Background The COVID-19 pandemic and global efforts to contain its spread, such as stay-at-home orders and transportation shutdowns, have created new barriers to accessing healthcare, resulting in changes in service delivery and utilization globally. The purpose of this study is to provide an overview of the literature published thus far on the indirect health effects of COVID-19 and to explore the data sources and methodologies being used to assess indirect health effects. Methods A scoping review of peer-reviewed literature using three search engines was performed. Results One hundred and seventy studies were included in the final analysis. Nearly half (46.5%) of included studies focused on cardiovascular health outcomes. The main methodologies used were observational analytic and surveys. Data was drawn from individual health facilities, multicentre networks, regional registries, and national health information systems. Most studies were conducted in high-income countries with only 35.4% of studies representing low- and middle-income countries. Conclusion Healthcare utilization for non-COVID-19 conditions has decreased almost universally, across both high- and lower-income countries. The pandemic’s impact on non-COVID-19 health outcomes, particularly for chronic diseases, may take years to fully manifest and should be a topic of ongoing study. Future research should be tied to system improvement and the promotion of health equity, with researchers identifying potentially actionable findings for national, regional, and local health leadership. Public health professionals must also seek to address the disparity in published data from LMICs as compared to high-income countries.

Community-based psychosocial interventions are key elements of mental health and psychosocial support; yet evidence regarding their effectiveness and implementation in humanitarian settings is limited. This study aimed to assess the appropriateness, acceptability, feasibility and safety of conducting a cluster randomized trial evaluating two versions of a group psychosocial intervention. Nine community clusters in Ecuador and Panamá were randomized to receive the standard version of the Entre Nosotras intervention, a community-based group psychosocial intervention co-designed with community members, or an enhanced version of Entre Nosotras that integrated a stress management component. In a sample of 225 refugees, migrants and host community women, we found that both versions were safe, acceptable and appropriate. Training lay facilitators to deliver the intervention was feasible. Challenges included slow recruitment related to delays caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, high attrition due to population mobility and other competing priorities, and mixed psychometric performance of psychosocial outcome measures. Although the intervention appeared promising, a definitive cluster randomized comparative effectiveness trial requires further adaptations to the research protocol. Within this pilot study we identified strategies to overcome these challenges that may inform adaptations. This comparative effectiveness design may be a model for identifying effective components of psychosocial interventions.

Objective Understanding variables associated with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) vaccine confidence and hesitancy may inform strategies to improve vaccine uptake in clinical settings such as the emergency department (ED). We aim to identify factors contributing to COVID‐19 vaccine acceptance and to assess patient attitudes surrounding offering COVID‐19 vaccines in the ED. Methods We conducted a survey of a convenience sample of patients and patient visitors over the age 18 years, who were native English or Spanish speakers. The survey was conducted from March through August 2021 at 3 EDs in New York City. The survey was administered via an electronic format, and participants provided verbal consent. Results Our sample size was 377. Individuals with post‐graduate degrees viewed vaccines positively (Prevalence Ratio [PR], 1.63; 95% Confidence Interval [CI], 1.07–2.47).  Of the various high‐risk medical conditions associated with adverse COVID‐19 infection outcomes, diabetes was the only condition associated with more positive views of vaccines (PR, 1.37; CI, 1.17–1.59). Of all participants, 71.21% stated that they believed offering a COVID‐19 vaccine in the ED was a good idea. Of unvaccinated participants, 21.80% stated they would get vaccinated if it were offered to them in the ED. Conclusion EDs can serve as a safety net for vulnerable populations and can act as an access point for vaccination.

No abstract