics and related change in patients' need. Community pharmacies shall work as a strong supporter of patient's medication and protective equipment supply. Community pharmacists shall be prepared to provide skilled and effective PC services for community patient population to ensure medication safety and promote the overall COVID-19 pandemic control.
| S-EPMC7102520 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC7994054 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Emerging efficacy data have led to the emergency use authorization or approval of COVID-19 vaccines in several countries worldwide. Most trials of COVID-19 vaccines excluded patients with active malignancies, and thus data on the safety, tolerability and efficacy of the vaccines in patients with cancer are currently limited. Given the risk posed by the COVID-19 pandemic, decisions regarding the use of vaccines against COVID-19 in patients participating in trials of investigational anticancer therapies need to be addressed promptly. Patients should not have to choose between enrolling on oncology clinical trials and receiving a COVID-19 vaccine. Clinical trial sponsors, investigators and treating physicians need operational guidance on COVID-19 vaccination for patients with cancer who are currently enrolled or might seek to enrol in clinical trials. Considering the high morbidity and mortality from COVID-19 in patients with cancer, the benefits of vaccination are likely to far outweigh the risks of vaccine-related adverse events. Herein, we provide operational COVID-19 vaccine guidance for patients participating in oncology clinical trials. In our perspective, continued quality oncological care requires that patients with cancer, including those involved in trials, be prioritized for COVID-19 vaccination, which should not affect trial eligibility.
| S-EPMC7957448 | biostudies-literature
Project description:(1) Background: Uncertainty is typical for a pandemic or similar healthcare crisis. This affects patients with resulting decisional conflicts and disturbed shared decision making during their treatment occurring to a very different extent. Sociodemographic factors and the individual perception of pandemic-related problems likely determine this decisional dilemma for patients and can characterize vulnerable groups with special susceptibility for decisional problems and related consequences. (2) Methods: Cross-sectional data from the OnCoVID questionnaire study were used involving 540 patients from 11 participating institutions covering all major regions in Germany. Participants were actively involved in clinical treatment in oncology or psychiatry during the COVID-19 pandemic. Questionnaires covered five decision dimensions (conflicts and uncertainty, resources, risk perception, perception of consequences for clinical processes, perception of consequences for patients) and very basic demographic data (age, gender, stage of treatment and educational background). Decision uncertainties and distress were operationalized using equidistant five-point scales. Data analysis was performed using descriptive and various multivariate approaches. (3) Results: A total of 11.5% of all patients described intensive uncertainty in their clinical decisions that was significantly correlated with anxiety, depression, loneliness and stress. Younger and female patients and those of higher educational status and treatment stage had the highest values for these stressors (p < 0.001). Only 15.3% of the patients (14.9% oncology, 16.2% psychiatry; p = 0.021) considered the additional risk of COVID-19 infections as very important for their disease-related decisions. Regression analysis identified determinants for patients at risk of a decisional dilemma, including information availability, educational level, age group and requirement of treatment decision making. (4) Conclusions: In patients, the COVID-19 pandemic induced specific decisional uncertainty and distress accompanied by intensified stress and psychological disturbances. Determinants of specific vulnerability were related to female sex, younger age, education level, disease stages and perception of pandemic-related treatment modifications, whereas availability of sufficient pandemic-related information prevented these problems. The most important decisional criteria for patients under these conditions were expected side effects/complications and treatment responses.
| S-EPMC9222354 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-BSST563 | biostudies-other
Project description:Background: The early COVID-19-pandemic was characterized by changes in decision making, decision-relevant value systems and the related perception of decisional uncertainties and conflicts resulting in decisional burden and stress. The vulnerability of clinical care professionals to these decisional dilemmas has not been characterized yet. Methods: A cross-sectional questionnaire study (540 patients, 322 physicians and 369 nurses in 11 institutions throughout Germany) was carried out. The inclusion criterion was active involvement in clinical treatment or decision making in oncology or psychiatry during the first year of COVID-19. The questionnaires covered five decision dimensions (conflicts and uncertainty, resources, risk perception, perception of consequences for clinical processes, and the perception of consequences for patients). Data analysis was performed using ANOVA, Pearson rank correlations, and the Chi²-test, and for inferential analysis, nominal logistic regression and tree classification were conducted. Results: Professionals reported changes in clinical management (27.5%) and a higher workload (29.2%), resulting in decisional uncertainty (19.2%) and decisional conflicts (22.7%), with significant differences between professional groups (p < 0.005), including anxiety, depression, loneliness and stress in professional subgroups (p < 0.001). Nominal regression analysis targeting "Decisional Uncertainty" provided a highly significant prediction model (LQ p < 0.001) containing eight variables, and the analysis for "Decisional Conflicts" included six items. The classification rates were 64.4% and 92.7%, respectively. Tree analysis confirmed three levels of determinants. Conclusions: Decisional uncertainty and conflicts during the COVID-19 pandemic were independent of the actual pandemic load. Vulnerable professional groups for the perception of a high number of decisional dilemmas were characterized by individual perception and the psychological framework. Coping and management strategies should target vulnerability, enable the handling of the individual perception of decisional dilemmas and ensure information availability and specific support for younger professionals.
| S-EPMC9602416 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The recent outbreak in severe acute respiratory syndrome - coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) has demonstrated the complete inability of nations across the world to cope with the pressures of a global pandemic, especially one in which the only current feasible treatments are those which deal with the symptoms alone and not the viral cause. As the death toll rises, scientists begin to fall toward new avenues of research, with novelty showing itself to be an incredible and so far, underrated resource. In this case, the use of biosurfactants in dealing with this pandemic justifies extensive study with their potential applications being in the prevention of viral spread; dealing with the symptoms that develop after the incubation period; directly targeting viral infected cells and preventing the spread of the virus throughout the host, all in addition to also acting as potential drug delivery systems and cleaning agents. This extensive avenue of biosurfactants owes to the simplicity in their amphiphilic structure which permits them to interact directly with the lipid membrane of the coronavirus, in a way which wouldn't be of significant threat to the host. Although it could possibly interact and affect the virus, it could also affect human internal organs/cells by interacting with lipid membrane, if (biosurfactant is) ingested, and it still needs further studies in human models. The structure of the coronavirus, in this case SARS-CoV-2, is detrimentally dependent on the integrity of its lipid membrane which encloses its vital proteins and RNA. Biosurfactants possess the innate ability to threaten this membrane, a result of their own hydrophobic domains across their amphiphilic structure. With biosurfactants additionally being both natural and sustainable, while also possessing a remarkably low cytotoxicity, it is of no doubt that they are going to be of increasing significance in dealing with the current pandemic.
| S-EPMC7295905 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesTo describe divergence between actionable statements issued by coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) guideline developers cataloged on the "COVID-19 Recommendations and Gateway to Contextualization" platform.Study design and settingWe defined divergence as at least two comparable actionable statements with different explicit judgments of strength, direction, or subgroup consideration of the population or intervention. We applied a content analysis to compare guideline development methods for a sample of diverging statements and to evaluate factors associated with divergence.ResultsOf the 138 guidelines evaluated, 85 (62%) contained at least one statement that diverged from another guideline. We identified 223 diverging statements in these 85 guidelines. We grouped statements into 66 clusters. Each cluster addressed the same population, intervention, and comparator group or just similar interventions. Clinical practice statements were more likely to diverge in an explicit judgment of strength or direction compared to public health statements. Statements were more likely to diverge in strength than direction. The date of publication, used evidence, interpretation of evidence, and contextualization considerations were associated with divergence.ConclusionMore than half of the assessed guidelines issued at least one diverging statement. This study helps in understanding the types of differences between guidelines issuing comparable statements and factors associated with their divergence.
| S-EPMC8942881 | biostudies-literature