Background During the COVID-19 pandemic, public health measures such as isolation, quarantine, and social distancing are needed. Some of these measures can adversely affect mental health. Activities that can be performed at home may mitigate these consequences and improve overall mental well-being. In this study, home-based activities that have potential beneficial effects on mental health were examined. Methods A rapid review was conducted based on a search of the following databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PyscINFO, Global Health, epistemonikos.org, covid19reviews.org, and eppi.ioe.ac.uk/covid19_map_v13.html. Eligible studies include randomized controlled trials and non-randomized studies published between 1/1/2000 and 28/05/2020 and that examined the impact of various activities on mental health outcomes in low-resource settings and contexts that lead to social isolation. Studies of activities that require mental health professionals or that could not be done at home were excluded. Two review authors performed title/abstract screening. At the full-text review stage, 25% of the potentially eligible studies were reviewed in full by two review authors; the rest were reviewed by one review author. Risk of bias assessment and data extraction were performed by one review author and checked by a second review author. The main outcome assessed was change or differences in mental health as expressed in Cohen’s d; analysis was conducted following the synthesis without meta-analysis guidelines (SWiM). PROSPERO registration: CRD42020186082. Results Of 1,236 unique records identified, 160 were reviewed in full, resulting in 16 included studies. The included studies reported on the beneficial effects of exercise, yoga, progressive muscle relaxation, and listening to relaxing music. One study reported on the association between solitary religious activities and post traumatic stress disorder symptoms. While most of the included studies examined activities in group settings, particularly among individuals in prisons, the activities were described as something that can be performed at home and alone. All included studies were assessed to be at risk of bias in one or more of the bias domains examined. Conclusions There is some evidence that certain home-based activities can promote mental wellness during the COVID-19 pandemic. Guidelines are needed to help optimize benefits while minimizing potential risks when performing these activities.

Abstract Objectives To estimate the overall risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE), pulmonary embolism (PE) and deep vein thrombosis (DVT) among patients newly diagnosed with RA compared with the general population without RA; and to estimate the risk trends of VTE, PE and DVT after RA diagnosis up to 5 years compared with the general population. Methods Using previously validated RA case definition, we conducted a matched cohort study using the population-based administrative health database from the province of British Columbia, Canada. We calculated incidence rates (IRs) and fully adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) for the risk of VTE, DVT and PE after RA index date. Results Among 39 142 incident RA patients (66% female, mean age 60), 1432, 543 and 1068 developed VTE, PE and DVT, respectively. IRs for the RA cohort were 3.79, 1.43 and 2.82 per 1000 person-years vs 2.70, 1.03 and 1.94 per 1000 person-years for the non-RA cohort. After adjusting for VTE risk factors, the HRs (95% CI) were 1.28 (1.20, 1.36), 1.25 (1.13, 1.39) and 1.30 (1.21, 1.40) for VTE, PE and DVT, respectively. The fully adjusted HRs for VTE during the first five years after RA diagnosis were 1.60, 1.47, 1.40, 1.30 and 1.28, respectively. A similar trend was shown in PE. Conclusion This population-based study demonstrates that RA patients have an increased risk of VTE, PE and DVT after diagnosis compared with the general population. This risk is independent of traditional VTE risk factors and is highest during the first year after RA diagnosis, then progressively declined.

We present a case of a preteen with autism spectrum disorder and severe self-injurious behavior who developed neuroleptic malignant syndrome on antipsychotics and required urgent electroconvulsive therapy and continued maintenance electroconvulsive therapy for ongoing clinical stability.

Introduction Cases of the novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) continue to spread around the world even one year after the declaration of a global pandemic. Those with weakened immune systems, due to immunosuppressive medications or disease, may be at higher risk of COVID-19. This includes individuals with autoimmune diseases, cancer, transplants, and dialysis patients. Assessing the risk and outcomes of COVID-19 in this population has been challenging. While administrative databases provide data with minimal selection and recall bias, clinical and behavioral data is lacking. To address this, we are collecting self-reported survey data from a randomly selected subsample with and without COVID-19, which will be linked to administrative health data, to better quantify the risk of COVID-19 infection associated with immunosuppression. Methods and analysis Using administrative and laboratory data from British Columbia (BC), Canada, we established a population-based case-control study of all individuals who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. Each case was matched to 40 randomly selected individuals from two control groups: individuals who tested negative for SARS-CoV-2 (i.e., negative controls) and untested individuals from the general population (i.e., untested controls). We will contact 1000 individuals from each group to complete a survey co-designed with patient partners. A conditional logistic regression model will adjust for potential confounders and effect modifiers. We will examine the odds of COVID-19 infection according to immunosuppressive medication or disease type. To adjust for relevant confounders and effect modifiers not available in administrative data, the survey will include questions on behavioural variables that influence probability of being tested, acquiring COVID-19, and experiencing severe outcomes. Ethics and dissemination This study has received approval from the University of British Columbia Clinical Research Ethics Board [H20-01914]. Findings will be disseminated through scientific conferences, open access peer-reviewed journals, COVID-19 research repositories and dissemination channels used by our patient partners.