Background To limit the rapid spread of COVID‐19, countries have asked their citizens to stay at home. As a result, demographic and cultural factors related to home life have become especially relevant to predict population well‐being during isolation. This pre‐registered worldwide study analyses the relationship between the number of adults and children in a household, marital status, age, gender, education level, COVID‐19 severity, individualism–collectivism, and perceived stress. Methods We used the COVIDiSTRESS Global Survey data of 53,524 online participants from 26 countries and areas. The data were collected between 30 March and 6 April 2020. Results Higher levels of stress were associated with younger age, being a woman, lower level of education, being single, staying with more children, and living in a country or area with a more severe COVID‐19 situation. Conclusions The COVID‐19 pandemic revealed that certain people may be more susceptible to experience elevated levels of stress. Our findings highlight the need for public health to be attentive to both the physical and the psychological well‐being of these groups.

The COVIDiSTRESS global survey collects data on early human responses to the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic from 173 429 respondents in 48 countries. The open science study was co-designed by an international consortium of researchers to investigate how psychological responses differ across countries and cultures, and how this has impacted behaviour, coping and trust in government efforts to slow the spread of the virus. Starting in March 2020, COVIDiSTRESS leveraged the convenience of unpaid online recruitment to generate public data. The objective of the present analysis is to understand relationships between psychological responses in the early months of global coronavirus restrictions and help understand how different government measures succeed or fail in changing public behaviour. There were variations between and within countries. Although Western Europeans registered as more concerned over COVID-19, more stressed, and having slightly more trust in the governments' efforts, there was no clear geographical pattern in compliance with behavioural measures. Detailed plots illustrating between-countries differences are provided. Using both traditional and Bayesian analyses, we found that individuals who worried about getting sick worked harder to protect themselves and others. However, concern about the coronavirus itself did not account for all of the variances in experienced stress during the early months of COVID-19 restrictions. More alarmingly, such stress was associated with less compliance. Further, those most concerned over the coronavirus trusted in government measures primarily where policies were strict. While concern over a disease is a source of mental distress, other factors including strictness of protective measures, social support and personal lockdown conditions must also be taken into consideration to fully appreciate the psychological impact of COVID-19 and to understand why some people fail to follow behavioural guidelines intended to protect themselves and others from infection. The Stage 1 manuscript associated with this submission received in-principle acceptance (IPA) on 18 May 2020. Following IPA, the accepted Stage 1 version of the manuscript was preregistered on the Open Science Framework at https://osf.io/g2t3b. This preregistration was performed prior to data analysis.

A Danish multicentre study was undertaken of the manifestations, infections, thrombotic events, survival and predictive factors of survival in 513 Danish patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) according to the 1982 classification criteria of the American College of Rheumatology. The mean duration of follow-up was 8.2 years from diagnosis and 12.8 years from first symptom. This paper describes the most common clinical and laboratory manifestations and their relationship to sex and age at the time of onset and diagnosis. Cluster analysis revealed three clinically defined clusters at the time of disease onset. Cluster 1 (57% of patients) consisted of relatively elderly patients without nephropathy or malar rash, but with a high prevalence of discoid lesions. Cluster 2 (18%) consisted of patients with nephropathy, a third of whom also developed serositis and lymphopenia. The patients of the third cluster (25%) all had malar rash and half were photosensitive. Follow-up showed that the patients of cluster 2 developed azotaemia, large proteinuria, arterial hypertension and myositis significantly more often than did the rest of the patients, but the mortality was not increased. The risk of developing renal end-stage disease was highest in men with early-onset disease.

This N = 173,426 social science dataset was collected through the collaborative COVIDiSTRESS Global Survey – an open science effort to improve understanding of the human experiences of the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic between 30th March and 30th May, 2020. The dataset allows a cross-cultural study of psychological and behavioural responses to the Coronavirus pandemic and associated government measures like cancellation of public functions and stay at home orders implemented in many countries. The dataset contains demographic background variables as well as measures of Asian Disease Problem, perceived stress (PSS-10), availability of social provisions (SPS-10), trust in various authorities, trust in governmental measures to contain the virus (OECD trust), personality traits (BFF-15), information behaviours, agreement with the level of government intervention, and compliance with preventive measures, along with a rich pool of exploratory variables and written experiences. A global consortium from 39 countries and regions worked together to build and translate a survey with variables of shared interests, and recruited participants in 47 languages and dialects. Raw plus cleaned data and dynamic visualizations are available.

The objective of this study was to evaluate the scientific literature concerning asbestos and lung cancer, emphasizing low-level exposure. A literature search in PubMed and Embase resulted in 5,864 citations. Information from included studies was extracted using SIGN. Twenty-one statements were evidence graded. The results show that histology and location are not helpful in differentiating asbestos-related lung cancer. Pleural plaques, asbestos bodies, or asbestos fibers are useful as markers of asbestos exposure. The interaction between asbestos and smoking regarding lung cancer risk is between additive and multiplicative. The findings indicate that the association between asbestos exposure and lung cancer risk is basically linear, but may level off at very high exposures. The relative risk for lung cancer increases between 1% and 4% per fiber-year (f-y)/mL, corresponding to a doubling of risk at 25-100 f-y/mL. However, one high-quality case-control study showed a doubling at 4 f-y/mL.