Introduction: The COVID-19 pandemic has initiated an upheaval in society and has been the cause of considerable stress during this period. Healthcare professionals have been on the front line during this health crisis, particularly paramedical staff. The aim of this study was to assess the high level of stress of healthcare workers during the first wave of the pandemic. Materials and methods: The COVISTRESS international study is a questionnaire disseminated online collecting demographic and stress-related data over the globe, during the pandemic. Stress levels were evaluated using non-calibrated visual analog scale, from 0 (no stress) to 100 (maximal stress). Results: Among the 13,537 individuals from 44 countries who completed the survey from January to June 2020, we included 10,051 workers (including 1379 healthcare workers, 631 medical doctors and 748 paramedical staff). The stress levels during the first wave of the pandemic were 57.8 ± 33 in the whole cohort, 65.3 ± 29.1 in medical doctors, and 73.6 ± 27.7 in paramedical staff. Healthcare professionals and especially paramedical staff had the highest levels of stress (p < 0.001 vs non-healthcare workers). Across all occupational categories, women had systematically significantly higher levels of work-related stress than men (p < 0.001). There was a negative correlation between age and stress level (r = -0.098, p < 0.001). Healthcare professionals demonstrated an increased risk of very-high stress levels (>80) compared to other workers (OR = 2.13, 95% CI 1.87–2.41). Paramedical staff risk for very-high levels of stress was higher than doctors’ (1.88, 1.50–2.34). The risk of high levels of stress also increased in women (1.83, 1.61–2.09; p < 0.001 vs. men) and in people aged <50 (1.45, 1.26–1.66; p < 0.001 vs. aged >50). Conclusions: The first wave of the pandemic was a major stressful event for healthcare workers, especially paramedical staff. Among individuals, women were the most at risk while age was a protective factor.

Background: The benefits of breastfeeding are widely known; however, continuation after returning to work (RTW) is not. We aimed to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the prevalence of breastfeeding after RTW. The secondary objectives were to compare the economic statuses between continents. Method: PubMed, Cochrane Library, Base, and Embase were searched until 1 September 2020, and two independent reviewers selected the studies and collated the data. To be included, articles needed to describe our primary outcome, i.e., prevalence of breastfeeding after RTW. Results: We included 14 studies, analyzing 42,820 women. The overall prevalence of breastfeeding after RTW was 25% (95% CI, 21% to 29%), with an important heterogeneity (I² = 98.6%)—prevalence ranging from 2% to 61%. Stratification by continents and by GDP per capita also showed huge heterogeneity. The Middle East had the weakest total prevalence with 10% (6% to 14%), and Oceania the strongest with 35% (21% to 50%). Despite the prevalence of breastfeeding in general increasing with GDP per capita (US$50,000 42%), the prevalence of non-exclusive breastfeeding follows more of a U-curve with the lowest and highest GDP per capita having the highest percentages of breastfeeding (US$50,000: 50%, versus <28% for all other categories). Conclusion: Breastfeeding after RTW is widely heterogeneous across the world. Despite economic status playing a role in breastfeeding after RTW, cultural aspects seem influential. The lack of data regarding breastfeeding after RTW in most countries demonstrates the strong need of data to inform effective preventive strategies.

Objectives: This study was performed to evaluate the long-term maintenance of nutritional changes promoted during an intensive initial intervention to induce body weight loss. The ability of these changes to predict long-term health outcomes was also examined. Methods: Nutritional variables, body composition, and metabolic markers collected in the RESOLVE project were analyzed before and after a 3-week intensive diet–exercise intervention (Phase 1), and during a subsequent supervision under free living conditions, of 12 months (Phase 2). Results: As expected, the macronutrient composition of the diet was modified to promote a negative energy balance during Phase 1. The decrease in carbohydrates imposed during this phase was maintained during Phase 2 whereas the increase in protein intake returned to baseline values at the end of the program. Dietary fiber intake was almost doubled during Phase 1 and remained significantly greater than baseline values throughout Phase 2. Moreover, fiber intake was the only nutritional variable that systematically and significantly predicted variations of health outcomes in the study. Conclusion: The adequacy of dietary fiber intake should be a matter of primary consideration in diet-based weight reduction programs.

Globally the COVID-19 pandemic outbreak has triggered an economic downturn and a rise in unemployment. As a result, global communities have had to face physical, health, psychological and socio-economical related stressors. The purpose of this study was to assess and report the impact of isolation and effect of coronavirus on selected psychological correlates associated with emotions. Following ethical approval, a mixed methods observational study was conducted using the validated COVISTRESS questionnaire. Two observational study scenarios were evaluated namely “Prior” to the COVID-19 outbreak and “Currently”, i.e., during the COVID-19 pandemic. 10,121 participants from 67 countries completed the COVISTRESS questionnaire. From the questionnaire responses only questions that covered the participant’s occupation; sociodemographic details, isolation and impact of coronavirus were selected. Further analyses were performed on output measures that included leisure time, physical activity, sedentary time and emotions. All output measures were evaluated using the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) with an intensity ranging from 0–100. Descriptive statistics, Wilcoxon signed-rank test and Spearman correlational analysis were applied to the leisure time, physical activity, sedentary time and emotional feeling datasets; p = 0.05 was set as the significance level. Both males and females displayed similar output measures. The Wilcoxon signed rank test showed significant differences with respect to “Prior” COVID-19 and “Currently” for sedentary activity (Z = −40.462, p < 0.001), physical activity (Z = −30.751, p < 0.001) and all other emotional feeling output measures. A moderate correlation between “Prior” COVID-19 and “Currently” was observed among the Males (r = 0.720) in comparison to the Females (r = 0.639) for sedentary activity while weaker correlations (r < 0.253) were observed for physical activity and emotional feeling measurements, respectively. Our study reported incremental differences in the physical and psychological output measures reported, i.e., “Prior” COVID-19 and “Currently”. “Prior” COVID-19 and “Currently” participants increased their sedentary habits by 2.98%, and the level of physical activity reduced by 2.42%, depression levels increased by 21.62%, anxiety levels increased by 16.71%, and stress levels increased by 21.8%. There were no correlations (r) between leisure, physical activity and sedentary action (i.e., “Prior” = −0.071; “Currently” = −0.097); no correlations (r) between leisure physical activity and emotion (i.e., −0.071 > r > 0.081) for “Prior”; and poor correlations (r) between leisure, physical activity and sedentary action (i.e., −0.078 > r > 0.167) for “Current”. The correlations (r) between sedentary action and emotion for “Prior” and “Currently” were (−0.100 > r > 0.075) and (−0.040 > r > 0.041) respectively. The findings presented here indicate that the COVISTRESS project has created awareness in relation to the physical and psychological impact resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic. The findings have also highlighted individual distress caused by COVID-19 and associated health consequences for the global community.

Background: This paper is a follow‐up study continuing the COVISTRESS network previous research regarding health‐related determinants.Objective: The aim was to identify the main consequences of COVID‐19 lockdown on Body Mass Index and Perceived Fragility, related to Physical Activity (PA), for different categories of populations, worldwide.Design: The study design included an online survey, during the first wave of COVID‐19 lockdown, across different world regions.Setting and participants: The research was carried out on 10 121 participants from 67 countries. The recruitment of participants was achieved using snowball sampling techniques via social networks, with no exclusion criteria other than social media access.Main outcome measures: Body Mass Index, Physical Activity, Perceived Fragility and risk of getting infected items were analysed. SPSS software, v20, was used. Significance was set at P < .05.Results: Body Mass Index significantly increased during lockdown. For youth and young adults (18‐35 years), PA decreased by 31.25%, for adults (36‐65 years) by 26.05% and for the elderly (over 65 years) by 30.27%. There was a high level of Perceived Fragility and risk of getting infected for female participants and the elderly. Correlations between BMI, Perceived Fragility and PA were identified.Discussion and Conclusions: The research results extend and confirm evidence that the elderly are more likely to be at risk, by experiencing weight gain, physical inactivity and enhanced Perceived Fragility. As a consequence, populations need to counteract the constraints imposed by the lockdown by being physically active.

Background: We aimed to evaluate the prevalence of burnout among French general practitioners in private practice and to study the risk and protective factors of burnout. Methods: A nationwide cross-sectional study was conducted with French GPs working in a private practice in France who were asked to fulfil an internet questionnaire. We used the secure internet application REDCap^®. Exclusion criteria were only working in a hospital, substitute doctors, and internship students. There was a putative sample size of 88,886 GPs. We retrieved the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI), occupational characteristics (type of installation, emergency regulated shifts, night shifts, university supervisor, weekly hours worked, seniority), and personal characteristics such as age, gender, marital status, and number of children. Results: We included 1926 GPs among the 2602 retrieved questionnaires. A total of 44.8% of French liberal GPs were experiencing burnout, with 4.8% (95%CI 3.9–5.9%) experiencing severe burnout. The risk factors of severe burnout were male gender (RR = 1.91, 95%CI 1.15–3.16), working in a suburban area (5.23, 2.18–12.58), and having more than 28 appointments per day (1.95, 1.19–3.19). Working more than 50 h weekly showed a tendency to increase the risk of severe burnout (1.55, 0.93–2.59, p = 0.095), with a significant increase in the risk of low and moderate burnout (1.31, 1.02–1.67 and 1.86, 1.34–2.57, respectively). Protective factors were mainly resident training, which decreased the risk of both low, moderate, and severe burnout (0.65, 0.51–0.83; 0.66, 0.48–0.92; and 0.42, 95%CI 0.23–0.76, respectively). Performing home visits decreased the risk of severe burnout (0.25, 0.13–0.47), as did group practice for intermediate level of burnout (0.71, 0.51–0.96). Conclusion: GPs are at a high risk of burnout, with nearly half of them in burnout, with burnout predominantly affecting males and those between the ages of 50 and 60 years old. The main risk factors were a high workload with more than 28 appointments per day or 50 h of work per week, and the main protective factors were related to social cohesion such having a teaching role and working in a group practice with back-office support.