Mental health in undergraduate students several months into the COVID-19 pandemic compared to before the pandemic.

OBJECTIVE: To compare mental health indicators among undergraduates in Fall 2019, before the COVID-19 pandemic, and Fall 2020, when many students returned to campus amidst restrictions on in-person contact. PARTICIPANTS: Analyses included 26,881 undergraduate students, aged 18-24, from 70 U.S. institutions. METHODS: Students completed the National College Health Assessment-III survey in Fall 2019 or Fall 2020. RESULTS: The prevalences of high stress, loneliness, a low flourishing score, and serious psychological distress increased in 2020 compared to 2019. Serious psychological distress increased substantially in 2020 among students not living with family (adjusted prevalence ratio (aPR)=1.36, 95% CI 1.29-1.45) but not among students living with family (aPR = 1.09, 95% CI 0.95-1.26). CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest prevalences of several indicators of poor mental health were elevated among U.S. undergraduates several months into the pandemic. The pandemic may have had greater impact on mental health among students not living with family.

Evidence base review of couple- and family-based psychosocial interventions to promote infant and early childhood mental health, 2010-2019.

Infant and early childhood mental health (IECMH) has been defined as the capacity of infants and young children to regulate their emotions, form secure relationships, and explore their environments. For this special issue, we conducted a review of IECMH outcomes from evaluations of couple- and family-based psychosocial interventions not explicitly designed for trauma exposure published from 2010 through 2019, following Evidence Base Update criteria and the current convention of classifying general categories of intervention approaches rather than the former practice of evaluating specific brand-name packaged programs. Full-text review of 695 articles resulted in 39 articles eligible for categorization into intervention approaches, taking into consideration the theoretical orientation of the treatment, the population served, the intervention participants, the target outcomes, the treatment theory of change, and the degree to which the intervention was standardized across participants. Four intervention approaches were identified in this review as Probably Efficacious: Behavioral Interventions to Support Parents of Toddlers, Interventions to Support Adolescent Mothers, Tiered Interventions to Provide Support Based on Assessed Risk, and Home Visiting Interventions to Provide Individualized Support to Parents. Other intervention approaches were classified as Possibly Efficacious, Experimental, or did not have sufficient evidence in this time period to classify under these criteria. Further research could explore how to ensure that all families who need support can receive it, such as by increasing the reach of effective programs and by decreasing the number of families needing additional support.

Pregnancy Outcomes After Maternal Zika Virus Infection During Pregnancy - U.S. Territories, January 1, 2016-April 25, 2017.

Pregnant women living in or traveling to areas with local mosquito-borne Zika virus transmission are at risk for Zika virus infection, which can lead to severe fetal and infant brain abnormalities and microcephaly (1). In February 2016, CDC recommended 1) routine testing for Zika virus infection of asymptomatic pregnant women living in areas with ongoing local Zika virus transmission at the first prenatal care visit, 2) retesting during the second trimester for women who initially test negative, and 3) testing of pregnant women with signs or symptoms consistent with Zika virus disease (e.g., fever, rash, arthralgia, or conjunctivitis) at any time during pregnancy (2). To collect information about pregnant women with laboratory evidence of recent possible Zika virus infection* and outcomes in their fetuses and infants, CDC established pregnancy and infant registries (3). During January 1, 2016-April 25, 2017, U.S. territories† with local transmission of Zika virus reported 2,549 completed pregnancies§ (live births and pregnancy losses at any gestational age) with laboratory evidence of recent possible Zika virus infection; 5% of fetuses or infants resulting from these pregnancies had birth defects potentially associated with Zika virus infection¶ (4,5). Among completed pregnancies with positive nucleic acid tests confirming Zika infection identified in the first, second, and third trimesters, the percentage of fetuses or infants with possible Zika-associated birth defects was 8%, 5%, and 4%, respectively. Among liveborn infants, 59% had Zika laboratory testing results reported to the pregnancy and infant registries. Identification and follow-up of infants born to women with laboratory evidence of recent possible Zika virus infection during pregnancy permits timely and appropriate clinical intervention services (6).

Possible Zika Virus Infection Among Pregnant Women - United States and Territories, May 2016.

Zika virus is a cause of microcephaly and brain abnormalities (1), and it is the first known mosquito-borne infection to cause congenital anomalies in humans. The establishment of a comprehensive surveillance system to monitor pregnant women with Zika virus infection will provide data to further elucidate the full range of potential outcomes for fetuses and infants of mothers with asymptomatic and symptomatic Zika virus infection during pregnancy. In February 2016, Zika virus disease and congenital Zika virus infections became nationally notifiable conditions in the United States (2). Cases in pregnant women with laboratory evidence of Zika virus infection who have either 1) symptomatic infection or 2) asymptomatic infection with diagnosed complications of pregnancy can be reported as cases of Zika virus disease to ArboNET* (2), CDC's national arboviral diseases surveillance system. Under existing interim guidelines from the Council for State and Territorial Epidemiologists (CSTE), asymptomatic Zika virus infections in pregnant women who do not have known pregnancy complications are not reportable. ArboNET does not currently include pregnancy surveillance information (e.g., gestational age or pregnancy exposures) or pregnancy outcomes. To understand the full impact of infection on the fetus and neonate, other systems are needed for reporting and active monitoring of pregnant women with laboratory evidence of possible Zika virus infection during pregnancy. Thus, in collaboration with state, local, tribal, and territorial health departments, CDC established two surveillance systems to monitor pregnancies and congenital outcomes among women with laboratory evidence of Zika virus infection(†) in the United States and territories: 1) the U.S. Zika Pregnancy Registry (USZPR),(§) which monitors pregnant women residing in U.S. states and all U.S. territories except Puerto Rico, and 2) the Zika Active Pregnancy Surveillance System (ZAPSS), which monitors pregnant women residing in Puerto Rico. As of May 12, 2016, the surveillance systems were monitoring 157 and 122 pregnant women with laboratory evidence of possible Zika virus infection from participating U.S. states and territories, respectively. Tracking and monitoring clinical presentation of Zika virus infection, all prenatal testing, and adverse consequences of Zika virus infection during pregnancy are critical to better characterize the risk for congenital infection, the performance of prenatal diagnostic testing, and the spectrum of adverse congenital outcomes. These data will improve clinical guidance, inform counseling messages for pregnant women, and facilitate planning for clinical and public health services for affected families.

The National Birth Defects Prevention Study: A review of the methods.

BACKGROUND: The National Birth Defects Prevention Study (NBDPS) is a large population-based multicenter case-control study of major birth defects in the United States. METHODS: Data collection took place from 1998 through 2013 on pregnancies ending between October 1997 and December 2011. Cases could be live born, stillborn, or induced terminations, and were identified from birth defects surveillance programs in Arkansas, California, Georgia, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Texas, and Utah. Controls were live born infants without major birth defects identified from the same geographical regions and time periods as cases by means of either vital records or birth hospitals. Computer-assisted telephone interviews were completed with women between 6 weeks and 24 months after the estimated date of delivery. After completion of interviews, families received buccal cell collection kits for the mother, father, and infant (if living). RESULTS: There were 47,832 eligible cases and 18,272 eligible controls. Among these, 32,187 (67%) and 11,814 (65%), respectively, provided interview information about their pregnancies. Buccal cell collection kits with a cytobrush for at least one family member were returned by 19,065 case and 6,211 control families (65% and 59% of those who were sent a kit). More than 500 projects have been proposed by the collaborators and over 200 manuscripts published using data from the NBDPS through December 2014. CONCLUSION: The NBDPS has made substantial contributions to the field of birth defects epidemiology through its rigorous design, including case classification, detailed questionnaire and specimen collection, large study population, and collaborative activities across Centers.