ABSTRACT
BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic profoundly affected food systems including food security. Understanding how the COVID-19 pandemic impacted food security is important to provide support, and identify long-term impacts and needs. ObjectiveOur team- the National Food Access and COVID research Team (NFACT) was formed to assess food security over different U.S. study sites throughout the pandemic, using common instruments and measurements. Here we present results from 18 study sites across 15 states and nationally over the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic. MethodsA validated survey instrument was developed and implemented in whole or part across the sites throughout the first year of the pandemic, representing 22 separate surveys. Sampling methods for each study site were convenience, representative, or high-risk targeted. Food security was measured using the USDA six-item module. Food security prevalence was analyzed using analysis of variance by sampling method to statistically significant differences. ResultsIn total, more than 27,000 people responded to the surveys. We find higher prevalence of food insecurity (low or very low food security) since the COVID-19 pandemic, as compared to before the pandemic. In nearly all study sites, we find higher prevalence of food insecurity among Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC), households with children, and those with job disruptions. We also demonstrate lingering food insecurity, with high or increased prevalence over time in sites with repeat surveys. We find no statistically significant differences between convenience and representative surveys, but statistically higher prevalence of food insecurity among high-risk compared to convenience surveys. ConclusionsThis comprehensive multi-study site effort demonstrates higher prevalence of food insecurity since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, which in multiple survey sites continues throughout the first year of the pandemic. These impacts were prevalent for certain demographic groups, and most pronounced for surveys targeting high-risk populations.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect of meperidine administered prior to anesthesia on the incidence of vomiting before, and gastroesophageal reflux (GER) and regurgitation during, the subsequent period of anesthesia in dogs. STUDY DESIGN: Randomized, controlled trial. ANIMALS: A total of 60 healthy dogs, 4.3 +/- 2.3 years old, and weighing 35.5 +/- 13.1 kg. METHODS: Dogs were admitted to the study if they were healthy, had no history of vomiting, and were scheduled to undergo elective orthopedic surgery. The anesthetic protocol used was standardized to include thiopental and isoflurane in oxygen. Dogs were randomly selected to receive one of the following pre-medications: morphine (0.66 mg kg(-1) IM) with acepromazine (0.044 mg kg(-1) IM), meperidine (8.8 mg kg(-1) IM) with acepromazine (0.044 mg kg(-1) IM) or meperidine alone (8.8 mg kg(-1) IM). A sensor-tipped catheter was placed to measure esophageal pH during anesthesia. Gastro-esophageal reflux was judged to have occurred if there was a decrease in esophageal pH below four or an increase above 7.5. RESULTS: No dogs vomited after the administration of meperidine, but 50% of dogs vomited after the administration of morphine. When compared with morphine, treatment with meperidine alone or combined with acepromazine before anesthesia was associated with a 55% and 27% reduction in absolute risk of developing GER, respectively. Dogs receiving meperidine alone were significantly less sedate than other dogs in the study, and required more thiopental to induce anesthesia. Arterial blood pressure and heart rate were not significantly different between groups at the start of the measurement period. Cutaneous erythema and swelling were evident in four dogs receiving meperidine. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Administration of meperidine to healthy dogs prior to anesthesia was not associated with vomiting and tended to reduce the occurrence of GER, but produced less sedation when compared with morphine. Meperidine is not a useful addition to the anesthetic protocol if prevention of GER is desired.