A systematic overview of mental and physical disorders of informal caregivers based on population-based studies with good methodological quality is lacking. Therefore, our aim was to systematically summarize mortality, incidence, and prevalence estimates of chronic diseases in informal caregivers compared to non-caregivers. Following PRISMA recommendations, we searched major healthcare databases (CINAHL, MEDLINE and Web of Science) systematically for relevant studies published in the last 10 years (without language restrictions) (PROSPERO registration number: CRD42020200314). We included only observational cross-sectional and cohort studies with low risk of bias (risk scores 0–2 out of max 8) that reported the prevalence, incidence, odds ratio (OR), hazard ratio (HR), mean- or sum-scores for health-related outcomes in informal caregivers and non-caregivers. For a thorough methodological quality assessment, we used a validated checklist. The synthesis of the results was conducted by grouping outcomes. We included 22 studies, which came predominately from the USA and Europe. Informal caregivers had a significantly lower mortality than non-caregivers. Regarding chronic morbidity outcomes, the results from a large longitudinal German health-insurance evaluation showed increased and statistically significant incidences of severe stress, adjustment disorders, depression, diseases of the spine and pain conditions among informal caregivers compared to non-caregivers. In cross-sectional evaluations, informal caregiving seemed to be associated with a higher occurrence of depression and of anxiety (ranging from 4 to 51% and 2 to 38%, respectively), pain, hypertension, diabetes and reduced quality of life. Results from our systematic review suggest that informal caregiving may be associated with several mental and physical disorders. However, these results need to be interpreted with caution, as the cross-sectional studies cannot determine temporal relationships. The lower mortality rates compared to non-caregivers may be due to a healthy-carer bias in longitudinal observational studies; however, these and other potential benefits of informal caregiving deserve further attention by researchers.

We aimed to systematically identify and evaluate all studies of good quality that compared the occurrence of mental disorders in the self-employed versus employees. Adhering to the Cochrane guidelines, we conducted a systematic review and searched three major medical databases (MEDLINE, Web of Science, Embase), complemented by hand search. We included 26 (three longitudinal and 23 cross-sectional) population-based studies of good quality (using a validated quality assessment tool), with data from 3,128,877 participants in total. The longest of these studies, a Swedish national register evaluation with 25 years follow-up, showed a higher incidence of mental illness among the self-employed compared to white-collar workers, but a lower incidence compared to blue-collar workers. In the second longitudinal study from Sweden the self-employed had a lower incidence of mental illness compared to both blue- and white-collar workers over 15 years, whereas the third longitudinal study (South Korea) did not find a difference regarding the incidence of depressive symptoms over 6 years. Results from the cross-sectional studies showed associations between self-employment and poor general mental health and stress, but were inconsistent regarding other mental outcomes. Most studies from South Korea found a higher prevalence of mental disorders among the self-employed compared to employees, whereas the results of cross-sectional studies from outside Asia were less consistent. In conclusion, we found evidence from population-based studies for a link between self-employment and increased risk of mental illness. Further longitudinal studies are needed examining the potential risk for the development of mental disorders in specific subtypes of the self-employed.

Background: The COVID-19 symptom-monitoring apps provide direct feedback to users about the suspected risk of infection with SARS-CoV-2 and advice on how to proceed to prevent the spread of the virus. We have developed the CoronaCheck mobile health (mHealth) platform, the first free app that provides easy access to valid information about the risk of infection with SARS-CoV-2 in English and German. Previous studies have suggested that the clinical characteristics of individuals infected with SARS-CoV-2 vary by age, gender, and viral variant; however, potential differences between countries have not been adequately studied. Objective: The aim of this study is to describe the characteristics of the users of the CoronaCheck mHealth platform and to determine country-specific and sociodemographic associations of COVID-19–related symptoms and previous contacts with individuals infected with COVID-19. Methods: Between April 8, 2020, and February 3, 2022, data on sociodemographic characteristics, symptoms, and reports of previous close contacts with individuals infected with COVID-19 were collected from CoronaCheck users in different countries. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to examine whether self-reports of COVID-19–related symptoms and recent contact with a person infected with COVID-19 differed between countries (Germany, India, South Africa), gender identities, age groups, education, and calendar year. Results: Most app users (N=23,179) were from Germany (n=8116, 35.0%), India (n=6622, 28.6%), and South Africa (n=3705, 16.0%). Most data were collected in 2020 (n=19,723, 85.1%). In addition, 64% (n=14,842) of the users were male, 52.1% (n=12,077) were ≥30 years old, and 38.6% (n=8953) had an education level of more than 11 years of schooling. Headache, muscle pain, fever, loss of smell, loss of taste, and previous contacts with individuals infected with COVID-19 were reported more frequently by users in India (adjusted odds ratios [aORs] 1.3-8.3, 95% CI 1.2-9.2) and South Africa (aORs 1.1-2.6, 95% CI 1.0-3.0) than those in Germany. Cough, general weakness, sore throat, and shortness of breath were more frequently reported in India (aORs 1.3-2.6, 95% CI 1.2-2.9) compared to Germany. Gender-diverse users reported symptoms and contacts with confirmed COVID-19 cases more often compared to male users. Conclusions: Patterns of self-reported COVID-19–related symptoms and awareness of a previous contact with individuals infected with COVID-19 seemed to differ between India, South Africa, and Germany, as well as by gender identity in these countries. Viral symptom–collecting apps, such as the CoronaCheck mHealth platform, may be promising tools for pandemics to support appropriate assessments. Future mHealth research on country-specific differences during a pandemic should aim to recruit representative samples.

Due to the lack of data on asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2-positive persons in healthcare institutions, they represent an inestimable risk. Therefore, the aim of the current study was to evaluate the first 1,000,000 reported screening tests of asymptomatic staff, patients, residents, and visitors in hospitals and long-term care (LTC) facilities in the State of Bavaria over a period of seven months. Data were used from the online database BayCoRei (Bavarian Corona Screening Tests), established in July 2020. Descriptive analyses were performed, describing the temporal pattern of persons that tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 by real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) or antigen tests, stratified by facility. Until 15 March 2021, this database had collected 1,038,146 test results of asymptomatic subjects in healthcare facilities (382,240 by RT-PCR, and 655,906 by antigen tests). Of the RT-PCR tests, 2.2% (n = 8380) were positive: 3.0% in LTC facilities, 2.2% in hospitals, and 1.2% in rehabilitation institutions. Of the antigen tests, 0.4% (n = 2327) were positive: 0.5% in LTC facilities, and 0.3% in both hospitals and rehabilitation institutions, respectively. In LTC facilities and hospitals, infection surveillance using RT-PCR tests, or the less expensive but less sensitive, faster antigen tests, could facilitate the long-term management of the healthcare workforce, patients, and residents.