No abstract

Background Individuals with chronic conditions require ongoing disease management to reduce risks of adverse health outcomes. During the COVID-19 pandemic, health care for non-COVID-19 cases was affected due to the reallocation of resources towards urgent care for COVID-19 patients, resulting in inadequate ongoing care for chronic conditions. Methods A keyword search was conducted in PubMed, Google Scholar, Science Direct, and Scopus for English language articles published between January 2020 and January 2021. Findings During the COVID-19 pandemic, in-person care for individuals with chronic conditions have decreased due to government restriction of elective and non-urgent healthcare visits, greater instilled fear over potential COVID-19 exposure during in-person visits, and higher utilization rates of telemedicine compared to the pre-COVID-19 period. Potential benefits of a virtual-care framework during the pandemic include more effective routine disease monitoring, improved patient satisfaction, and increased treatment compliance and follow-up rates. However, more needs to be done to ensure timely and effective access to telemedicine, particularly for individuals with lower digital literacy. Capitation primary care models have been proposed as a more financially-robust approach during the COVID-19 pandemic than fee-for-service primary care models; however, the interplay between different primary models and the health outcomes is still poorly understood and warrants further investigation. Shortages of medication used to manage chronic conditions were also observed at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic due to global supply chain disruptions. Finally, patients with chronic conditions faced lifestyle disruptions due to the COVID-19 pandemic, specifically in physical activity, sleep, stress, and mental health, which need to be better addressed. Interpretation Overall, this review elucidates the disproportionately greater barriers to primary and specialty care that patients with chronic diseases face during the COVID-19 pandemic and emphasizes the urgent need for better chronic disease management strategies moving forward.

Summary This study aimed to evaluate changes in sleep during the COVID‐19 outbreak, and used data‐driven approaches to identify distinct profiles of changes in sleep‐related behaviours. Demographic, behavioural and psychological factors associated with sleep changes were also investigated. An online population survey assessing sleep and mental health was distributed between 3 April and 24 June 2020. Retrospective questions were used to estimate temporal changes from before to during the outbreak. In 5,525 Canadian respondents (67.1% females, 16–95 years old: Mean ± SD = 55.6 ± 16.3 years), wake‐up times were significantly delayed relative to pre‐outbreak estimates ( p < .001, = 0.04). Occurrences of clinically meaningful sleep difficulties significantly increased from 36.0% before the outbreak to 50.5% during the outbreak (all p < .001, g ≥ 0.27). Three subgroups with distinct profiles of changes in sleep behaviours were identified: “Reduced Time in Bed”, “Delayed Sleep” and “Extended Time in Bed”. The “Reduced Time in Bed” and “Delayed Sleep” subgroups had more adverse sleep outcomes and psychological changes during the outbreak. The emergence of new sleep difficulties was independently associated with female sex, chronic illnesses, being employed, family responsibilities, earlier wake‐up times, higher stress levels, as well as heavier alcohol use and television exposure. The heterogeneity of sleep changes in response to the pandemic highlights the need for tailored interventions to address sleep problems.

Background The incidence of stroke in young adults is increasing. While many young survivors are able to achieve a good physical recovery, subtle dysfunction in other domains, such as cognition, often persists, and could affect return to work. However, reported estimates of return to work and factors affecting vocational outcome post-stroke vary greatly. Aims The aims of this systematic review were to determine the frequency of return to work at different time points after stroke and identify predictors of return to work. Summary of review Two electronic databases (Medline and Embase) were systematically searched for articles according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. A total of 6473 records were screened, 68 were assessed for eligibility, and 29 met all inclusion criteria (working-age adults with stroke, return to work evaluated as an outcome, follow-up duration reported, and publication within the past 20 years). Return to work increased with time, with median frequency increasing from 41% between 0 and 6 months, 53% at 1 year, 56% at 1.5 years to 66% between 2 and 4 years post-stroke. Greater independence in activities of daily living, fewer neurological deficits, and better cognitive ability were the most common predictors of return to work. Conclusion This review highlights the need to examine return to work in relation to time from stroke and assess cognition in working age and young stroke survivors. The full range of factors affecting return to work has not yet been explored and further evaluations of return to work interventions are warranted.