Association of Caffeine Consumption and Brain Amyloid Positivity in Cognitively Normal Older Adults.

BACKGROUND: Several epidemiological studies have reported the protective role of caffeine on health outcomes; however, it remained debatable on caffeine consumption and brain amyloid positivity. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to determine the relationship between caffeine consumption and brain amyloid pathology in cognitively normal older adults. METHODS: The dataset used for analysis in this cross-sectional study was selected from the Anti-Amyloid Treatment in Asymptomatic Alzheimer's (A4) Study. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to explore the association between caffeine consumption and amyloid positivity using odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: In total, 4,394 participants were included in the final analysis. No significant association between caffeine consumption and amyloid positivity was observed in the whole participants (OR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.78-1.14; p = 0.558). Subgroup analysis showed that caffeine intake was significantly associated with decreased amyloid positivity in males (OR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.54-0.97; p = 0.032) but not in females (OR, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.90-1.46; p = 0.280), and the association between caffeine and amyloid positivity was not affected by age or APOE genotypes. In addition, different levels of caffeine were not associated with amyloid positivity. CONCLUSION: The findings suggest that caffeine consumption was not significantly associated with amyloid positivity in the whole sample. However, caffeine consumption may be inversely associated with amyloid positivity among males but not females. More studies are needed to explore the mechanisms underlying caffeine consumption and brain amyloid positivity.

[Challenges of and Responses to Mental Health Problems in the Post-COVID-19 Era].

Since the first outbreak of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), prevention and control of the pandemic remains a grim issue because of the continuous emergence of new variants of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the virus causing COVID-19, and the constant emergence of new domestic outbreaks. During the COVID-19 pandemic, mental and psychological problems have increased significantly among different populations, including patients of COVID-19 and their families, health workers, college students, adolescents, children, and even the general population. At present, the COVID-19 epidemic situation in China is rather complicated. The general population is confronted with a variety of challenges, including the threat of infection or reinfection, lower efficiency in study and work, and reduced incomes, and is hence experiencing many mental health problems related to the epidemic situation. Therefore, the relevant governmental departments and health institutions in China have attached high importance to the mental health issue in the process of implementing pandemic control measures of COVID-19. Close collaboration to implement the required epidemic prevention and control measures, improvements in the mental health services for public health emergencies in China, and commitment to the protection of the mental health and well-being of the people in the post-pandemic era have become the top priorities for now. Based on a review of the mental health problems related to COVID-19 pandemic, we suggested strategies to deal with mental health problems in the post-COVID-19 era.

Linking knowledge with attitude: a cross-sectional study of public knowledge and attitude towards sleep disturbances and dementia.

OBJECTIVES: Sleep disturbances increase the risk of dementia; however, there is insufficient information regarding this. We aimed to investigate public knowledge on the relationship between sleep disturbances and dementia, as well as attitudes towards improving sleep quality and obtaining knowledge on dementia. DESIGN AND SETTING: A cross-sectional web-based questionnaire was administered between May and October 2019. PARTICIPANTS: All participants provided informed consent and were able to respond to the survey. PRIMARY OUTCOMES: Factors associated with the knowledge that sleep disturbances are risk factors for dementia and proportions of individuals with this knowledge; attitudes towards improving sleep quality and obtaining knowledge about dementia. RESULTS: Of the 3329 eligible samples, 72.57% correctly recognised that sleep disturbances increased the risk of dementia. In total, 92.97% of participants were willing to take at least one measure to improve sleep quality, and the percentages of those adopting these measures are as follows: 78.73% would lead a regular life, 67.88% would engage in strengthening exercise, 28.84% would undergo psychotherapy and 19.41% would take medication. The awareness regarding sleep disturbances increasing the risk of dementia was the only factor associated with the willingness to improve sleep quality in all four categories of measures. Almost all participants (95.25%) were willing to take at least one measure to acquire knowledge about dementia, with the following participants displaying higher willingness to obtain knowledge about dementia: female, had contact with dementia and considered sleep disturbances to increase the risk of dementia. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings indicate an association between people's knowledge and attitudes, suggesting the importance of disseminating knowledge about sleep disturbances and dementia to achieve dementia prevention in future.

A systematic review and meta-analysis on prevalence of and risk factors associated with depression, anxiety and insomnia in infectious diseases, including COVID-19: a call to action.

Infectious disease epidemics have become more frequent and more complex during the 21st century, posing a health threat to the general public and leading to psychological symptoms. The current study was designed to investigate the prevalence of and risk factors associated with depression, anxiety and insomnia symptoms during epidemic outbreaks, including COVID-19. We systematically searched the PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, OVID, Medline, Cochrane databases, bioRxiv and medRxiv to identify studies that reported the prevalence of depression, anxiety or insomnia during infectious disease epidemics, up to August 14th, 2020. Prevalence of mental symptoms among different populations including the general public, health workers, university students, older adults, infected patients, survivors of infection, and pregnant women across all types of epidemics was pooled. In addition, prevalence of mental symptoms during COVID-19 was estimated by time using meta-regression analysis. A total of 17,506 papers were initially retrieved, and a final of 283 studies met the inclusion criteria, representing a total of 948,882 individuals. The pooled prevalence of depression ranged from 23.1%, 95% confidential intervals (95% CI: [13.9-32.2]) in survivors to 43.3% (95% CI: [27.1-59.6]) in university students, the pooled prevalence of anxiety ranged from 25.0% (95% CI: [12.0-38.0]) in older adults to 43.3% (95% CI: [23.3-63.3]) in pregnant women, and insomnia symptoms ranged from 29.7% (95% CI: [24.4-34.9]) in the general public to 58.4% (95% CI: [28.1-88.6]) in university students. Prevalence of moderate-to-severe mental symptoms was lower but had substantial variation across different populations. The prevalence of mental problems increased over time during the COVID-19 pandemic among the general public, health workers and university students, and decreased among infected patients. Factors associated with increased prevalence for all three mental health symptoms included female sex, and having physical disorders, psychiatric disorders, COVID infection, colleagues or family members infected, experience of frontline work, close contact with infected patients, high exposure risk, quarantine experience and high concern about epidemics. Frequent exercise and good social support were associated with lower risk for these three mental symptoms. In conclusion, mental symptoms are common during epidemics with substantial variation across populations. The population-specific psychological crisis management are needed to decrease the burden of psychological problem and improve the mental wellbeing during epidemic.

Efficacy and practice of facemask use in general population: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

In recent decades, respiratory infections, including SARS, HINI and the currently spreading COVID-19, caused by various viruses such as influenza and coronavirus have seriously threatened human health. It has generated inconsistent recommendations on the mandatory use of facemasks across countries on a population level due to insufficient evidence on the efficacy of facemask use among the general population. This meta-analysis aimed to explore (1) the efficacy of facemask use on preventing respiratory infections, and (2) the perceptions, intentions, and practice about facemask use among the general population worldwide. We searched PubMed, MEDLINE, Web of Science, Cochrane, bioRxiv, and medRxiv databases since inception to August 17, 2020. From 21,341 records identified, eight RCTs on facemask in preventing infections and 78 studies on perception, intention, and practice of facemask use among the general population were included in the analysis. The meta-analysis of RCTs found a significant protective effect of facemask intervention (OR = 0.84; 95% CI = 0.71-0.99; I2 = 0%). This protective effect was even more pronounced when the intervention duration was more than two weeks (OR = 0.76; 95% CI = 0.66-0.88; I2 = 0%). The meta-analysis of observational studies on perception, intention, and practice on facemask use showed that 71% of respondents perceived facemasks to be effective for infection prevention, 68% of respondents would wear facemasks, and 54% of respondents wore facemasks for preventing respiratory infections. Differences in perception, intention, and practice behavior of facemask use in different regions may be related to the impact of respiratory infections, regional culture, and policies. The governments and relevant organizations should make effort to reduce the barriers in the use of facemasks.

A systematic review and meta-analysis on the prevalence of stigma in infectious diseases, including COVID-19: a call to action.

Infectious diseases, including COVID-19, are crucial public health issues and may lead to considerable fear among the general public and stigmatization of, and discrimination against, specific populations. This meta-analysis aimed to estimate the pooled prevalence of stigma in infectious disease epidemics. We systematically searched PubMed, PsycINFO, Embase, MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases since inception to June 08, 2021, and reported the prevalence of stigma towards people with infectious diseases including SARS, H1N1, MERS, Zika, Ebola, and COVID-19. A total of 50 eligible articles were included that contributed 51 estimates of prevalence in 92722 participants. The overall pooled prevalence of stigma across all populations was 34% [95% CI: 28-40%], including enacted stigma (36% [95% CI: 28-44%]) and perceived stigma (31% [95% CI: 22-40%]). The prevalence of stigma in patients, community population, and health care workers, was 38% [95% CI: 12- 65%], 36% [95% CI: 28-45%], and 30% [95% CI: 20-40%], respectively. The prevalence of stigma in participants from low- and middle-income countries was 37% [95% CI: 29-45%], which is higher than that from high-income countries (27% [95% CI: 18-36%]) though this difference was not statistically significant. A similar trend of prevalence of stigma was also observed in individuals with lower education (47% [95% CI: 23-71%]) compared to higher education level (33% [95% CI: 23-4%]). These findings indicate that stigma is a significant public health concern, and effective and comprehensive interventions are needed to counteract the damaging effects of the infodemics during infectious disease epidemics, including COVID-19, and reduce infectious disease-related stigma.

COVID-19 Vaccine-Related Psychological Stress Among General Public in China.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic is our generation's greatest global challenge to our public health system. Vaccines are considered one of the most effective tools available for preventing COVID-19 infection and its complications and sequelae. Understanding and addressing the psychological stress related to COVID-19 vaccination may promote acceptance of these vaccines. Methods: We conducted an online survey from January 29 to April 26, 2021 to explore stress levels related to COVID-19 vaccination among the general public in China. Participants were asked to evaluate their psychological stress of considering whether or not to get vaccinated at the beginning period of the COVID-19 mass vaccination, after getting access to the information about the vaccine, as well as after getting vaccinated, using visual analog stress scale. Multiple linear regression analysis was performed to explore factors potentially associated with COVID-19-related psychological stress levels before and after getting vaccinated. Results: A total of 34,041 participants were included in the final analysis. The mean stress score concerning COVID-19 vaccination was 3.90 ± 2.60 among all participants, and significantly decreased over time. In addition, the vaccine-related stress level significantly decreased after accessing information about the COVID-19 vaccine (N = 29,396), as well as after getting vaccinated (N = 5,103). Multivariable regression analysis showed higher stress levels related to COVID-19 vaccination in participants who were younger, having lower education level, having history of chronic diseases, mistrusting vaccine's efficacy, experience of vaccine allergy events, being affected by the COVID-19 epidemic, and having mental illness symptoms. Moreover, mistrust in vaccine efficacy and experience of vaccine allergy events had a long-term impact on psychological stress levels about COVID-19 vaccination even after getting vaccinated. Conclusions: The current findings profiled the COVID-19 vaccine-related psychological stress among the general public in China. Population-specific management and interventions targeting the stress related to COVID-19 vaccination are needed to help governments and policy makers promote individual's willingness to get vaccinations for public well-being during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Public Willingness and Determinants of COVID-19 Vaccination at the Initial Stage of Mass Vaccination in China.

The present study assessed the willingness of the general population to receive COVID-19 vaccines and identified factors that influence vaccine hesitancy and resistance. A national online survey was conducted from 29 January 2021 to 26 April 2021 in China. Multinomial logistic regression analyses were conducted to identify factors that influence vaccine hesitancy and resistance. Of the 34,041 participants surveyed, 18,810 (55.3%) were willing to get vaccinated, 13,736 (40.3%) were hesitant, and 1495 (4.4%) were resistant. Rates of vaccine acceptance increased over time, with geographical discrepancies in vaccine hesitancy and resistance between provinces in China. Vaccine safety was the greatest concern expressed by most participants (24,461 [71.9%]), and the major reason for participants' refusing vaccination (974 [65.2%]). Government agencies (23,131 [68.0%]) and social media (20,967 [61.6%]) were the main sources of COVID-19 vaccine information. Compared with vaccination acceptance, female, young and middle-aged, high income, and perceived low-risk of infection were associated with vaccine hesitancy. Histories of allergic reactions to other vaccines and depression symptoms were related to vaccine resistance. Common factors that influenced vaccine hesitancy and resistance were residing in cities and perceiving less protection with vaccines than with other protective measures. The results indicate that the rate of vaccine resistance is relatively low, but vaccine hesitancy is common. Individuals who are female, young and middle-aged, with a high income, and residing in cities are more likely to be hesitant for vaccination and should be the target populations for vaccination campaigns. Specific vaccine messaging from the government and social media could alleviate public concerns about vaccine safety and efficacy.

Prevalence of posttraumatic stress disorder after infectious disease pandemics in the twenty-first century, including COVID-19: a meta-analysis and systematic review.

Pandemics have become more frequent and more complex during the twenty-first century. Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) following pandemics is a significant public health concern. We sought to provide a reliable estimate of the worldwide prevalence of PTSD after large-scale pandemics as well as associated risk factors, by a systematic review and meta-analysis. We systematically searched the MedLine, Embase, PsycINFO, Web of Science, CNKI, WanFang, medRxiv, and bioRxiv databases to identify studies that were published from the inception up to August 23, 2020, and reported the prevalence of PTSD after pandemics including sudden acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), H1N1, Poliomyelitis, Ebola, Zika, Nipah, Middle Eastern respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV), H5N1, and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). A total of 88 studies were included in the analysis, with 77 having prevalence information and 70 having risk factors information. The overall pooled prevalence of post-pandemic PTSD across all populations was 22.6% (95% confidence interval (CI): 19.9-25.4%, I2: 99.7%). Healthcare workers had the highest prevalence of PTSD (26.9%; 95% CI: 20.3-33.6%), followed by infected cases (23.8%: 16.6-31.0%), and the general public (19.3%: 15.3-23.2%). However, the heterogeneity of study findings indicates that results should be interpreted cautiously. Risk factors including individual, family, and societal factors, pandemic-related factors, and specific factors in healthcare workers and patients for post-pandemic PTSD were summarized and discussed in this systematic review. Long-term monitoring and early interventions should be implemented to improve post-pandemic mental health and long-term recovery.

Mental health services for infectious disease outbreaks including COVID-19: a rapid systematic review.

The upsurge in the number of people affected by the COVID-19 is likely to lead to increased rates of emotional trauma and mental illnesses. This article systematically reviewed the available data on the benefits of interventions to reduce adverse mental health sequelae of infectious disease outbreaks, and to offer guidance for mental health service responses to infectious disease pandemic. PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, PsycINFO, WHO Global Research Database on infectious disease, and the preprint server medRxiv were searched. Of 4278 reports identified, 32 were included in this review. Most articles of psychological interventions were implemented to address the impact of COVID-19 pandemic, followed by Ebola, SARS, and MERS for multiple vulnerable populations. Increasing mental health literacy of the public is vital to prevent the mental health crisis under the COVID-19 pandemic. Group-based cognitive behavioral therapy, psychological first aid, community-based psychosocial arts program, and other culturally adapted interventions were reported as being effective against the mental health impacts of COVID-19, Ebola, and SARS. Culturally-adapted, cost-effective, and accessible strategies integrated into the public health emergency response and established medical systems at the local and national levels are likely to be an effective option to enhance mental health response capacity for the current and for future infectious disease outbreaks. Tele-mental healthcare services were key central components of stepped care for both infectious disease outbreak management and routine support; however, the usefulness and limitations of remote health delivery should also be recognized.