COVIDiSTRESS Global Survey dataset on psychological and behavioural consequences of the COVID-19 outbreak

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.Measurement(s) psychological measurement center dot anxiety-related behavior trait center dot Stress center dot response to center dot Isolation center dot loneliness measurement center dot Emotional Distress Technology Type(s) Survey Factor Type(s) geographic location center dot language center dot age of participant center dot responses to the Coronavirus pandemic Sample Characteristic - Organism Homo sapiens Sample Characteristic - Location global Machine-accessible metadata file describing the reported data:Peer reviewe

Stress and worry in the 2020 coronavirus pandemic: Relationships to trust and compliance with preventive measures across 48 countries in the COVIDiSTRESS global survey

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

Stress and worry in the 2020 coronavirus pandemic : relationships to trust and compliance with preventive measures across 48 countries in the COVIDiSTRESS global survey

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.Peer reviewe

Stress and worry in the 2020 coronavirus pandemic: relationships to trust and compliance with preventive measures across 48 countries in the COVIDiSTRESS global survey

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 practical technique in laparoscopic diaphragm pacing surgery: Retrospective analyse of 43 patients

Introduction: Diaphragm pacing stimulation (DPS) is a treatment method used in respiratory failure occurs in diseases such as high-level cervical spinal cord injury, central hypoventilation syndrome and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Materials and Methods: A total of 43 patients, who had undergone DPS implantation surgery were evaluated retrospectively. The patients were divided into two groups according to the surgical technique (Group 1: classical surgical technic and Group 2: modified surgical technic) applied. The patients with previous abdominal surgery or percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy were excluded from the study. Results: The mean operation duration was significantly shorter in modified DPS implantation technic (105.1 min in Group 1 and 87.4 min in Group 2) (P < 0.001). Capnothorax is seen 11% of the cases in classical surgery procedure. In the modified group, capnothorax was not observed. Pneumothorax rate was found similar in both groups. Post-operative atelectasis was determined 16% of the cases in classical surgery procedure and also in the modified group atelectasis was not observed. The complications were higher in classical surgery procedure group but not differed statistically in this study. Total hospitalisation duration was significantly shorter in the modified surgical technique group compared to the other group (8.0 days in Group 1 and 6.0 days in Group 2) (P = 0.03). Conclusion: With modification in DPS implantation surgery, shorter operation and hospitalisation durations, and less complications may be achieved

Prognostication of Patients with Spinal Bone Metastases (SBM): External Validation Study Comparing the Utility of Two Current Prediction Models

Purpose: A majority of developed prediction models for SBM are not used in clinical practice, where there is lack of external validation studies describing their performance on independent patient data. Methods: Primary aim was to externally validate two prediction models and to demonstrate whether these can be generalized for patients treated in different centers. Secondary aim was to identify additional prognostic factors predicting survival in patients with SBM. Results: Our results show modest predictive capacity for patients with symptomatic SBM in daily clinical practice by use of the existing two prediction models Van der Linden and Bollen. A slightly better performance in discrimination and calibration is found for the Bollen model with a C-statistic of 0.67 (95% CI: 0.63 –0.71) based on the validation dataset (95% CI: 0.65 –0.73) in contrast to Van der Linden with a C-statistic of 0.65 (95% CI: 0.60–0.71). Impact of brain or visceral metastases was significantly associated with survival, with a Hazard Ratio (HR) of 3.8 and 1.34 respectively. For breast cancer patients with SBM, hormone receptor status was of importance for prognostication (C-statistic of 0.67). Conclusion: With this first external validation study, we found modest predictive capacity for the prediction models by van der Linden and Bollen, with a slightly better performance for the Bollen model. Predictive impact of overall visceral and brainmetastases should not be underestimated. Breast tumor subtypes based on immunohistochemistry markers, seem to be of importance for the prognostication of breast cancer patients with SBM

CASC11 promotes aggressiveness of prostate cancer cells through miR-145/IGF1R axis

Background Prostate cancer (PCa) is the most common malignancy diagnosed among men after lung cancer in developed countries. Investigation of the underlying molecular mechanisms of PCa is urgently needed in order to develop better therapeutic strategies and to reveal more effective therapeutic targets. In this study, we aimed at exploring the potential functions of CASC11 in association with miR-145 and IGF1R during the malignant progression of PCa cells. Methods We initially investigated the oncogenic potential of noncoding members of CASC gene family and analyzed the effects of CASC11 overexpression on proliferation, migration, and colony formation ability of DU145, LNCaP, and PC3 PCa cells. We, then, exprlored the association of CASC11, miR-145, and IGF1R expression and their impacts on PI3K/AKT/mTOR signaling pathway in in vitro models. Results In silico analysis revealed that of the CASC family only CASC11 showed consistent results considering its differential expression as well as its association with the overall survival of patients. We demonstrated that ectopic overexpression of CASC11 significantly increased the proliferation, colony formation, and migration capacity in all three cell lines. CASC11 overexpression caused suppression of miR-145 and overexpression of IGF1R, leading to activation of PI3K/AKT/mTOR signaling pathway. Conclusion In summary, we found that CASC11 is upregulated in PCa cells and clinical tumor samples in comparison to corresponding controls and revealed that ectopic CASC11 overexpression promotes cellular phenotypes associated with PCa progression through CASC11/miR-145/IGF1R axis