Background Preliminary evidence from the COVID-19 pandemic shows the presence of health disparities, especially in terms of morbidity and mortality. This study aimed to systematically review the evidence on the association of racial/ethnic and socioeconomic status (SES) with health outcomes and access to healthcare services during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods We retrieved published evidence from late December 2019 through March 1, 2021. The target population was the population of the countries during the COVID-19 pandemic. The exposures were defined as belonging to racial/ethnic minority groups and/or low SES. The primary outcomes of interest include (1) death from COVID-19, (2) COVID-19 incidence/infection, (3) COVID-19 hospitalization, (4) ICU admission, (5) need for mechanical ventilation, (6) confirmed diagnosis, and (7) access to testing. We systematically synthesized the findings from different studies and provided a narrative explanation of the results. Results After removing the duplicate results and screening for relevant titles and abstracts, 77 studies were selected for full-text review. Finally, 52 studies were included in the review. The majority of the studies were from the United States (37 studies). Despite the significant incongruity among the studies, most of them showed that racial/ethnic minority groups had higher risks of COVID-19 infection and hospitalization, confirmed diagnosis, and death. Additionally, most of the studies cited factors such as low level of education, poverty, poor housing conditions, low household income, speaking in a language other than the national language in a country, and living in overcrowded households as risk factors of COVID-19 incidence/infection, death, and confirmed diagnosis. However, findings in terms of the association of lack of health insurance coverage and unemployment with the outcome measures as well as the association of requiring mechanical ventilation, ICU admission, and access to testing for COVID-19 with race/ethnicity were limited and inconsistent. Conclusion It is evident that racial/ethnic minority groups and those from low SES are more vulnerable to COVID-19; therefore, public health policymakers, practitioners, and clinicians should be aware of these inequalities and strive to narrow the gap by focusing on vulnerable populations. This systematic review also revealed a major incongruity in the definition of the racial/ethnic minority groups and SES among the studies. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42020190105.

Introduction This study's objective was to examine the association of the percentage of county population residing in concentrated disadvantage and Black-concentrated census tracts with county-level confirmed COVID-19 deaths in the USA, concentrated disadvantage and Black concentration at census tract-level measure socioeconomic segregation and racial segregation, respectively. Methods We performed secondary data analysis using tract (N = 73,056) and county (N = 3142) level data from the US Census Bureau and other sources for the USA. Confirmed COVID-19 deaths per 100,000 population was our outcome measure. We performed mixed-effect negative binomial regression to examine the association of county population's percentage residing in concentrated disadvantage and Black-concentrated tracts with COVID-19 deaths while controlling for several other characteristics. Results For every 10% increase in the percentage of county population residing in concentrated disadvantage and Black-concentrated tracts, the rate for confirmed COVID-19 deaths per 100,000 population increases by a factor of 1.14 (mortality rate ratio [MMR] = 1.14; 95% confidence interval [CI]:1.11, 1.18) and 1.11 (MMR = 1.11; 95% CI:1.08, 1.14), respectively. These relations stayed significant in all models in further sensitivity analyses. Moreover, a joint increase in the percentage of county population residing in racial and socioeconomic segregation was associated with a much greater increase in COVID-19 deaths. Conclusions It appears that people living in socioeconomically and racially segregated neighborhoods may be disproportionately impacted by COVID-19 deaths. Future multilevel and longitudinal studies with data at both individual and aggregated tract level can help isolate the potential impacts of the individual-level characteristics and neighborhood-level socioeconomic and racial segregation with more precision and confidence.

No abstract

Background: For decades, U.S. rural areas have experienced shortages of primary care providers. Nurse practitioners (NPs) are helping to reduce that shortage. However, NP scope of practice regulations vary from state-to-state ranging from autonomous practice to direct physician oversight. The purpose of this study was to determine if clinical outcomes of older rural adult patients vary by the level of practice autonomy that states grant to NPs. Methods: This cross-sectional study analyzed data from a sample of Rural Health Clinics (RHCs) (n = 503) located in eight Southeastern states. Independent t-tests were performed for each of five variables to compare patient outcomes of the experimental RHCs (those in “reduced practice” states) to those of the control RHCs (in “restricted practice” states). Results: After matching, no statistically significant difference was found in patient outcomes for RHCs in reduced practice states compared to those in restricted practice states. Yet, expanded scope of practice may improve provider supply, healthcare access and utilization, and quality of care (Martsolf et al., 2016). Conclusions: Although this study found no significant relationship between Advanced Registered Nurse Practitioner (ARNP) scope of practice and select patient outcome variables, there are strong indications that the quality of patient outcomes is not reduced when the scope of practice is expanded.

No abstract

Purpose: To provide the latest evidence on the efficacy and safety of lopinavir/ritonavir compared to other treatment options for COVID-19. Methods: We searched PubMed, Cochran Library, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science for the relevant records up to April 2021. Moreover, we scanned MedRxiv, Google Scholar, and clinical registry databases to identify additional records. We have used the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and Cochrane risk of bias tools to assess the quality of studies. This Meta-analysis was conducted using RevMan software (version 5.3). Results: Fourteen studies were included. No significant difference was observed between lopinavir/ritonavir and non-antiviral treatment groups in terms of negative rate of PCR (polymerase chain reaction) on day 7 (risk ratio [RR]: 0.83; 95% CI: 0.63 to 1.09; P=0.17), and day 14 (RR: 0.93; 95% CI: 0.81 to 1.05; P=0.25), PCR negative conversion time (mean difference [MD]: 1.09; 95% CI: -0.10 to 2.29; P=0.07), secondary outcomes, and adverse events (P>0.05). There was no significant difference between lopinavir/ritonavir and chloroquine as well as lopinavir/ritonavir and hydroxychloroquine regarding the efficacy outcomes (P>0.05). However, lopinavir/ritonavir showed better efficacy than arbidol for the same outcomes (P<0.05). Lopinavir/ritonavir plus arbidol was effective compared to arbidol alone in terms of the negative rate of PCR on day 7 (P=0.02). However, this difference was not significant regarding other efficacy outcomes (P>0.05). Conclusion: Lopinavir/ritonavir has no more treatment effects than other therapeutic agents used herein in COVID-19 patients.

The efficacy and safety of Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) in treating coronavirus disease (COVID-19) is disputed. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to examine the efficacy and safety of HCQ in addition to standard of care (SOC) in COVID-19. PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of sciences, and medRxiv were searched up to March 15, 2021. Clinical studies registry databases were also searched for identifying potential clinical trials. The references list of the key studies was reviewed to identify additional relevant resources. The quality of the included studies was evaluated using the Cochrane Collaboration tool and Jadad checklist. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan software (version 5.3). Eleven randomized controlled trials with a total number of 8161 patients were identified as eligible for meta-analysis. No significant differences were observed between the two treatment groups in terms of negative rate of polymerase chain reaction (PCR) (Risk ratio [RR]: 0.99, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.90, 1.08; P = 0.76), PCR negative conversion time (Mean difference [MD]: − 1.06, 95% CI − 3.10, 0.97; P = 0.30), all-cause mortality (RR: 1.09, 95% CI 1.00, 1.20; P = 0.06), body temperature recovery time (MD: − 0.64, 95% CI − 1.37, 0.10; P = 0.09), length of hospital stay (MD: − 0.17, 95% CI − 0.80, 0.46; P = 0.59), use of mechanical ventilation (RR: 1.12, 95% CI 0.95, 1.32; P = 0.19), and disease progression (RR = 0.82, 95% CI 0.37, 1.85; P = 0.64). However, there was a significant difference between two groups regarding adverse events (RR: 1.81, 95% CI 1.36, 2.42; P < 0.05). The findings suggest that the addition of HCQ to SOC has no benefit in the treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Additionally, it is associated with more adverse events.

Background A discussion about patient's nonmedical needs during treatment is considered a crucial component of high‐quality patient–provider communication. We examined whether having a patient–provider discussion about cancer patients’ emotional and social needs is associated with their psychological well‐being. Methods Using the 2016–2017 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey‐Experiences with Cancer Survivorship Supplement (MEPS–ECSS) data, we identified the cancer survivors in the United States (US) who reported having a detailed discussion about emotional and social needs during cancer care. We used multivariable logistic regression to assess the association between having a patient–provider discussion and the patients’ psychological well‐being outcomes (depressive symptoms, severe psychological distress, and worrying about cancer recurrence/worsening condition) and benefit finding experience after a cancer diagnosis. Results Among 1433 respondents (equivalent to 13.8 million cancer survivors in the US), only 33.6% reported having a detailed patient–provider discussion about their emotional and social needs. Having a discussion was associated with 55% lower odds (odds ratio [OR], 0.45; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.26–0.77) of having depressive symptoms and 97% higher odds (OR, 1.97; 95% CI, 1.46–2.66) of having benefit finding experience. There was no statistically significant association between patient–provider discussion and psychological distress or worrying about cancer recurrence/worsening. Conclusion Detailed patient–provider discussion about the cancer patients’ emotional and social needs was associated with a lower likelihood of depressive symptoms and a higher likelihood of experiencing benefit finding. These findings stress the importance of improving the patient–provider discussion about psychosocial needs in cancer survivorship.