Individuals’ COVID-19 protection and awareness could be related to their health literacy levels. This study aims to determine individuals’ COVID-19 awareness and health literacy levels in eastern Turkey and the relationship between them.

This study utilized a descriptive and correlational design. The target population was individuals aged 18-65 years who sought treatment in the emergency department of a state hospital in Turkey. The sample consisted of 762 individuals who visited the health institution where data were collected between July 15, 2021-December 15, 2021 and agreed to participate in the study. Data were collected through the Personal Information Form, the COVID-19 Awareness Scale, and the Health Literacy Scale. Ethics committee approval and institutional permissions were obtained to conduct the study. Data analysis used arithmetic means, standard deviations, skewness and kurtosis coefficients, t test, ANOVA, Welch ANOVA, Bonferroni tests, and correlation analysis.

The participants’ COVID-19 Awareness Scale total mean score was 50.71 ± 14.93, and the Health Literacy Scale total mean score was 45.03 ± 10.57. A moderate positive correlation was detected between the participants’ health literacy levels and the COVID-19 awareness scale sub-scales and total scores (r = 0.350).

The participants’ health literacy level increased with their COVID-19 awareness level. It is recommended that health literacy levels be increased to help individuals increase their awareness of COVID-19 and to protect and improve their health.

To understand caregivers’ perceptions about their children’s mealtime social experiences at school, and how they believe these social experiences impact their children’s consumption of meals at school (both meals brought from home and school meals).

Qualitative data were originally collected as part of a larger mixed methods study using an embedded-QUAN dominant research design.

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with United States (U.S.) caregivers over ZoomTM in English and Spanish during the 2021-2022 school year. The interview guide contained 14 questions on caregivers’ perceptions about their children’s experiences with school meals.

Caregivers of students in elementary, middle, and high schools in rural, suburban, and urban communities in California (n=46) and Maine (n=20) were interviewed. Most (60.6%) were caregivers of children who were eligible for free or reduced-price meals.

Caregivers reported that an important benefit of eating meals at school is their child’s opportunity to socialize with their peers. Caregivers also stated that their child’s favorite aspect of school lunch is socializing with friends. However, some caregivers reported the cafeteria environment caused their children to feel anxious and not eat. Other caregivers reported that their children sometimes skipped lunch and chose to socialize with friends rather than wait in long lunch lines.

Socializing during school meals is important to both caregivers and students. Policies such as increasing lunch period lengths and holding recess before lunch have been found to promote school meal consumption and could reinforce the positive social aspects of mealtime for students.

Plastics in the environment have moved from an “eye-sore” to a public health threat. Hospitals are one of the biggest users of single-use plastics, and there is growing literature looking at not only plastics in the environment but health care’s overall contribution to its growth.

This study was a retrospective review at a 411-bed level II trauma hospital over 47 months pre and post the last wave of COVID-19 affecting this hospital. Deidentified data were gathered: daily census in the emergency department, hospital census, and corresponding number of admitted COVID-19 patients. Additionally, for the same time frame, personal protective equipment (PPE) supply purchases and gross tonnage of nonhazardous refuse were obtained.

There was a large increase in PPE purchased without a significant change in gross tonnage of weight of trash.

PPE is incredibly important to protect health care workers. However, single-use plastic is not sustainable for the environment or public health. Understanding the full effect of the pandemic on hospital waste production is critically important as health care institutions focus on strategies to decrease their carbon footprint and increase positive impacts on public health and the environment.

To investigate the relationship between US containment measures during the COVID-19 pandemic and household food insecurity.

To investigate these relationships, we developed a framework linking COVID-19-related containment policies with different domains of food security and then used multilevel random effects models to examine associations between state-level containment policies and household food security. Our framework depicts theorised linkages between stringency policies and five domains of food security (availability, physical access, economic access, acceptability in meeting preferences and agency, which includes both self-efficacy and infrastructure). We used US national data from a representative survey data from the National Food Access and COVID research Team that was fielded in July–August 2020 and April 2021. Containment policy measures came from the Oxford Stringency Index and included policies such as stay-at-home orders, closing of public transit and workplace closures.

The USA.

3071 adult individuals from the National Food Access and COVID research Team survey.

We found no significant associations between state-level containment policies and overall food insecurity at the state level or any of the individual domains of food insecurity.

This research suggests that while food insecurity across all domains was a significant problem during the studied phases of the pandemic, it was not associated with these containment measures. Therefore, impacts may have been successfully mitigated, likely through a suite of policies aimed at maintaining food security, including the declaration of food workers as essential and the expansion of federal nutrition programmes.

Although individuals with lower socio-economic position (SEP) have a higher prevalence of mental health problems than others, there is no conclusive evidence on whether mental healthcare (MHC) is provided equitably. We investigated inequalities in MHC use among adults in Stockholm County (Sweden), and whether inequalities were moderated by self-reported psychological distress.

MHC use was examined in 31,433 individuals aged 18–64 years over a 6-month follow-up period, after responding to the General Health Questionnaire-12 (GHQ-12) in 2014 or the Kessler Six (K6) in 2021. Information on their MHC use and SEP indicators, education, and household income, were sourced from administrative registries. Logistic and negative binomial regression analyses were used to estimate inequalities in gained MHC access and frequency of outpatient visits, with psychological distress as a moderating variable.

Individuals with lower education or income levels were more likely to gain access to MHC than those with high SEP, irrespective of distress levels. Education-related differences in gained MHC access diminished with increasing distress, from a 74% higher likelihood when reporting no distress (odds ratio, OR = 1.74 [95% confidence interval, 95% CI: 1.43–2.12]) to 30% when reporting severe distress (OR = 1.30 [0.98–1.72]). Comparable results were found for secondary care but not primary care i.e., lower education predicted reduced access to primary care in moderate-to-severe distress groups (e.g., OR = 0.63 [0.45–0.90]), and for physical but not digital services. Income-related differences in gained MHC access remained stable or increased with distress, especially for secondary care and physical services.

Among MHC users, we found marginal socio-economic differences in the frequency of outpatient visits, and these differences decreased with increasing distress. Yet, having only primary education with severe distress was associated with fewer outpatient visits compared with having post-secondary education (rate ratio, RR = 0.82; 95% CI: 0.67–1.00). These inequities were especially evident among women and for visits to psychologists, counsellors, or psychotherapists.

Although lower-income groups used services more than others, they still had higher odds of not using services when reporting distress (i.e., those not in contact with services despite scoring ≥3 on the GHQ-12 or ≥8 on the K6; OR = 1.27; 95% CI: 1.15–1.40).

Overall, individuals with lower education and income used MHC services more than their counterparts with higher socio-economic status; however, low-educated individuals faced inequities in primary care and underutilized non-physician services such as visits to psychologists.