Secular Trends in Depressive Symptoms in Adolescents in Yunnan, Southwest China From Before COVID-19 to During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Longitudinal, Observational Study.
Yunnan province borders Myanmar, Laos, and Vietnam, giving it one of the longest borders in China. We aimed to determine the trends in prevalence and impact of COVID-19 on depressive symptoms among adolescents (12-18 years) from 2018 to 2022 in Yunnan, southwest China.
We evaluated the impact of the COVID-19 epidemic on adolescents' mental health, with the aim of reducing the effect of psychological emergency syndrome and promoting healthy, happy adolescent growth.
This longitudinal, observational study used Students' Health Survey data on adolescents' depressive symptoms from 2018 to 2022 (before and during COVID-19) in Yunnan. We used multistage, stratified sampling in 3 prefectures in 2018 and 16 prefectures from 2019 to 2022. In each prefecture, the study population was classified by gender and residence (urban or rural), and each group was of equal size. Depressive symptoms were diagnosed based on Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale (CES-D) scores. We used ANOVA to assess the differences in mean CES-D scores stratified by gender, age, residence, grade, and ethnicity. Chi-square tests were used to compare depressive symptoms by different variables. For comparability, the age-standard and gender-standard population prevalences were calculated using the 2010 China Census as the standard population. The association between COVID-19 and the risk of a standardized prevalence of depressive symptoms was identified using unconditional logistic regression analysis.
The standardized prevalence of depressive symptoms for all participants was 32.98%: 28.26% in 2018, 30.89% in 2019, 29.81% in 2020, 28.77% in 2021, 36.33% in 2022. The prevalences were 30.49% before COVID-19,29.29% in early COVID-19, and 36.33% during the COVID-19 pandemic. Compared with before COVID-19, the risks of depressive symptoms were 0.793 (95% CI 0.772-0.814) times higher in early COVID-19 and 1.071 (95% CI 1.042-1.100) times higher than during COVID-19. The average annual increase in depressive symptoms was 1.61%. During the epidemic, the prevalence of depressive symptoms in girls (36.87%) was higher than that in boys (28.64%), and the acceleration rate of girls was faster than that of boys. The prevalences of depressive symptoms and acceleration rates by age group were as follows: 27.14% and 1.09% (12-13 years), 33.99% and 1.8% (14-15 years), 36.59% and 1.65% (16-18 years). Prevalences did not differ between Han (32.89%) and minority (33.10%) populations. However, the acceleration rate was faster for the former than for the latter. The rate for senior high school students was the highest (34.94%). However, the acceleration rate for vocational high school students was the fastest (2.88%), followed by that for junior high school students (2.32%). Rural residents (35.10%) had a higher prevalence and faster acceleration than urban residents (30.16%).
From 2018 to 2022, there was a significant, continuous increase in the prevalence of depressive symptoms among adolescents in Yunnan, China, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic. This represents an emergency public health problem that should be given more attention. Effective, comprehensive psychological and lifestyle intervention measures should be used to reduce the prevalence of mental health issues in adolescents.
Yang Y
，Zha S
，Li T
《JMIR Public Health and Surveillance》
The effect of sample site and collection procedure on identification of SARS-CoV-2 infection.
Sample collection is a key driver of accuracy in the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Viral load may vary at different anatomical sampling sites and accuracy may be compromised by difficulties obtaining specimens and the expertise of the person taking the sample. It is important to optimise sampling accuracy within cost, safety and accessibility constraints.
To compare the sensitivity of different sampling collection sites and methods for the detection of current SARS-CoV-2 infection with any molecular or antigen-based test.
Electronic searches of the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register and the COVID-19 Living Evidence Database from the University of Bern (which includes daily updates from PubMed and Embase and preprints from medRxiv and bioRxiv) were undertaken on 22 February 2022. We included independent evaluations from national reference laboratories, FIND and the Diagnostics Global Health website. We did not apply language restrictions.
We included studies of symptomatic or asymptomatic people with suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection undergoing testing. We included studies of any design that compared results from different sample types (anatomical location, operator, collection device) collected from the same participant within a 24-hour period.
Within a sample pair, we defined a reference sample and an index sample collected from the same participant within the same clinical encounter (within 24 hours). Where the sample comparison was different anatomical sites, the reference standard was defined as a nasopharyngeal or combined naso/oropharyngeal sample collected into the same sample container and the index sample as the alternative anatomical site. Where the sample comparison was concerned with differences in the sample collection method from the same site, we defined the reference sample as that closest to standard practice for that sample type. Where the sample pair comparison was concerned with differences in personnel collecting the sample, the more skilled or experienced operator was considered the reference sample. Two review authors independently assessed the risk of bias and applicability concerns using the QUADAS-2 and QUADAS-C checklists, tailored to this review. We present estimates of the difference in the sensitivity (reference sample (%) minus index sample sensitivity (%)) in a pair and as an average across studies for each index sampling method using forest plots and tables. We examined heterogeneity between studies according to population (age, symptom status) and index sample (time post-symptom onset, operator expertise, use of transport medium) characteristics.
This review includes 106 studies reporting 154 evaluations and 60,523 sample pair comparisons, of which 11,045 had SARS-CoV-2 infection. Ninety evaluations were of saliva samples, 37 nasal, seven oropharyngeal, six gargle, six oral and four combined nasal/oropharyngeal samples. Four evaluations were of the effect of operator expertise on the accuracy of three different sample types. The majority of included evaluations (146) used molecular tests, of which 140 used RT-PCR (reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction). Eight evaluations were of nasal samples used with Ag-RDTs (rapid antigen tests). The majority of studies were conducted in Europe (35/106, 33%) or the USA (27%) and conducted in dedicated COVID-19 testing clinics or in ambulatory hospital settings (53%). Targeted screening or contact tracing accounted for only 4% of evaluations. Where reported, the majority of evaluations were of adults (91/154, 59%), 28 (18%) were in mixed populations with only seven (4%) in children. The median prevalence of confirmed SARS-CoV-2 was 23% (interquartile (IQR) 13%-40%). Risk of bias and applicability assessment were hampered by poor reporting in 77% and 65% of included studies, respectively. Risk of bias was low across all domains in only 3% of evaluations due to inappropriate inclusion or exclusion criteria, unclear recruitment, lack of blinding, nonrandomised sampling order or differences in testing kit within a sample pair. Sixty-eight percent of evaluation cohorts were judged as being at high or unclear applicability concern either due to inflation of the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in study populations by selectively including individuals with confirmed PCR-positive samples or because there was insufficient detail to allow replication of sample collection. When used with RT-PCR • There was no evidence of a difference in sensitivity between gargle and nasopharyngeal samples (on average -1 percentage points, 95% CI -5 to +2, based on 6 evaluations, 2138 sample pairs, of which 389 had SARS-CoV-2). • There was no evidence of a difference in sensitivity between saliva collection from the deep throat and nasopharyngeal samples (on average +10 percentage points, 95% CI -1 to +21, based on 2192 sample pairs, of which 730 had SARS-CoV-2). • There was evidence that saliva collection using spitting, drooling or salivating was on average -12 percentage points less sensitive (95% CI -16 to -8, based on 27,253 sample pairs, of which 4636 had SARS-CoV-2) compared to nasopharyngeal samples. We did not find any evidence of a difference in the sensitivity of saliva collected using spitting, drooling or salivating (sensitivity difference: range from -13 percentage points (spit) to -21 percentage points (salivate)). • Nasal samples (anterior and mid-turbinate collection combined) were, on average, 12 percentage points less sensitive compared to nasopharyngeal samples (95% CI -17 to -7), based on 9291 sample pairs, of which 1485 had SARS-CoV-2. We did not find any evidence of a difference in sensitivity between nasal samples collected from the mid-turbinates (3942 sample pairs) or from the anterior nares (8272 sample pairs). • There was evidence that oropharyngeal samples were, on average, 17 percentage points less sensitive than nasopharyngeal samples (95% CI -29 to -5), based on seven evaluations, 2522 sample pairs, of which 511 had SARS-CoV-2. A much smaller volume of evidence was available for combined nasal/oropharyngeal samples and oral samples. Age, symptom status and use of transport media do not appear to affect the sensitivity of saliva samples and nasal samples. When used with Ag-RDTs • There was no evidence of a difference in sensitivity between nasal samples compared to nasopharyngeal samples (sensitivity, on average, 0 percentage points -0.2 to +0.2, based on 3688 sample pairs, of which 535 had SARS-CoV-2).
When used with RT-PCR, there is no evidence for a difference in sensitivity of self-collected gargle or deep-throat saliva samples compared to nasopharyngeal samples collected by healthcare workers when used with RT-PCR. Use of these alternative, self-collected sample types has the potential to reduce cost and discomfort and improve the safety of sampling by reducing risk of transmission from aerosol spread which occurs as a result of coughing and gagging during the nasopharyngeal or oropharyngeal sample collection procedure. This may, in turn, improve access to and uptake of testing. Other types of saliva, nasal, oral and oropharyngeal samples are, on average, less sensitive compared to healthcare worker-collected nasopharyngeal samples, and it is unlikely that sensitivities of this magnitude would be acceptable for confirmation of SARS-CoV-2 infection with RT-PCR. When used with Ag-RDTs, there is no evidence of a difference in sensitivity between nasal samples and healthcare worker-collected nasopharyngeal samples for detecting SARS-CoV-2. The implications of this for self-testing are unclear as evaluations did not report whether nasal samples were self-collected or collected by healthcare workers. Further research is needed in asymptomatic individuals, children and in Ag-RDTs, and to investigate the effect of operator expertise on accuracy. Quality assessment of the evidence base underpinning these conclusions was restricted by poor reporting. There is a need for further high-quality studies, adhering to reporting standards for test accuracy studies.
Davenport C
，Arevalo-Rodriguez I
，Mateos-Haro M
，Berhane S
，Dinnes J
，Spijker R
，Buitrago-Garcia D
，Ciapponi A
，Takwoingi Y
，Deeks JJ
，Emperador D
，Leeflang MMG
，Van den Bruel A
，Cochrane COVID-19 Diagnostic Test Accuracy Group
... -
《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》
ResearchGate
(全网免费下载)
钛学术
(全网免费下载)
