Dataset Information

Self-Reported COVID-19 Infections and Social Mixing Behavior at Oncology Meetings.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

The COVID-19 pandemic largely suspended in-person scientific meetings because of risk of disease spread. In the era of vaccination and social distancing practices, meetings have begun returning to in-person formats. We surveyed attendees and potential attendees of 2 oncology meetings in the United States to identify rates of mixing behavior and the subsequent rate of self-reported COVID-19 infection.

Methods and materials

We collected via survey reported social mixing behavior and COVID-19 positivity (within 21 days of meeting conclusion) of actual and potential in-person attendees of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Quality Care Symposium held September 24 to 25, 2021, and the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) Annual Meeting held October 24 to 27, 2021. Conference speakers and other participants were identified through publicly available meeting materials and targeted via e-mail when possible. Recruitment of additional attendees and potential attendees was also conducted through a sharable link promoted via oncology newsletters and social media. Descriptive statistics alone were performed owing to low COVID-19 event rates.

Results

Response rates from targeted conference participants with publicly available e-mails were 27.4% for the ASCO and 14.3% for the ASTRO meetings. The ASCO survey produced 94 responses (48 in-person attendees). The ASTRO survey produced 370 responses (267 in-person attendees). Across both meetings, 3 of 308 (1.0%) in-person attendees versus 2 of 141 (1.4%) nonattendees tested positive for COVID-19. Low COVID-19 positivity rates were reported among in-person attendees spending more (>20) versus fewer (≤20) hours attending live sessions (2.2% vs 0%) and among indoor social event participants versus nonparticipants (0.8% vs 1.9%). Attendees largely felt comfortable attending additional in-person meetings after experiencing ASCO (87.5%) or ASTRO (91.9%) and felt mask compliance was good or excellent at ASCO (100%) and ASTRO (94.6%) meetings.

Conclusions

In-person meetings do not seem to be contributing to high rates of new COVID-19 infections in the setting of vaccine and social distancing mandates, supporting paths forward for at least partially in-person conferences as COVID-19 becomes endemic.

SUBMITTER: Talcott WJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9119957 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundHuman behavior is crucial in health outcomes. Particularly, individual behavior is a determinant of the success of measures to overcome critical conditions, such as a pandemic. In addition to intrinsic public health challenges associated with COVID-19, in many countries, some individuals decided not to get vaccinated, streets were crowded, parties were happening, and businesses struggling to survive were partially open, despite lockdown or stay-at-home instructions. These behaviors contrast with the instructions for potential benefits associated with social distancing, use of masks, and vaccination to manage collective and individual risks.ObjectiveConsidering that human behavior is a result of individuals' social and economic conditions, we investigated the social and working characteristics associated with reports of appropriate protective behavior in Brazil.MethodsWe analyzed data from a large web survey of individuals reporting their behavior during the pandemic. We selected 3 common self-care measures: use of protective masks, distancing by at least 1 m when out of the house, and handwashing or use of alcohol, combined with assessment of the social context of respondents. We measured the frequency of the use of these self-protective measures. Using a frequent pattern-mining perspective, we generated association rules from a set of answers to questions that co-occur with at least a given frequency, identifying the pattern of characteristics of the groups divided according to protective behavior reports.ResultsThe rationale was to identify a pool of working and social characteristics that might have better adhesion to behaviors and self-care measures, showing these are more socially determined than previously thought. We identified common patterns of socioeconomic and working determinants of compliance with protective self-care measures. Data mining showed that social determinants might be important to shape behavior in different stages of the pandemic.ConclusionsIdentification of context determinants might be helpful to identify unexpected facilitators and constraints to fully follow public policies. The context of diseases contributes to psychological and physical health outcomes, and context understanding might change the approach to a disease. Hidden social determinants might change protective behavior, and social determinants of protective behavior related to COVID-19 are related to work and economic conditions.Trial registrationNot applicable.

Project description:ImportanceChanges in everyday functioning are crucial to assessing the long-term impact of COVID-19 infection.ObjectiveTo examine the impact of COVID-19 infection on everyday functioning 18 months after infection among veterans with and without histories of COVID-19 infection.Design, setting, and participantsThis cohort study used data from the US Veterans Affairs (VA) and included 186 veterans who had COVID-19 between October 2020 and April 2021 (ie, COVID-19 cohort) and 186 matched comparators who did not have documented COVID-19 infections (ie, control cohort). This match balanced the risk of COVID-19 based on 39 variables measured in the 24 months before infection or match, using principles of target trial emulation. Data were analyzed from December 2022 to December 2023.ExposureFirst documented COVID-19.Main outcome and measuresThe differences in self-reported everyday functioning 18 months after COVID-19 infection were estimated and compared with their matched comparators. Within-matched pair logistic and linear regressions assessed differences in outcomes and were weighted to account for sampling and nonresponse.ResultsAmong the 186 matched pairs of participants, their weighted mean age was 60.4 (95% CI, 57.5 to 63.2) years among veterans in the COVID-19 cohort (weighted sample, 91 459 of 101 133 [90.4%] male; 30 611 [30.3%] Black or African American veterans; 65 196 [64.4%] White veterans) and 61.1 (95% CI, 57.8 to 64.4) years among their comparators in the control cohort (91 459 [90.4%] male; 24 576 [24.3%] Black or African American veterans; 70 157 [69.4%] White veterans). A high proportion of veterans in the COVID-19 cohort (weighted percentage, 44.9% [95% CI, 34.2% to 56.2%]) reported that they could do less than what they felt they could do at the beginning of 2020 compared with the control cohort (weighted percentage, 35.3%; [95% CI, 25.6% to 46.4%]; within-matched pair adjusted odds ratio [OR], 1.52 [95% CI, 0.79 to 2.91]). There was no association of documented COVID-19 infection with fatigue, substantial pain, limitations in either activities of daily living and instrumental activities of daily living, severely curtailed life-space mobility, employment, or mean health-related quality of life on a utility scale.Conclusions and relevanceIn this cohort study of veterans with and without documented COVID-19, many reported a substantial loss of everyday functioning during the pandemic regardless of whether or not they had a documented infection with COVID-19. Future work with larger samples is needed to validate the estimated associations.

Project description:BackgroundHarnessing health-related data posted on social media in real time can offer insights into how the pandemic impacts the mental health and general well-being of individuals and populations over time.ObjectiveThis study aimed to obtain information on symptoms and medical conditions self-reported by non-Twitter social media users during the COVID-19 pandemic, to determine how discussion of these symptoms and medical conditions changed over time, and to identify correlations between frequency of the top 5 commonly mentioned symptoms post and daily COVID-19 statistics (new cases, new deaths, new active cases, and new recovered cases) in the United States.MethodsWe used natural language processing (NLP) algorithms to identify symptom- and medical condition-related topics being discussed on social media between June 14 and December 13, 2020. The sample posts were geotagged by NetBase, a third-party data provider. We calculated the positive predictive value and sensitivity to validate the classification of posts. We also assessed the frequency of health-related discussions on social media over time during the study period, and used Pearson correlation coefficients to identify statistically significant correlations between the frequency of the 5 most commonly mentioned symptoms and fluctuation of daily US COVID-19 statistics.ResultsWithin a total of 9,807,813 posts (nearly 70% were sourced from the United States), we identified a discussion of 120 symptom-related topics and 1542 medical condition-related topics. Our classification of the health-related posts had a positive predictive value of over 80% and an average classification rate of 92% sensitivity. The 5 most commonly mentioned symptoms on social media during the study period were anxiety (in 201,303 posts or 12.2% of the total posts mentioning symptoms), generalized pain (189,673, 11.5%), weight loss (95,793, 5.8%), fatigue (91,252, 5.5%), and coughing (86,235, 5.2%). The 5 most discussed medical conditions were COVID-19 (in 5,420,276 posts or 66.4% of the total posts mentioning medical conditions), unspecified infectious disease (469,356, 5.8%), influenza (270,166, 3.3%), unspecified disorders of the central nervous system (253,407, 3.1%), and depression (151,752, 1.9%). Changes in posts in the frequency of anxiety, generalized pain, and weight loss were significant but negatively correlated with daily new COVID-19 cases in the United States (r=-0.49, r=-0.46, and r=-0.39, respectively; P<.05). Posts on the frequency of anxiety, generalized pain, weight loss, fatigue, and the changes in fatigue positively and significantly correlated with daily changes in both new deaths and new active cases in the United States (r ranged=0.39-0.48; P<.05).ConclusionsCOVID-19 and symptoms of anxiety were the 2 most commonly discussed health-related topics on social media from June 14 to December 13, 2020. Real-time monitoring of social media posts on symptoms and medical conditions may help assess the population's mental health status and enhance public health surveillance for infectious disease.

Project description:One of the most striking reported symptoms in CoViD-19 is loss of smell and taste. The frequency of these impairments and their specificity as a potential central nervous system function biomarker are of great interest as a diagnostic clue for CoViD-19 infection as opposed to other similar symptomatologic diseases and because of their implication in viral pathogenesis. Here severe CoViD-19 was investigated by comparing self-report vs. testing of smell and taste, thus the objective severity of olfactory impairment and their possible correlation with other symptoms. Because a significant discrepancy between smell and taste testing vs. self-report results (p < 0.001) emerges in our result, we performed a statistical analysis highlighting disagreement among normosmia (p < 0.05), hyposmia, severe hyposmia, and anosmia (p < 0.001) and, in hypogeusia and severe hypogeusia, while no differences are observed in normogeusia and ageusia. Therefore, we analyzed the olfactory threshold by an objective test revealing the distribution of hyposmic (34%), severe hyposmic (48%), and anosmic (13%) patients in severe CoViD-19. In severe CoViD-19 patients, taste is lost in 4.3% of normosmic individuals, 31.9% of hyposmic individuals, 46.8% of severe hyposmic individuals, and 17% of anosmic individuals. Moreover, 95% of 100 CoViD-19 patients objectively tested were affected by smell dysfunction, while 47% were affected by taste dysfunction. Furthermore, analysis by objective testing also highlighted that the severity of smell dysfunction in CoViD-19 subjects did not correlate with age and sex. In conclusion, we report by objective testing that the majority of CoViD-19 patients report severe anosmia, that most of the subjects have olfactory impairment rather than taste impairment, and, finally, that the olfactory impairment correlate with symptom onset and hospitalization (p < 0.05). Patients who exhibit severe olfactory impairment had been hospitalized for about a week from symptom onset; double time has taken place in subjects with normosmia. Our results may be limited by the relatively small number of study participants, but these suggest by objective testing that hyposmia, severe hyposmia, and anosmia may relate directly to infection severity and neurological damage. The smell test assessment could be a potential screening symptom that might contribute to the decision to test suspected cases or guide quarantine instructions, further therapeutic approach, and evaluation of neurological damage.