No abstract

No abstract

IMPORTANCE Latinx individuals, particularly immigrants, are at higher risk than non-Latinx White individuals of contracting and dying from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Little is known about Latinx experiences with COVID-19 infection and treatment. OBJECTIVE To describe the experiences of Latinx individuals who were hospitalized with and survived COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS The qualitative study used semistructured phone interviews of 60 Latinx adults who survived a COVID-19 hospitalization in public hospitals in San Francisco, California, and Denver, Colorado, from March 2020 to July 2020. Transcripts were analyzed using qualitative thematic analysis. Data analysis was conducted from May 2020 to September 2020. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Themes and subthemes that reflected patient experiences. RESULTS Sixty people (24 women and 36 men; mean [SD] age, 48 [12] years) participated. All lived in low-income areas, 47 participants (78%) had more than 4 people in the home, and most (44 participants [73%]) were essential workers. Four participants (9%) could work from home, 12 (20%) had paid sick leave, and 21 (35%) lost their job because of COVID-19. We identified 5 themes (and subthemes) with public health and clinical care implications: COVID-19 was a distant and secondary threat (invincibility, misinformation and disbelief, ingrained social norms); COVID-19 was a compounder of disadvantage (fear of unemployment and eviction, lack of safeguards for undocumented immigrants, inability to protect self from COVID-19, and high-density housing); reluctance to seek medical care (worry about health care costs, concerned about ability to access care if uninsured or undocumented, undocumented immigrants fear deportation); health care system interactions (social isolation and change in hospital procedures, appreciation for clinicians and language access, and discharge with insufficient resources or clinical information); and faith and community resiliency (spirituality, Latinx COVID-19 advocates). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In interviews, Latinx patients with COVID-19 who survived hospitalization described initial disease misinformation and economic and immigration fears as having driven exposure and delays in presentation. To confront COVID-19 as a compounder of social disadvantage, public health authorities should mitigate COVID-19-related misinformation, immigration fears, and challenges to health care access, as well as create policies that provide work protection and address economic disadvantages.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

We examined how individual differences in mood and anxiety in the early postpartum period are related to brain response to infant stimuli during fMRI, with particular focus on regions implicated in both maternal behavior and mood/anxiety, that is, the subgenual anterior cingulate cortex (sgACC) and the amygdala. At approximately 3 months postpartum, 22 mothers completed an affect-rating task (ART) during fMRI, where their affective response to infant stimuli was explicitly probed. Mothers viewed/rated four infant face conditions: own positive (OP), own negative (ON), unfamiliar positive (UP), and unfamiliar negative (UN). Mood and anxiety were measured by the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EDPS) and the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory-Trait Version (STAI-T); maternal factors related to parental stress and attachment were also assessed. Brain-imaging data underwent a random-effects analysis, and cluster-based statistical thresholding was applied to the following contrasts: OP-UP, ON-UN, OP-ON, and UP-UN. Our main finding was that poorer quality of maternal experience was significantly related to reduced amygdala response to OP compared to UP infant faces. Our results suggest that, in human mothers, infant-related amygdala function may be an important factor in maternal anxiety/mood, in quality of mothering, and in individual differences in the motivation to mother. We are very grateful to the staff at the Imaging Research Center of the Brain-Body Institute for their contributions to this project. This work was supported by an Ontario Mental Health Foundation operating grant awarded to Alison Fleming and a postdoctoral fellowship awarded to Jennifer Barrett.

ObjectivesMethodologically, to assess the feasibility of participant recruitment and retention, as well as missing data in studying mental disorder among children newly diagnosed with chronic physical conditions (ie, multimorbidity). Substantively, to examine the prevalence of multimorbidity, identify sociodemographic correlates and model the influence of multimorbidity on changes in child quality of life and parental psychosocial outcomes over a 6-month follow-up.DesignProspective pilot study.SettingTwo children’s tertiary-care hospitals.ParticipantsChildren aged 6–16 years diagnosed in the past 6 months with one of the following: asthma, diabetes, epilepsy, food allergy or juvenile arthritis, and their parents.Outcome measuresResponse, participation and retention rates. Child mental disorder using the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview at baseline and 6 months. Child quality of life, parental symptoms of stress, anxiety and depression, and family functioning. All outcomes were parent reported.ResultsResponse, participation and retention rates were 90%, 83% and 88%, respectively. Of the 50 children enrolled in the study, the prevalence of multimorbidity was 58% at baseline and 42% at 6 months. No sociodemographic characteristics were associated with multimorbidity. Multimorbidity at baseline was associated with declines over 6 months in the following quality of life domains: physical well-being, β=−4.82 (–8.47, –1.17); psychological well-being, β=−4.10 (–7.62, –0.58) and school environment, β=−4.17 (–8.18, –0.16). There was no association with parental psychosocial outcomes over time.ConclusionsPreliminary evidence suggests that mental disorder in children with a physical condition is very common and has a negative impact on quality of life over time. Based on the strong response rate and minimal attrition, our approach to study child multimorbidity appears feasible and suggests that multimorbidity is an important concern for families. Methodological and substantive findings from this pilot study have been used to implement a larger, more definitive study of child multimorbidity, which should lead to important clinical implications.