No abstract

Background The COVID-19 pandemic has broader geographic spread and potentially longer lasting effects than those of previous disasters. Necessary preventive precautions for the transmission of COVID-19 has resulted in delays for in-person health care services, especially at the outset of the pandemic. Objective Among a US sample, we examined the rates of delays (defined as cancellations and postponements) in health care at the outset of the pandemic and characterized the reasons for such delays. Methods As part of an internet-based survey that was distributed on social media in April 2020, we asked a US–based convenience sample of 2570 participants about delays in their health care resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic. Participant demographics and self-reported worries about general health and the COVID-19 pandemic were explored as potent determinants of health care delays. In addition to all delays, we focused on the following three main types of delays, which were the primary outcomes in this study: dental, preventive, and diagnostic care delays. For each outcome, we used bivariate statistical tests (t tests and chi-square tests) and multiple logistic regression models to determine which factors were associated with health care delays. Results The top reported barrier to receiving health care was the fear of SARS-CoV-2 infection (126/374, 33.6%). Almost half (1227/2570, 47.7%) of the participants reported experiencing health care delays. Among those who experienced health care delays and further clarified the type of delay they experienced (921/1227, 75.1%), the top three reported types of care that were affected by delays included dental (351/921, 38.1%), preventive (269/921, 29.2%), and diagnostic (151/921, 16.4%) care. The logistic regression models showed that age (P<.001), gender identity (P<.001), education (P=.007), and self-reported worry about general health (P<.001) were significantly associated with experiencing health care delays. Self-reported worry about general health was negatively related to experiencing delays in dental care. However, this predictor was positively associated with delays in diagnostic testing based on the logistic regression model. Additionally, age was positively associated with delays in diagnostic testing. No factors remained significant in the multiple logistic regression for delays in preventive care, and although there was trend between race and delays (people of color experienced fewer delays than White participants), it was not significant (P=.06). Conclusions The lessons learned from the initial surge of COVID-19 cases can inform systemic mitigation strategies for potential future disruptions. This study addresses the demand side of health care delays by exploring the determinants of such delays. More research on health care delays during the pandemic is needed, including research on their short- and long-term impacts on patient-level outcomes such as mortality, morbidity, mental health, people’s quality of life, and the experience of pain.

Social determinants of health are the conditions in which people are born, grow, live, work and age. These circumstances are the nonmedical factors that influence health outcomes. Evidence indicates that health behaviours, comorbidities and disease-modifying therapies all contribute to multiple sclerosis (MS) outcomes; however, our knowledge of the effects of social determinants -that is, the 'risks of risks' -on health has not yet changed our approach to MS. Assessing and addressing social determinants of health could fundamentally improve health and health care in MS; this approach has already been successful in improving outcomes in other chronic diseases. In this narrative Review, we identify and discuss the body of evidence supporting an effect of many social determinants of health, including racial background, employment and social support, on MS outcomes. It must be noted that many of the published studies were subject to bias, and screening tools and/or practical interventions that address these social determinants are, for the most part, lacking. The existing work does not fully explore the potential bidirectional and complex relationships between social determinants of health and MS, and the interpretation of findings is complicated by the interactions and intersections among many of the identified determinants. On the basis of the reviewed literature, we consider that, if effective interventions targeting social determinants of health were available, they could have substantial effects on MS outcomes. Therefore, funding for and focused design of studies to evaluate and address social determinants of health are urgently needed. Sections Key points• Addressing an individual's social determinants of health -that is, the conditions under which they are born, grow, live, work and age -could provide opportunities to reduce the burden of living with multiple sclerosis (MS).• Individual factors that may influence MS-related outcomes include sex, gender and sexuality, race and ethnicity, education and employment, socioeconomic status, and domestic abuse.• Societal infrastructures, including access to food, health care and social support, can also affect MS-related outcomes.• Awareness of the specific circumstances of a patient with MS might help neurologists deliver better care.• Social determinants of health are not static and can change according to wider sociopolitical contexts, as highlighted by the COVID-19 pandemic.• Rigorous studies of interventions to ameliorate the effects of poor social determinants on people with MS are urgently needed.Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author selfarchiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law. Review criteriaTo ensure an inclusive overview, we searched PubMed, Scopus, CINAHL through EBSCOhost, MEDLINE through OVID, all other Web of ...

In 14 members of four families with a hereditary syndrome of exertional myalgia, five of eight muscle biopsies from symptomatic individuals showed histochemical and biochemical absence of myoadenylate deaminase (MADA). In the others, MADA biochemical activity was normal in two and reduced but not absent (intermediate level) in one. Asymptomatic relatives had normal histochemical MADA activity, but three had intermediate biochemical levels. In a survey of 302 routine muscle biopsies, 3 of 36 patient with myalgia had absence of MADA. Three of 266 biopsied for other conditions were MADA-deficient. Despite some inconsistencies, MADA deficiency seems to be relevant to this clinical syndrome.