No abstract

No abstract

BackgroundThe social distancing policies implemented by the health authorities during the COVID-19 pandemic in Mexico and elsewhere led to major changes in teaching strategies for college undergraduates. So far, there is limited data regarding the impact of the lockdown on the academic stress and mental health of these students.ObjectiveTo assess the occurrence of academic difficulties, anxiety, depression, and academic stressors resulting in somatization with subsequent coping strategies linked to the pandemic.Materials and methodsA cross-sectional study was conducted with 728 medical students (years 1–5). A purposely designed questionnaire to assess academic difficulties associated with the pandemic was administered electronically. The validated Goldberg anxiety and depression scale was also used, as well as the SISCO-II inventory on academic stress.ResultsScreening for anxiety and depression led to a prevalence of 67.9 and 81.3%, respectively. Most relevant stressors, reported always or nearly always, included professors’ evaluations (63.9%), and reading overload of academic papers (50.6%). Factorial analyses showed that women were more prone to stress than men (p < 0.001). Somatization symptomatology included drowsiness or increased need of sleep, anxiety, anguish, desperation, chronic fatigue, and sleep disorders. Common coping strategies included practicing a hobby, done always or nearly always by 65% of students with high stress, and 34% of those with low stress (p < 0.001).ConclusionThere was a relevant impact of the mandatory lockdown during COVID-19 pandemic on the mental health of medical students reflected in the high prevalence rates of anxiety, depression, and stressors in the studied population pointing to the need for designing and implementing preventive strategies to deal with the effects of lockdowns.

Background and Objectives: Sentinel surveillance in the early stage of the COVID-19 pandemic in Mexico represented a significant cost reduction and was useful in estimating the population infected with SARS-CoV-2. However, it also implied that many patients were not screened and therefore had no accurate diagnosis. In this study, we carried out a population-based SARS-CoV-2 screening in Mexico to evaluate the COVID-19-related symptoms and their weighting in predicting SARS-CoV-2 infection. We also discuss this data in the context of the operational definition of suspected cases of COVID-19 established by the Mexican Health Authority’s consensus. Materials and Methods: One thousand two hundred seventy-nine subjects were included. They were screened for SARS-CoV-2 using RT-PCR. The weighting of COVID-19 symptoms in predicting SARS-CoV-2 infection was evaluated statistically. Results: Three hundred and twenty-five patients were positive for SARS-CoV-2 and 954 were negative. Fever, asthenia, dysgeusia, and oxygen saturation predicted SARS-CoV-2 infection (odds ratios ranged from 1.74 to 4.98; p < 0.05). The percentage of asymptomatic COVID-19 patients was 36% and only 38.15% met the Mexican operational definition. Cq-values for the gene N of SARS-CoV-2 were significantly higher in asymptomatic subjects than in the groups of COVID-19 patients with neurological, respiratory, and/or musculoskeletal manifestations (p < 0.05). Conclusions: Dysgeusia, fever, and asthenia increased the odds of a positive result for COVID-19 1.74–4.98-fold among the study population. Patients with neurological, respiratory, and/or musculoskeletal manifestations had higher viral loads at COVID-19 diagnosis than those observed in asymptomatic patients. A high percentage of the participants in the study (61.85%) did not meet the operational definition for a suspected case of COVID-19 established by the Mexican Health Authority’s consensus, representing a high percentage of the population that could have remained without a COVID-19 diagnosis, so becoming a potential source of virus spread.

No abstract