The COVID-19 pandemic has affected many aspects of our lives, including mental health. Identifying risk factors and risk groups associated with anxiety, depression, and other emotional disorders for reasons related to the COVID-19 pandemic is highly relevant. This narrative review aims to summarize the evidence to date on risk factors for emotional disorders during the COVID-19 pandemic in order to identify the risk groups of people in need of early psychiatric and psychological assistance, point out the controversial data on the influence of risk factors on emotional disorders in COVID-19, and finally offer recommendations for alleviating symptoms of anxiety, depression, and other emotional disorders in such people. According to the current literature, being under the age of 40, being female, having contact with a COVID-infected person, and watching the news about COVID-19 for more than 3 h a day all increase the likelihood of anxiety, depression, and sleep disturbances. Healthcare workers, particularly nurses, working in the COVID-19 hot zone suffer more from sleep disorders, anxiety, and depression. It is also noted that people with a previous psychiatric history, in addition to increased risks of anxiety and depression, have an increased risk of relapse during the COVID-19 pandemic. The same is true for people who have had episodes of substance abuse in the past. Aside from socioeconomic factors, the mental wellbeing of those who have had COVID-19 is also impacted by biological factors (using anti-COVID-19 drugs, COVID-19-associated immunothrombosis and venous thromboembolism, interferon-gamma-related cytokine storm, etc.), resulting in a wide range of acute and long-term cognitive disorders. During the restricted resource time, the aforementioned risk groups should be prioritized for prevention, early identification, and proper treatment of potential emotional disorders. The risk factors that were found in this narrative review, as well as how they interact and change over time, will help understand why some studies of at-risk groups do not agree with each other, justify new preventive measures, and strengthen existing programs to keep people’s mental health in check during this pandemic and other emergencies.

The use of face masks has assumed a leading spot among nonspecific prevention measures during the coronavirus pandemic. The effectiveness of this protective measure depends on the specifics of individual use. The purpose of our study was to analyze the use of respiratory protective equipment (RPE) by medical students during the COVID-19 pandemic. The evaluation of face mask use was based on the results of a survey of medical students at Sechenov University. There were 988 participants in the study: 97.5% used RPE during the pandemic, 89.1% used disposable medical and hygienic face masks, 27.4% used reusable cloth face masks, and 13.2% used respirators. The majority of respondents (75.2%) were found to wear face masks correctly. However, 17.0% of the respondents were found to cover only their mouths with a face mask, while 7.8% reported often shifting their face mask under the chin due to perceived discomfort. Only 25.1% of respondents changed their disposable face mask after 2–3 h of wearing, while 13.0% decontaminated and used it several times. Most cloth face mask users (93.7%) decontaminated their marks, but only 55.7% of respondents did so daily. Face masks were most often worn in medical organizations (91.5%), and 1.4% of respondents did not use respiratory protection anywhere. In conclusion, we consider it necessary to introduce a special module on nonspecific prevention in the discipline of hygiene.

(1) Background: The use of face masks and gloves in public places directly shows the commitment of the population to the established regulations. Public transport is one of the most-at-risk places of contamination. The aim of the study was to analyze the face mask use by public transport passengers and workers during the COVID-19 pandemic. (2) Methods: Public transport passengers and workers were surveyed. Periodic intermittent selective observation was used to gauge the level of adherence to the established regulations among public transport passengers. Factor analysis was used to identify factors determining the face-mask-wearing comfort. (3) Results: The majority of passengers (87.5%) and all transport workers (100%) used face masks and gloves. Most of the users wore only face masks. Only 41.6% of passengers and 74.7% of transport workers wore face masks correctly. Motivational attitudes at the implementation of preventive measures were determined: established regulations in the public place (55.8%) and the protection of one’s own health and the health of family members (44.2%). Only 22.5% of those wearing face masks believed that doing so will have any effect on the spread of an infectious disease, and 10.8% wore masks to maintain the health of people around themselves. A low level of social responsibility was demonstrated. For 53.4% of workers, face mask wearing was uncomfortable. The majority of workers had adverse reactions to mask wearing: feeling short of breath (52.8%), hyperemia of face skin (33.8%), and facial hyperhidrosis (67.4%). (4) Conclusions: The comfort of wearing a mask is determined by adverse reactions occurrence, the properties of the mask, working conditions, and the duration of wearing the face mask. It is necessary to develop recommendations to reduce wearing discomfort. These recommendations, along with methods of raising the social responsibility of the population, can contribute to a greater commitment of the population to non-specific prevention measures.

Introduction. A high level of tobacco use among medical workers is registered in Russia. The adherence to this bad habit can undermine the medical professionals’ authority and reduce the effectiveness of the preventive work with the population. The goal of this research was to determine the smoking prevalence among medical students, their level of awareness of health risks, and attitudes of smokers to this bad habit. Material and methods. The survey concerning the prevalence and attitudes towards smoking was conducted among the students of the medical faculty of the Sechenov University. Students were asked about biographical data, health status at the time of the survey, attitudes towards healthy lifestyles and smoking, the respondents’ awareness of the detriment of tobacco smoking, attitudes to the anti-smoking campaign. A separate block of questions was addressed to smokers (smoking experience, smoking intensity, reasons for initiation). Results. Of the 531 respondents, 18.0% were smokers at the time of the survey, 9.4% were former smokers, 72.5% never smoked. 59.6% of smokers had low smoking intensity. 3.2% of smokers had high smoking intensity. Smoking experience in both sex groups averaged 4.56 years. The main reasons for students’ initiation to smoking were curiosity (27.8%), the influence of the closest active smoking environment (21.5%), as well as existing problems in the family and the educational process (16.7%). Most of the students were informed about the negative effects of smoking and 82.7% of current smokers planned to give up smoking. 94% of smokers believed they to need professional help to stop smoking. Discussion. The prevalence of smoking among students at Sechenov University is comparable to the data of the Global Survey of Medical Students. Conclusions. Smoking is still common among medical students. The training of future health care workers in knowledge and skills to stop smoking should be carried out within an additional curriculum in a medical university.

Use of respiratory protective equipment (RPE) has become the most significant way to prevent the coronavirus infection from its rapid spread. Our research goal was to analyze efficiency of various RPE used by people during COVID-19 pandemic. We made a review focusing on RPE manufactured and tested as per standards existing in different counties; we also analyzed the State Medical Equipment Register of the Federal Service for Surveillance in Public Healthcare as well as a market where respiratory protective equipment available to people was distributed. RPE is quite variable as per such parameters as bacterial filtration efficiency, number of layers and quality of a material it is made of, being fit to a person’s face (masks for children/adults), conditions for use (a time of use, whether a mask can be disinfected and used again, etc.). Data provided for customers when respiratory protective equipment is sold are rather scarce and controversial (people do not understand what a mask name means and how efficiently it protects their respiratory organs). Respiratory protective equipment which is registered within the State Medical Equipment Register of the Federal Service for Surveillance in Public Healthcare accounts for only 24% of the overall equipment sold to consumers. Taking into account variable and multiple properties of different masks, we developed a RPE classification basing on their efficiency when it comes down to protection from respiratory infections. FFP3/KN100/N99/N100 respirators are the most efficient ones. FFP2/KN95/N95/DS/DL2/KF94 respirators have average efficiency. FFP1 respirators and nonwoven medicals masks, II R, II, I type, and woven gauze masks have efficiency that is lower than average (RPE is mentioned in a descending order as per its efficiency). Low and extremely low efficiency was established accordingly for various non-medical masks (nonwoven, woven cotton, and synthetic ones) and face shields. When RPE is manufactured and sold, there are no precise criteria for assessing its protective efficiency. There is either no unified approach to such concepts as «medical» and «non-medical» masks. Most respiratory protective equipment sold on the consumer market in Russia is not registered within the Russian State Medical Equipment Register of the Federal Service for Surveillance in Public Healthcare. Our classification allows working out a unified approach to providing data on respiratory protective equipment for consumers.

The coronavirus pandemic has posed a serious challenge to humanity. Most countries are entering a second wave of increased incidence. Currently, it is necessary to pay close attention to the measures of non-specific prevention of infection among the population, which include, first of all, the use of face masks. The aim of our study was to assess the understanding of the importance of using face masks by students of the Sechenov Medical University. The survey was used. 228 students participated in the survey. Three quarters of those surveyed consider wearing masks to be an adequate measure to combat Covid-2019. All respondents wear a mask inside the university. It is a mandatory requirement for all students and teaching staff. The majority of those surveyed believe that disposable medical masks protect from saliva and mucous secretions of carriers and covid-patients. Two of third of students know the rules and duration of the use of disposable masks. Breathing and vision difficulties were indicated as the main reasons for refusing to use of masks. The most popular type of masks were disposable medical masks. Skin reactions due to masks wearing were noted by 65% ​​of students. The most common manifestations were redness, dryness and itching of the skin. Despite of these symptoms, the majority of respondents continued to wear masks. Conclusions. Medical students believe that wearing face masks during a pandemic is an adequate protective measure against Covid-2019. Their knowledge allows to properly select and use of personal protective equipment. Most of the respondents have civic responsibility and understand the importance of masks using not so much for personal protection as for protecting others and can actively promote their use among the population.