A multicenter, citywide report on recurrent violent injury.

INTRODUCTION: The incidence of and risk factors for recurrent violent trauma are not well known. This information is needed to focus violence prevention efforts on at-risk cohorts. The purpose of this study was to determine the incidence of and risk factors for recurrence following violent injury in a large urban setting. We hypothesize that the overall incidence of recurrent violent injury is low but there are specific at-risk cohorts. METHODS: A retrospective, citywide study of patients who sustained blunt assault or penetrating trauma from 2013 to 2019 was performed. Patients were tracked across all trauma centers using their name and date of birth. The primary outcome was incidence of recurrent violent injury, which was calculated by dividing the number of readmitted patients by the number who survived previous admissions due to penetrating trauma or blunt assault. Associations between readmission and injury severity score, abbreviated injury score, age, sex, hospital, mechanism of injury (MOI), and disposition were determined. Kaplan-Meier curves were plotted to determine the incidence of recurrent injury over time. A multivariable Cox proportional hazard model was used to examine the relationships between characteristics at first admission and time-to-readmission. RESULTS: The recurrent injury rate was 836 patients (6.33%) out of 13,211 injured patients. Male, age 14-45 years old, discharge to jail or left against medical advice, and moderate/severe head injury were associated with re-injury. There was no association between recurrence and mechanism of injury or overall injury severity. Discharge to home was associated with a lower re-injury rate. CONCLUSION: The low recurrent injury rate despite high injury prevalence suggests injury prevention efforts should target this demographic and their non-injured peers.

Postacute Sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 in University Setting.

Postacute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection, commonly known as long COVID, is estimated to affect 10% to 80% of COVID-19 survivors. We examined the prevalence and predictors of long COVID from a sample of 1,338 COVID-19 cases among university members in Washington, DC, USA, during July 2021‒March 2022. Cases were followed up after 30 days of the initial positive result with confidential electronic surveys including questions about long COVID. The prevalence of long COVID was 36%. Long COVID was more prevalent among those who had underlying conditions, who were not fully vaccinated, who were female, who were former/current smokers, who experienced acute COVID-19 symptoms, who reported higher symptom counts, who sought medical care, or who received antibody treatment. Understanding long COVID among university members is imperative to support persons who have ongoing symptoms and to strengthen existing services or make referrals to other services, such as mental health, exercise programs, or long-term health studies.

Feeling lonelier during the early COVID-19 pandemic: A cross-sectional analysis of adults living in the United States.

The Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic had many negative consequences, one of which was the increase of loneliness. We aimed to explore associations between sociodemographic, work-related, home-related, and COVID-19-related characteristics and increased feelings of loneliness among adults living in the United States (US). We analyzed cross-sectional baseline data from The Quickly Understanding Impacts of COVID-19 Study (The QUICk Study) collected from May to October 2020 using online surveys completed by a sample of adults living in the US. We used chi-square tests, Fisher exact tests, and logistic regression to identify characteristics associated with increased loneliness. The study sample included 577 adults living in the US. Approximately 37% of the sample reported feeling lonelier than usual over the past month. Younger age, sexual minority status, lower education level, depression, living alone, part-time employment status, and student employment status were significantly associated with increased feelings of loneliness. Depression, younger age, and living alone remained significantly associated with increased feelings of loneliness in the multivariable logistic regression analysis. In the US, young adults, adults with depression, and adults who live alone may have been more likely to experience increased feelings of loneliness during the early COVID-19 pandemic.

The Characteristics of Student SARS-CoV-2 Cases on an Urban University Campus: Observational Study.

BACKGROUND: Academic institutions are central hubs for young adults, laden with academic and social interactions and communal living arrangements, heightening the risk of transmission of many communicable diseases, including COVID-19. Shortly after the start of the fall 2020 academic year, institutions of higher learning were identified as hot spots for rises in COVID-19 incidence among young adults. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to identify the characteristics of student SARS-CoV-2 cases, identify the extent to which the student population adhered to preventative strategies, and examine behaviors that would put them at higher risk of contracting or spreading COVID-19. METHODS: This observational study comprises 1175 university students at The George Washington University in Washington, DC, with a confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis between August 3, 2020, and November 30, 2021. Case investigation and contact tracing tools were developed by the Campus COVID-19 Support Team and captured in REDCap (Research Electronic Data Capture). Trained case investigators were notified of a case and attempted to contact all cases within 24 hours of the case receiving their lab result. Associations between case characteristics and number of contacts were examined using Wilcoxon rank sum tests. Knowledge of exposure, behaviors since exposure, student residence status, and fraternity and sorority life affiliation were examined using chi-square tests. RESULTS: Positive student cases reported a median of 3 close contacts, and 84.6% (993/1175) reported at least one symptom with a median of 4 COVID-19 symptoms. Congestion (628/1175, 53.4%), cough (530/1175, 45.1%), and headache (484/1175, 41.2%) were the most frequently reported symptoms. Moreover, 36% (415/1160) reported that they did not know how they were exposed to the virus. Among those aware of contact with a COVID-19 confirmed case, 55.1% (109/198) reported the contact was a close friend or family member, and 25.3% (50/198) reported that it was someone with whom they lived. Athlete (vs nonathlete; P<.001), on-campus (vs off-campus; P<.001), and undergraduate (vs graduate; P=.01) students all reported a significantly higher number of contacts. Students living on campus were more likely to report attending campus events in the 2 days prior to symptom onset or positive test result (P=.004). Students with fraternity or sorority affiliation were more likely to report attending campus events in the 2 days prior to symptom onset or positive test result (P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 cases have not yet stabilized to a predictable state, but this study provides case characteristics and insights for how academic institutions might prepare to mitigate outbreaks on their campuses as the world plans for the transition from pandemic to endemic COVID-19.

Industry payments to spine surgeons from 2014 to 2019: trends and comparison of payments to spine surgeons versus all physicians.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: The ethics of industry payments to physicians and the potential impact on healthcare costs and research outcomes have long been topics of debate. Industry payments to spine surgeons are frequently scrutinized. Transparency of industry relationships with physicians provides insight into their possible impact on clinical decision-making and utilization of care. PURPOSE: To analyze trends in medical industry payments to spine surgeons and all physicians from 2014 to 2019, and further evaluate whether specific payments to spine surgeons vary based on company size. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Cross-sectional investigation of publicly reported Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Open Payments Database (OPD) POPULATION SAMPLE: All US providers listed as receiving industry payments with further evaluation of payments to neurosurgeons and orthopedic spine surgeons. OUTCOME MEASURES: Main measures were the magnitude and trends of industry general and research payments and subcategories of general payments, such as royalty/license and consulting fees, to spine surgeons and comparison to all physicians over the six-year period. Variations in payment patterns among spine device manufacturers with the highest reported level of spine surgeon payments in 2019. METHODS: From 2014 to 2019 publicly reported general and research industry payments in the CMS OPD were analyzed. Trends in payments to all physicians were compared to trends in payments to neurosurgeons and orthopedic spine surgeons. Trends in payment patterns among spine device manufacturers with the highest payments in 2019 were determined. Linear regression analysis was completed to find statistically significant outcomes. RESULTS: Our investigation found an aggregate of $42,710,365,196 general and research payments reported to all physicians over the 6-year period, 2.6% ($1,112,936,203) of which went to spine surgeons. Industry general and research payments to spine surgeons decreased by 17.5% ($195,571,109, 2014; $161,283,683, 2019), while increasing by 8.7% ($6,706,208,391, 2014; $7,288,003,832, 2019) to all physicians. Industry research payments to spine surgeons were notably low each year and decreased to only 0.5% of research payments made to all physicians in 2019. Median payment received by spine surgeons as well as the overall distribution of payments to the 75th and 95th percentile significantly increased over the six-year period in comparison to the stable distribution of payments to all physicians. Top eight spine device manufactures with the highest level of spine surgeon payments accounted for 72.9% payments in 2014 but decreased payments by 17.6% to 2019 ($120,409,083.75, 2014; $99,283,264.49, 2019). CONCLUSIONS: Industry general and research payments to all physicians increased from 2014 to 2019 but decreased to spine surgeons, largely due to decreasing payments from eight device manufacturers with the highest level of surgeon payments. A small subset of spine surgeons continues to receive increasing payments. The implications of decreasing investments in research by industry and of large payments made to a small group of spine surgeons bears cautious oversight, both for the future of the specialty and any impact on patient care outcomes.