Psychoactive substances, anatomy and pre-pandemic COVID-19 students: prevalence of use and comparison of cross-sectional studies from the period 2011-2019 / Sustancias psicoactivas, alumnos de anatomía y prepandemia COVID-19: prevalencia de uso y comparación de estudios transversales del periodo 2011-2019

En estudios preliminares objetivamos alta prevalencia de uso de sustancias psicoactivas (SP) entre alumnos de Anatomía, con mayor impacto entre los recursantes o aquellos con actividades laborales. La causa del uso es multifactorial, pero se destacan factores de riesgo y precipitantes como la carga horaria de la currícula, exigencias de estudio, el distrés por el afrontamiento cadavérico negativo, el nuevo contexto educativo y la cantidad de horas de sueño. El objetivo fue comparar la prevalencia de uso de SP entre las cohortes de 2011-2019, con focalización en los factores determinantes conductuales. Estudio observacional, transversal y comparativo mediante encuesta estandarizada y anónima en 945 alumnos (año 2011= 122; año 2013= 158; año 2015=204; año 2017= 228; año 2019= 233). Se aplicaron parámetros estadísticos, se definió la significación como p -0.84; AA: r> -0.71). En el caso de ansiolíticos benzodiacepínicos, se asoció con falta de sueño y distrés por el afrontamiento negativo al estudio con cadáveres. En las cohortes comparadas por el lapso de 9 años hallamos alta prevalencia de uso de sustancias psicoactivas con tendencia al incremento. Las variables actividad laboral y recursante fueron determinantes para el uso de sustancias, y se asociaron cuestiones relativas a la adaptabilidad universitaria y afrontamiento de estudio negativo con el cadáver; todos con incidencia pedagógica en el proceso de enseñanza y aprendizaje.

SUMMARY: In preliminary studies, we observed a high prevalence of the use of psychoactive substances (PS) among Anatomy students, with a greater impact among recurrent students or those with work activities. The cause of use is multifactorial, but risk and precipitating factors stand out, such as the workload of the curriculum, study demands, distress due to negative cadaveric coping, the new educational context and the number of hours of sleep. The objective was to compare the prevalence of SP use between the 2011-2019 cohorts, with a focus on behavioral determinants. Observational, cross-sectional and comparative study using a standardized and anonymous survey in 945 students (year 2011= 122; year 2013= 158; year 2015=204; year 2017= 228; year 2019= 233). Statistical parameters were applied, significance was defined as p -0.84; AA: r> -0.71). In the case of benzodiazepine anxiolytics, it was associated with lack of sleep and distress due to negative coping with the study with cadavers. In the cohorts compared for a period of 9 years, we found a high prevalence of psychoactive substance use with an increasing trend. The variables work activity and recurrence were determinants for the use of substances, and issues related to university adaptability and negative study coping with the corpse were associated; all with pedagogical impact on the teaching and learning process.

Implications of COVID-19 for the busy gastroenterologist.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is an infection caused by a novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) originated in China in December 2020 and declared pandemic by WHO. This coronavirus mainly spreads through the respiratory tract and enters cells through angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2). The clinical symptoms of COVID-19 patients include fever, cough, and fatigue. Gastrointestinal symptoms (diarrhea, anorexia, and vomiting) may be present in 50% of patients and may be associated with worst prognosis. Other risk factors are older age, male gender, and underlying chronic diseases. Mitigation measures are essential to reduce the number of people infected. Hospitals are a place of increased SARS-CoV-2 exposure. This has implications in the organization of healthcare services and specifically endoscopy departments. Patients and healthcare workers safety must be optimized in this new reality. Comprehension of COVID-19 gastrointestinal manifestations and implications of SARS-CoV-2 in the management of patients with gastrointestinal diseases, under or not immunosuppressant therapies, is essential. In this review, we summarized the latest research progress and major societies recommendations regarding the implications of COVID-19 in gastroenterology, namely the adaptations that gastroenterology/endoscopy departments and professionals must do in order to optimize the provided assistance, as well as the implications that this infection will have, in particularly vulnerable patients such as those with chronic liver disease and inflammatory bowel disease under or not immunosuppressant therapies.

COVID-19 and the liver: overview.

On 12 March 2020, the WHO declared that the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) constitutes a pandemic. Cases of liver damage or dysfunction (mainly characterized by moderately elevated serum aspartate aminotransferase levels) have been reported among patients with COVID-19. However, it is currently uncertain whether the COVID-19 related liver damage/dysfunction is due mainly to the viral infection by itself or other coexisting conditions, such as the use of potentially hepatotoxic medications and the coexistence of systemic inflammatory response, respiratory distress syndrome-induced hypoxia, and multiple organ dysfunction. Individuals at high risk for severe COVID-19 are typical of older age and/or present with comorbid conditions such as diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and hypertension. This is also the same profile for those at increased risk for unrecognized underlying liver disease, especially nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. This could make them more susceptible to liver injury from the virus, medications used in supportive management, or hypoxia. So the aim of this review was to illustrate the clinical implications of COVID-19 on the liver in healthy and diseased states as well as the implications of common liver disorders on the outcome of COVID-19.

The Association between COVID-19 Infection and Kidney Damage in a Regional University Hospital.

Background and Objectives: Kidneys are one of the main targets for SARS-CoV-2. Early recognition and precautionary management are essential in COVID-19 patients due to the multiple origins of acute kidney injury and the complexity of chronic kidney disease management. The aims of this research were to investigate the association between COVID-19 infection and renal injury in a regional hospital. Materials and Methods: The data of 601 patients from the Vilnius regional university hospital between 1 January 2020 and 31 March 2021 were collected for this cross-sectional study. Demographic data (gender, age), clinical outcomes (discharge, transfer to another hospital, death), length of stay, diagnoses (chronic kidney disease, acute kidney injury), and laboratory test data (creatinine, urea, C-reactive protein, potassium concentrations) were collected and analyzed statistically. Results: Patients discharged from the hospital were younger (63.18 ± 16.02) than those from the emergency room (75.35 ± 12.41, p < 0.001), transferred to another hospital (72.89 ± 12.06, p = 0.002), or who died (70.87 ± 12.83, p < 0.001). Subsequently, patients who died had lower creatinine levels on the first day than those who survived (185.00 vs. 311.17 µmol/L, p < 0.001), and their hospital stay was longer (Spearman's correlation coefficient = -0.304, p < 0.001). Patients with chronic kidney disease had higher first-day creatinine concentration than patients with acute kidney injury (365.72 ± 311.93 vs. 137.58 ± 93.75, p < 0.001). Patients with acute kidney injury and chronic kidney disease complicated by acute kidney injury died 7.81 and 3.66 times (p < 0.001) more often than patients with chronic kidney disease alone. The mortality rate among patients with acute kidney injury was 7.79 (p < 0.001) times higher than among patients without these diseases. Conclusions: COVID-19 patients who developed acute kidney injury and whose chronic kidney disease was complicated by acute kidney injury had a longer hospital stay and were more likely to die.

National Trends in Sadness, Suicidality, and COVID-19 Pandemic-Related Risk Factors Among South Korean Adolescents From 2005 to 2021.

Importance: Despite the COVID-19 pandemic's effect on daily life, limited research exists on the prevalence and risk factors of suicidality and sadness among South Korean adolescents. Objectives: To examine whether the observed sadness and suicidality in the early to middle periods of the COVID-19 pandemic differed from the expected level and to investigate changes in risk factors for sadness and suicidality. Design, Setting, and Participants: This nationwide serial cross-sectional survey study used data on 1 109 776 Korean adolescents aged 13 to 18 years from the Korea Youth Risk Behavior Web-based Survey from 2005 to 2021. Exposure: The COVID-19 pandemic. Main Outcomes and Measures: The pattern of changes in the percentage or proportion of sadness or suicidality, as well as the risk factors for sadness or suicidality. The transitional effect of the COVID-19 pandemic was assessed using weighted odds ratios (wORs) or weighted beta coefficients with 95% CIs. Results: Between 2005 and 2021, 1 109 776 adolescents (mean [SD] age, 15.0 [1.7] years; 51.5% male adolescents; and 51.7% in grades 7-9 and 48.3% in grades 10-12) were included in the Korea Youth Risk Behavior Web-based Survey. The slope of the long-term trends in sadness and suicidality decreased in the prepandemic period (sadness: from 37.8% [95% CI, 37.4%-38.2%] in 2005-2007 to 26.1% [95% CI, 25.9%-26.4%] in 2016-2019; suicidality: from 23.0% [95% CI, 22.7%-23.3%] in 2005-2007 to 12.3% [95% CI, 12.1%-12.5%] in 2016-2019), whereas the slope increased during the COVID-19 pandemic (sadness: from 25.0% [95% CI, 24.5%-25.6%] in 2020 to 26.6% [95% CI, 26.1%-27.1%] in 2021; trend difference in ß, 0.249 [95% CI, 0.236-0.262]; suicidality: from 10.7% [95% CI, 10.3%-11.1%] in 2020 to 12.5% [95% CI, 12.1%-12.9%] in 2021; trend difference in ß, 0.328 [95% CI, 0.312-0.344]). The trends presented a similar tendency in the subgroups according to sex, school grade, residential area, smoking status, and current alcohol use. Compared with the prepandemic period, the risk factors associated with sadness during the pandemic were younger age (wOR, 0.907; 95% CI, 0.881-0.933), female sex (wOR, 1.031; 95% CI, 1.001-1.062), urban residence (wOR, 1.120; 95% CI, 1.087-1.153), current smoking status (wOR, 1.134; 95% CI, 1.059-1.216), and current alcohol use (wOR, 1.051; 95% CI, 1.002-1.102). Female sex (wOR, 1.064; 95% CI, 1.021-1.109), urban residence (wOR, 1.117; 95% CI, 1.074-1.162), and low economic status (wOR, 1.286; 95% CI, 1.180-1.403) were the risk factors significantly associated with suicidality after the COVID-19 pandemic began. Conclusions and Relevance: In this nationwide serial cross-sectional survey study of South Korean adolescents, the slope of the prevalence of sadness and suicidality increased during the COVID-19 pandemic after a decrease prior to the pandemic. The findings suggest that public health measures are needed to recognize vulnerable groups with risk factors and to prevent an increase in sadness and suicidality among adolescents during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Anemia as a risk factor for disease progression in patients admitted for COVID-19: data from a large, multicenter cohort study.

In respiratory infections, anemia is both a consequence of acute inflammation and a predictor of poor clinical outcomes. There are few studies investigating the role of anemia in COVID-19, suggesting a potential role in predicting disease severity. In this study, we aimed to assess the association between the presence of anemia at admission and incidence of severe disease and death in patients hospitalized for COVID-19. Data from all adult patients admitted for COVID-19 in University Hospital "P. Giaccone" Palermo, and University Hospital of Bari, Italy, were retrospectively collected from 1st of September 2020 to 31 August 2022. The association between anemia (defined as Hb < 13 g/dl and < 12 g/dl in males and females, respectively), in-hospital mortality and severe COVID-19 was tested using a Cox's regression analysis. Severe COVID-19 forms were defined as admission to intensive or sub-intensive care unit or a qSOFAscore ≥ 2 or CURB65scores ≥ 3. p values were calculated using the Student's t test for continuous variables and the Mantel-Haenszel Chi-square test for categorical ones. The association between anemia and the mortality was made using a Cox's regression analysis, adjusted, in two models, for the potential confounders and using a propensity score. Among the 1562 patients included in the analysis, prevalence of anemia was 45.1% (95% CI 43-48%). Patients with anemia were significantly older (p < 0.0001), reported more co-morbidities, and presented higher baseline levels of procalcitonin, CRP, ferritin and IL-6. Overall, the crude incidence of mortality was about four times higher in patients with anemia compared to those without. After adjusting for 17 potential confounders, the presence of anemia significantly increased the risk of death (HR = 2.68; 95% CI: 1.59-4.52) and of risk of severe COVID-19 (OR = 2.31; 95% CI: 1.65-3.24). The propensity score analysis substantially confirmed these analyses. Our study provides evidence that, in patients hospitalized for COVID-19, anemia is both associated with a more pronounced baseline pro-inflammatory profile and higher incidence of in-hospital mortality and severe disease.

Obesity as an independent risk factor for COVID-19 severity and mortality.

BACKGROUND: Since December 2019, the world has struggled with the COVID-19 pandemic. Even after the introduction of various vaccines, this disease still takes a considerable toll. In order to improve the optimal allocation of resources and communication of prognosis, healthcare providers and patients need an accurate understanding of factors (such as obesity) that are associated with a higher risk of adverse outcomes from the COVID-19 infection. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate obesity as an independent prognostic factor for COVID-19 severity and mortality among adult patients in whom infection with the COVID-19 virus is confirmed. SEARCH METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase, two COVID-19 reference collections, and four Chinese biomedical databases were searched up to April 2021. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included case-control, case-series, prospective and retrospective cohort studies, and secondary analyses of randomised controlled trials if they evaluated associations between obesity and COVID-19 adverse outcomes including mortality, mechanical ventilation, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, hospitalisation, severe COVID, and COVID pneumonia. Given our interest in ascertaining the independent association between obesity and these outcomes, we selected studies that adjusted for at least one factor other than obesity. Studies were evaluated for inclusion by two independent reviewers working in duplicate.  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Using standardised data extraction forms, we extracted relevant information from the included studies. When appropriate, we pooled the estimates of association across studies with the use of random-effects meta-analyses. The Quality in Prognostic Studies (QUIPS) tool provided the platform for assessing the risk of bias across each included study. In our main comparison, we conducted meta-analyses for each obesity class separately. We also meta-analysed unclassified obesity and obesity as a continuous variable (5 kg/m2 increase in BMI (body mass index)). We used the GRADE framework to rate our certainty in the importance of the association observed between obesity and each outcome. As obesity is closely associated with other comorbidities, we decided to prespecify the minimum adjustment set of variables including age, sex, diabetes, hypertension, and cardiovascular disease for subgroup analysis.  MAIN RESULTS: We identified 171 studies, 149 of which were included in meta-analyses.  As compared to 'normal' BMI (18.5 to 24.9 kg/m2) or patients without obesity, those with obesity classes I (BMI 30 to 35 kg/m2), and II (BMI 35 to 40 kg/m2) were not at increased odds for mortality (Class I: odds ratio [OR] 1.04, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.94 to 1.16, high certainty (15 studies, 335,209 participants); Class II: OR 1.16, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.36, high certainty (11 studies, 317,925 participants)). However, those with class III obesity (BMI 40 kg/m2 and above) may be at increased odds for mortality (Class III: OR 1.67, 95% CI 1.39 to 2.00, low certainty, (19 studies, 354,967 participants)) compared to normal BMI or patients without obesity. For mechanical ventilation, we observed increasing odds with higher classes of obesity in comparison to normal BMI or patients without obesity (class I: OR 1.38, 95% CI 1.20 to 1.59, 10 studies, 187,895 participants, moderate certainty; class II: OR 1.67, 95% CI 1.42 to 1.96, 6 studies, 171,149 participants, high certainty; class III: OR 2.17, 95% CI 1.59 to 2.97, 12 studies, 174,520 participants, high certainty). However, we did not observe a dose-response relationship across increasing obesity classifications for ICU admission and hospitalisation. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that obesity is an important independent prognostic factor in the setting of COVID-19. Consideration of obesity may inform the optimal management and allocation of limited resources in the care of COVID-19 patients.

A review of venous thromboembolism in India.

Venous thromboembolism (VTE), which entails the formation of a thrombus (blood clot) in a vein, has a significant disease burden worldwide. While VTE has traditionally been considered to predominantly affect Caucasian populations, recent studies have indicated a gradual shift in the disease burden towards Asian populations, with added significance of it being a key driver of post-operative mortality. It is imperative to develop a sound understanding of the various factors that affect VTE in stratified local populations. However, there is a glaring paucity of quality data on VTE and its ramifications among Indians - both in terms of quality of life and cost of healthcare. This review aims to throw light on the disease burden, epidemiology, risk factors, environmental factors, food and nutrition that plays a key role in VTE. We also explored the association of VTE with coronavirus disease 2019 to grasp the interplay between the two most significant public health crises of our time. It is vital to place a special emphasis on future research on VTE in India to plug the gaps, which exist in our current knowledge of the disease, particularly with respect to Indian population.

A culturally tailored personaliseD nutrition intErvention in South ASIan women at risk of Gestational Diabetes Mellitus (DESI-GDM): a randomised controlled trial protocol.

INTRODUCTION: South Asians are more likely to develop gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) than white Europeans. Diet and lifestyle modifications may prevent GDM and reduce undesirable outcomes in both the mother and offspring. Our study seeks to evaluate the effectiveness and participant acceptability of a culturally tailored, personalised nutrition intervention on the glucose area under the curve (AUC) after a 2-hour 75 g oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) in pregnant women of South Asian ancestry with GDM risk factors. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A total of 190 South Asian pregnant women with at least 2 of the following GDM risk factors-prepregnancy body mass index>23, age>29, poor-quality diet, family history of type 2 diabetes in a first-degree relative or GDM in a previous pregnancy will be enrolled during gestational weeks 12-18, and randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to: (1) usual care, plus weekly text messages to encourage walking and paper handouts or (2) a personalised nutrition plan developed and delivered by a culturally congruent dietitian and health coach; and FitBit to track steps. The intervention lasts 6-16 weeks, depending on week of recruitment. The primary outcome is the glucose AUC from a three-sample 75 g OGTT 24-28 weeks' gestation. The secondary outcome is GDM diagnosis, based on Born-in-Bradford criteria (fasting glucose>5.2 mmol/L or 2 hours post load>7.2 mmol/L). ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has been approved by the Hamilton Integrated Research Ethics Board (HiREB #10942). Findings will be disseminated among academics and policy-makers through scientific publications along with community-orientated strategies. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03607799.

ABO blood group as a determinant of COVID-19 and Long COVID: An observational, longitudinal, large study.

BACKGROUND: An association of ABO blood group and COVID-19 remains controversial. METHODS: Following STROBE guidance for observational research, we explored the distribution of ABO blood group in patients hospitalized for acute COVID-19 and in those with Long COVID. Contingency tables were made and risk factors were explored using crude and adjusted Mantle-Haentzel odds ratios (OR and 95% CI). RESULTS: Up to September 2022, there were a total of 5,832 acute COVID-19 hospitalizations in our hospital, corresponding to 5,503 individual patients, of whom blood group determination was available for 1,513 (27.5%). Their distribution by ABO was: 653 (43.2%) group 0, 690 (45.6%) A, 113 (7.5%) B, and 57 (3.8%) AB, which corresponds to the expected frequencies in the general population. In parallel, of 676 patients with Long COVID, blood group determination was available for 135 (20.0%). Their distribution was: 60 (44.4%) from group 0, 61 (45.2%) A, 9 (6.7%) B, and 5 (3.7%) AB. The distribution of the ABO system of Long COVID patients did not show significant differences with respect to that of the total group (p ≥ 0.843). In a multivariate analysis adjusting for age, sex, ethnicity, and severity of acute COVID-19 infection, subgroups A, AB, and B were not significantly associated with developing Long COVID with an OR of 1.015 [0.669-1.541], 1.327 [0.490-3.594] and 0.965 [0.453-2.058], respectively. The effect of the Rh+ factor was also not significant 1,423 [0.772-2,622] regarding Long COVID. CONCLUSIONS: No association of any ABO blood subgroup with COVID-19 or developing Long COVID was identified.

Prevalence and Risk Factors of Burnout Syndrome during COVID-19 Pandemic among Healthcare Providers in Thailand.

Objective: To study prevalence, risk factors, and consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic related to Burnout syndrome (BOS) among Thai healthcare providers (HCPs) during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: We performed a cross-sectional study among HCPs, involved in caring for patients during the pandemic in two periods (1st period, May-Jun 2021, and 2nd period, Sep-Oct 2021). Data were distributed using electronic questionnaires. BOS was defined if respondents exhibited a high level of at least one domain in the Maslach Burnout Inventory criteria. The primary outcome was prevalence of BOS. Results: Altogether, 2,027 and 1,146 respondents were enrolled in the 1st and 2nd periods, respectively. Most respondents were female (73.3, 68.2%). The top three job positions were physicians (49.2, 58.9%), nurses (41.2, 30.6%), and nursing assistants (4.8, 6.5%), respectively. No difference was found in overall prevalence of Burnout syndrome during the 1st and 2nd periods (73 vs. 73.5%, p=0.80). Using multivariate analysis, significant risk factors for Burnout syndrome in both periods were (1) living with family (odds ratio (OR) 1.3 and 1.5), (2) tertiary care hospital (OR 1.92 and 2.13), (3) nurse (OR 1.38 and 2.29), (4) nursing assistant (OR 0.92 and 4.81), (5) salary ≤40,000 THB (OR 1.53 and 1.53), (6) >20 patients per shift (OR 1.55 and 1.88), (7) >6 shifts after hours monthly (OR 1.26 and 1.49), and (8) ≤1 rest day weekly (OR 1.3 and 1.4). Conclusion: We found a high prevalence of Burnout syndrome among Thai HCPs during the pandemic. Knowing those risk factors may provide a strategy to BOS during the pandemic.

Risk Factors and Protective Factors of Internet Addiction in University Students during the Pandemic: Implications for Prevention and Treatment.

While the prevalence rates of Internet addiction (IA) amongst young people during the pandemic are disturbing, few studies have investigated the risk and protective factors of IA in Hong Kong university students under COVID-19. In this study, we examined the relationship between COVID-19-related stress and IA and the role of psychological morbidity and positive psychological attributes in the relationship. In summer 2022, 978 university students completed a survey assessing pandemic-related stress, psychological morbidity, and positive psychological attributes. While psychological morbidity was indexed by depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, and suicidal behavior, positive psychological attributes included life satisfaction, flourishing, adversity beliefs, emotional competence, resilience, and family functioning measures. Results showed that stress and psychological morbidity positively predicted IA, and psychological morbidity mediated the association between stress and IA. Positive psychological attributes negatively predicted stress and IA, and mediated the connection between stress and IA. Positive psychological attributes moderated the mediating effect of psychological morbidity on the relationship between stress and IA. In addition to theoretical contributions, this study contributes to IA prevention and treatment: reducing psychological morbidity and promoting positive psychological attributes are promising strategies to address IA issues in young people.

Risk Factors in HIV-1 Positive Patients on the Intensive Care Unit: A Single Center Experience from a Tertiary Care Hospital.

HIV-positive patients with acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) often require treatment on intensive care units (ICUs). We aimed to present data from a German, low-incidence region cohort, and subsequently evaluate factors measured during the first 24 h of ICU stay to predict short- and long-term survival, and compare with data from high-incidence regions. We documented 62 patient courses between 2009 and 2019, treated on a non-operative ICU of a tertiary care hospital, mostly due to respiratory deterioration and co-infections. Of these, 54 patients required ventilatory support within the first 24 h with either nasal cannula/mask (n = 12), non-invasive ventilation (n = 16), or invasive ventilation (n = 26). Overall survival at day 30 was 77.4%. While ventilatory parameters (all p < 0.05), pH level (c/o 7.31, p = 0.001), and platelet count (c/o 164,000/µL, p = 0.002) were significant univariate predictors of 30-day and 60-day survival, different ICU scoring systems, such as SOFA score, APACHE II, and SAPS 2 predicted overall survival (all p < 0.001). Next to the presence or history of solid neoplasia (p = 0.026), platelet count (HR 6.7 for <164,000/µL, p = 0.020) and pH level (HR 5.8 for <7.31, p = 0.009) remained independently associated with 30-day and 60-day survival in multivariable Cox regression. However, ventilation parameters did not predict survival multivariably.

Preferred Information Source Correlates to COVID-19 Risk Misperception.

Inaccurate perceptions of COVID-19 (coronavirus disease 2019) risk may decrease compliance with public health mitigation practices, in turn increasing disease burden. The extent to which public perceptions of COVID-19 risk are inaccurate is not well studied. This study investigates the relationship between preferred information sources and inaccurate COVID-19 risk perception. A cross-sectional online survey of adults in the United States using online snowball techniques was administered between April 9, 2020 and July 12, 2020. Raking techniques were used to generate a representative U.S. sample from 10,650 respondents. Respondents who did not provide an answer to key questions were excluded. The remaining sample included 1,785 health care workers (HCW) and 4,843 non-HCW. Subjective risk was measured as the product of perceived likelihood of COVID-19 infection and perceived harm from infection. Objective risk was measured as a function of the presence of known COVID-19 risk factors. Discrepancies between subjective and objective risk were compared between respondents with different preferred information sources. Chi Square contingency tables and pair-wise correlation were used to evaluate differences to 95% confidence. For HCW and non-HCW, the greatest overestimation of personal COVID-19 risk assessment (p < .05 for all differences) were found in those whose preferred source of information was social media (HCW: 62.1%; non-HCW: 64.5%), followed by internet news sources (HCW: 59.6%, non-HCW%: 59.1%), government websites (HCW: 54%, non-HCW = 51.8%), other sources (HCW: 50.7%, non-HCW = 51.4%), and television news (HCW: 46.1%, non-HCW: 47.6%). Preferred information sources correlate with inaccuracies in personal COVID-19 risk assessment. Public health information campaigns should consider targeting groups whose preferred information sources correlate to higher inaccuracies in COVID-19 risk perceptions. [HLRP: Health Literacy Research and Practice. 2023;7(2):e105-e110.].