Endorsement of these guidelines is important, but I wonder if Ophthalmic & Physiological Optics uses them in assessing whether a submitted manuscript is suitable for publication.
Interesting, but of less practical use than probably envisioned at the beginning of the study, since outdoor masking has not been found to be particularly important, nor has glove wearing.
It is difficult to assess whether it's worth tracking down the full text as the abstract does not indicate which country or locale the sample was drawn from, nor does it indicate the magnitude of the statistically significant difference that the authors found. I wonder about the conclusions, too--does the research actually address whether "individualised counselling and assistance from healthcare providers and schools during (a) pandemic" would alleviate the outcomes of concern.
I appreciate that the authors used administrative regions such as states in these analysis, but I was unable to tell how they controlled for different policies such as who was defined as an "essential worker" and therefor expected to attend work in person.
Wow--10 years from data collection year to publication. Although some clinical practices remain frustratingly consistent over time (i.e. C-section rates), it could be supposed that between the time this survey was administered and the time the paper was published, something like "discussing osteoporosis with clinician" might have changed during this 10 year interval, which would have made the conclusions obsolete immediately upon publication.
SBO is often treated as an interesting but essentially normal variation in spinal anatomy, and estimated to affect as many as 10% of the population. However, this small study suggests that in addition to neurological symptoms due to Chiari malformations and potential hip/lower spine misalignment, urinary function may be affected. Not all clinically significant birth defects are grossly observable or genetically complex.
It is unclear to me what the actual role of COVID is in this study, as the authors do not seem to draw any conclusions based on differences in attitudes pre- and post-pandemic onset. Further, there are unsupported statements about the effectiveness of TCM in treating covid. Finally, the snowball sampling method is a larger limitation than the authors acknowledge.
Elegant study design, with some important real-world policy implications using the pandemic experience as a "natural experiment" that can help environmental advocates design behavior change interventions for different groups. I hope this study can be repeated with population groups other than college students. In particular, it would be helpful to see the outcomes if the "anti-maskers and antivaxxers" (incomprehensible) attitudes and behaviors could be better understood.
I imagine that this is highly sensitive to region in the US, where federal guidelines have not really been promulgated, and states' recommendations and policies vary widely. My grandson was 5 months old at the beginning of the stay-at-home orders but since his family was in Louisiana, they all returned to full-time, in-person work, daycare, and school when he was only 7-8 months old.
基金