No abstract

ObjectivesSleep disturbance and mental health are challenges for healthcare workers (HCWs). Especially during the COVID-19 pandemic, they experienced more severe sleep and mental health problems. However, the association between sleep disturbance and the mental health of HCWs is still controversial. This study aimed to systematically review the relationship by conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis.MethodTwo researchers retrieved the literature from Web of Science, PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, Psyclnfo, and Cochrane Library from the establishment of the databases until November 20, 2021. We used the New Castle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) and Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) to evaluate the risk of bias in prospective research and cross-sectional research, respectively. The major exposure was HCWs’ sleep disturbance, and the major outcome was mental health. The correlation coefficients (r), regression coefficients (β) and odds ratios (OR) of the included studies were integrated.ResultFifty-nine studies were included for qualitative analysis, of which 30 studies could be combined and entered into quantitative analysis. There were 23 studies during the COVID-19 pandemic among the 59 included studies. The results of the meta-analysis showed that the correlation coefficient between sleep disturbance and mental health was 0.43 (95% CI: 0.39–0.47). HCWs with sleep disturbance had a 3.74 (95% CI: 2.76–5.07) times higher risk of mental health problems than those without sleep disturbance. The correlation coefficient during the COVID-19 epidemic was 0.45 (95% CI: 0.37–0.53), while it was 0.40 (95% CI: 0.36–0.44) during the non-epidemic period. Subgroup analysis compared the OR results in epidemic and non-epidemic periods of COVID-19, which were 4.48 (95% CI: 2.75–5.07) and 3.74 (95% CI: 2.74–7.32), respectively.ConclusionSleep disturbance and mental health problems were positively correlated among HCWs. Particularly in the COVID-19 pandemic, more attention should be given to this issue.

ObjectiveEvidence is scarce about the effect of noise exposure on the risk of dementia. We conducted a systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis, aiming to explore the association between noise exposure and the risk of dementia.MethodsWe searched PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library to collect studies on chronic noise exposure and the risk of dementia from database inception to September 18, 2021 without language limitations. Two authors independently screened the literature, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of the included studies. A dose-response meta-analysis and subgroup analysis were then conducted to detect the association between noise exposure and the risk of dementia by using Stata 14.0 software. This study is registered on PROSPERO (CRD42021249243).ResultsA total of 11 studies were eligible for qualitative synthesis, and nine were eligible for quantitative data synthesis. All of them showed moderate to high quality scores in the assessment of risk of bias. We found a positive linear association between the noise increment and dementia risk (R2 = 0.58). When noise exposure increased 57 dB, the RR of dementia was 1.47 (95% CI: 1.21–1.78). From the outcome subgroup of AD, AD and dementia, VaD and NAD, we also found a positive association (R2 = 0.68, 0.68, 0.58, respectively). When noise exposure increased by 25 dB, the RRs were 1.18 (95% CI: 1.14–1.23), 1.19 (95% CI: 1.14–1.23) and 1.17 (95% CI: 1.06–1.30), respectively. We found a nonlinear association between the noise increment and dementia risk when only cohort studies were included (R2 = 0.58). When noise exposure increased by 25 dB, the RR of dementia was 1.16 (95% CI: 1.12–1.20). From the subgroup of AD, AD and dementia, VaD and NAD of cohort studies, the regression curve showed a nonlinear positive association (R2 = 0.74, 0.71, 0.43, respectively). When noise exposure increased by 25 dB, the RRs were 1.17 (95% CI: 1.12–1.21), 1.17 (95% CI: 1.12–1.22) and 1.13 (95% CI: 0.99–1.28), respectively.ConclusionBased on the current evidence, exposure to noise may be a specific risk factor for dementia. To better prevent dementia, more rigorously designed studies are needed to explore the etiological mechanism of noise and dementia.

ObjectiveDuring the COVID-19 pandemic, the occupational stress of medical staff has been a major issue. This study aimed to suggest a new strategy to identify high-risk factor sets of occupational stress in medical staff using fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis (fs-QCA) and provide ideas for the prevention and intervention of occupational stress.MethodsA total of 1,928 medical staff members were surveyed and tested using the Acceptance and Action Questionnaire-II (AAQ-II), Occupational Stress Inventory-Revised edition (OSI-R), and Eysenck Personality Questionnaire-Revised Short Scale (EPQ-RSC). The fs-QCA was used to explore the high-risk factors for occupational stress among medical staff.ResultsThe psychological strain (PSY) score of the medical staff was 26.8 ± 7.13, and the physical strain (PHS) score was 24.3 ± 6.50. Low psychological flexibility score-introversion-high role overload, introversion-neuroticism-high role overload, and low psychological flexibility score-neuroticism were high-risk factor sets for PSY. Low psychological flexibility score-introversion-high role overload, low psychological flexibility score-introversion-neuroticism, low psychological flexibility score-neuroticism-high role overload, low psychological flexibility score-psychoticism-neuroticism, and psychoticism-neuroticism-high role overload were high-risk factor sets for PHS.ConclusionThere are different combinations of high-risk factors for occupational stress among the medical staff. For occupational stress intervention and psychological counseling, targeted and individualized health intervention measures should be implemented according to specific characteristic combinations of different individuals.

Obstructive sleep apnea is a common sleep breathing disorder related to autonomic nervous function disturbances. Heart rate variability is an important non-invasive indicator of autonomic nervous system function. The PubMed, Embase, Medline and Web of Science databases were systematically searched for English literature comparing patients with obstructive sleep apnea with controls up to May 2021. Heart rate variability outcomes, including integrated indices (parasympathetic function and total variability), time domain indices (the standard deviation of NN intervals and the root mean square of the successive differences between normal heartbeats) and frequency domain indices (high-frequency, low-frequency, very-low-frequency and the ratio of low-frequency to high-frequency) were derived from the studies. Twentytwo studies that included 2565 patients with obstructive sleep apnea and 1089 healthy controls were included. Compared with controls, patients with obstructive sleep apnea exhibited significantly reduced parasympathetic function. For the obstructive sleep apnea severity subgroup meta-analysis, patients with severe obstructive sleep apnea had significantly lower parasympathetic function, high-frequency, root mean square of the successive differences between normal heartbeatsand standard deviation of NN intervals, and higher low-frequency and ratios of lowfrequency to high-frequency. However, only the ratio of low-frequency to highfrequency was significantly higher in patients with moderate obstructive sleep apnea than in controls. Finally, for the collection time analysis, patients with obstructive sleep apnea had significantly higher low-frequency and ratio of low-frequency to high-frequency at night, significantly lower parasympathetic function, high-frequency, root mean square of the successive differences between normal heartbeats and standard deviation of NN intervals, and a higher ratio of low-frequency to high-frequency during the day than controls. Autonomic function impairment was more serious in patients with severe obstructive sleep apnea. During sleep, low-frequency can well Zuxing Wang and Fugui Jiang contributed equally to this study.

Autoimmune encephalitis is characterized by mental and behavioral symptoms, seizures, and cognitive impairment. The presence of schizophrenia needs to be distinguished from that of autoimmune encephalitis. Herein, we describe the case of a woman who exhibited abnormal mental behavior and cognitive impairment. The patient had experienced similar symptoms more than 20 years previously and had been diagnosed with schizophrenia. The patient's psychotic symptoms improved after treatment with antipsychotic drugs; however, cognitive impairment persisted. She was diagnosed with anti-N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA)-receptor concurrent with anti-α-amino-3-hydroxy-5-methyl-4-isoxazolepropionic acid (AMPA)-receptor encephalitis. She showed improvement after treatment with steroids and intravenous immunoglobulins (IVIgs). Furthermore, we reviewed the literature and found that, including the present case, 10 patients have been diagnosed with anti-NMDA concurrent with anti-AMPA-receptor encephalitis. Three of these patients were men and seven were women, and their ages ranged from 21 to 71 years. Moreover, seven (70%) patients had a history of tumors. Symptoms of these patients included psychotic symptoms, varying degrees of consciousness disturbance, seizures, dyskinesia, dystonia, autonomic dysfunction, agitation, and verbal reduction. Brain magnetic resonance imaging findings showed scattered fluid-attenuated inversion recovery hyperintensity in subcortical white matter and/or medial temporal lobe in seven (70%) patients. After combination treatment, including tumor removal and administration of steroids, IVIg, plasma exchange, or immunity inhibitors, the symptoms improved in part of the patients. It is necessary to exclude autoimmune encephalitis for patients with psychiatric manifestations and cognitive impairment. Timely combination therapy is important in anti-NMDA-receptor concurrent with anti-AMPA-receptor encephalitis.

Background The World Health Organization (WHO) proposed COVID-19 vaccination as an emergent and important method to end the COVID-19 pandemic. Since China started vaccination programs in December 2020, vaccination has spread to provinces and municipalities nationwide. Previous research has focused on people's vaccination willingness and its influencing factors but has not examined vaccination behavior. We examine the effectiveness of psychosocial factors in predicting vaccination behavior. Methods A cross-sectional online survey was performed among Chinese adults on 8 May and 4 June 2021. The statistical analysis of the data included univariate analysis, receiver operator characteristics (ROC) analysis and ordinal multiclassification logistic regression model analysis. Results Of the 1300 respondents, 761 (58.5%) were vaccinated. Univariate analysis showed that a high education level and good subjective health status were protective factors for vaccination behavior, while suffering from chronic diseases was a risk factor. ROC analysis showed that subjective health status (AUC = 0.625, 95% CI: 0.594–0.656, P < 0.001) was the best predictor of vaccination behavior. Logistic regression analysis with subjective health status as a dependent variable indicated that older age, female sex, depression, neurasthenia, obsession, hypochondriasis and chronic disease were significant risk factors, while positive coping tendencies were a significant protective factor. Conclusion Our study found a simple and effective marker, subjective health status, that can predict vaccination behavior. This finding can guide future epidemic prevention work.

Background: The World Health Organization (WHO) proposed COVID-19 vaccination as an emergent and important method to end the COVID-19 pandemic. Since China started vaccination programs in December 2020, vaccination has spread to provinces and municipalities nationwide. Previous research has focused on people's vaccination willingness and its influencing factors but has not examined vaccination behavior. We examine the effectiveness of psychosocial factors in predicting vaccination behavior. Methods: A cross-sectional online survey was performed among Chinese adults on 8 May and 4 June 2021. The statistical analysis of the data included univariate analysis, receiver operator characteristics (ROC) analysis and ordinal multiclassification logistic regression model analysis. Results: Of the 1300 respondents, 761 (58.5%) were vaccinated. Univariate analysis showed that a high education level and good subjective health status were protective factors for vaccination behavior, while suffering from chronic diseases was a risk factor. ROC analysis showed that subjective health status (AUC = 0.625, 95% CI: 0.594–0.656, P < 0.001) was the best predictor of vaccination behavior. Logistic regression analysis with subjective health status as a dependent variable indicated that older age, female sex, depression, neurasthenia, obsession, hypochondriasis and chronic disease were significant risk factors, while positive coping tendencies were a significant protective factor. Conclusion: Our study found a simple and effective marker, subjective health status, that can predict vaccination behavior. This finding can guide future epidemic prevention work.