Background: The conflict of the Russian–Ukrainian War that began on 24 February 2022 has profoundly changed Europe. The primary objective of this study was to assess the prevalence of anxiety, stress, depression, and insomnia among a group of surveyed Poles in the first months after the outbreak of war in 2022. The secondary goal was to analyze potential risk factors for these mental disorders. Methods: A cross-sectional survey-based study was conducted. An anonymous questionnaire was created using Google Forms and distributed through social media from March 2022 to June 2022. The questionnaire included the Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scale (DASS-21) and an evaluation of the Insomnia Severity Index (ISI). Results: Overall, 11.26% of 311 participants had depression, 10.29% had anxiety, and 24.12% experienced stress. Further, 62.05% of them declared sleep disturbances, and about 60% of them reported experiencing fears associated with the war. The outcomes of the assessment of psychiatric symptoms (depression, anxiety, stress and sleep disturbance) were associated with following factors: self-reported health status, fear of Russian invasion of Ukraine, and fear of the war extending to Poland. When the results for psychiatric symptoms were categorized into two groups, severe and non-severe, logistic regression analysis was only feasible for the insomnia variable. For this variable, multivariate logistic regression identified key potential factors: age, stress, and fear of Russian invasion of Ukraine. Conclusions: The respondents were found to be highly concerned about the war. In total, almost half of them manifested symptoms of anxiety, depression, and/or stress. Slightly less than two-thirds had sleep disorders. This study confirms that in a crisis situation, mental health screening is necessary.

Objectives: The aim of this study was to compare the level of discrimination among patients with obesity living in Poland and Germany. Methods: This was a retrospective cross-sectional international multicenter survey study including 564 adult participants treated for morbid obesity at selected healthcare facilities in Germany (210 patients) and in Poland (354 patients). Discrimination was evaluated using a custom-made questionnaire based on the related literature. Results: The level of obesity discrimination did not differ between German and Polish patients (p = 0.4282). The presence of obesity was reported to be associated to a large or a very large extent with the feeling of social exclusion and discrimination by 46.63% of German participants and 42.09% of Polish ones (p = 0.2934). The mean level of discrimination related to the lack of employment was higher in patients who underwent bariatric surgery or endoscopic method than in those who underwent conservative treatment (for Germany: 2.85 ± 1.31 (median, 3) vs. 2.08 ± 1.31 (median, 1), p = 0.002; for Poland: 2.43 ± 1.15 (median, 2) vs. 1.93 ± 1.15 (median, 1), p = 0.005). The level of discrimination was associated with sex, age, the degree of obesity, and treatment-related weight loss (p < 0.05). Conclusions: Our findings confirm that obesity significantly affects the social and economic well-being of patients. There is a great need to reduce weight stigma and to take measures to alleviate the socioeconomic and psychological burden of obesity.

Background. There is sufficient scientific literature on the effectiveness of registered vaccines in preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection, but research on the impact of the COVID-19 vaccination program on social and economic aspects is lacking. In connection with the above, this study aimed to assess the impact of vaccinations on presenteeism and absenteeism among healthcare professionals in the workplace caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods. A post-marketing, cross-sectional survey-based study was carried out on a sample of 736 actively employed healthcare professionals. Among them, 215 individuals (29.21%) were unvaccinated (control group). The study group consisted of 521 vaccinated respondents, with 52.97% being women and 47.03% men. A self-administered questionnaire was developed and delivered online to the target population group of healthcare workers. Results. A significant association (p < 0.01) was observed between the number of doses of the COVID-19 vaccine received and presenteeism among the respondents. Among the unvaccinated respondents (2.30 ± 1.19) or those vaccinated with only one dose of the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine (2.16 ± 1.11), the COVID-19 pandemic had a significantly higher impact on work performance compared to individuals vaccinated with three doses of the vaccine (1.19 ± 1.11). Moreover, a significant association was found (p = 0.0265) between the number of workdays missed (over the last twelve months) due to COVID-19-related sick leave and the number of doses of the COVID-19 vaccine received. The number of workdays missed due to COVID-19 sick leave was lowest in the group vaccinated with three doses (2.00 ± 6.75) and highest in the unvaccinated group (5.32 ± 16.24). Conclusions. Our results clearly show that the widely implemented national COVID-19 vaccination program brings tangible benefits both in medical and economic terms. The extent of reducing absenteeism and presenteeism caused by the coronavirus disease depended on the number of vaccine doses administered.

During the coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) pandemic it has become very important to comply with preventive measures. We aimed to assess compliance with applicable restrictions and to explore the links between the level of compliance and the risk of COVID-19. This cross-sectional study included Polish adults who were asked to complete a validated questionnaire. The study period was from 1 November 2020 to 31 January 2021 and a computer-assisted web interview method was chosen to perform the survey. The study involved 562 women and 539 men. COVID-19 was reported in 11.26% of participants. A good level of compliance with the sanitary restrictions was reported for 38.87% of participants, an average level of compliance for 47.96%, and a low level of compliance for 13.17%. A reduced risk of COVID-19 was associated with the following preventive measures: regular use of protective masks, social and physical distancing in public places, regular use of hand sanitizers with high ethanol content, and the use of disposable gloves in public places. Our survey revealed satisfactory public compliance with the pandemic restrictions. Sanitary and epidemiologic measures to prevent the pandemic were shown to be adequate and effective.

Background: Statins are the first-line treatment for dyslipidemia, which is a major modifiable risk factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. Studies have shown that in addition to the beneficial lipid-lowering effect, statins also exhibit a number of pleiotropic effects that may find application in other diseases, including osteoporosis. This study aimed to assess the effect of statins on bone turnover, as measured by the concentration of bone turnover markers, and to compare the effect of atorvastatin as a lipophilic statin and rosuvastatin as a hydrophilic statin. Methods: This study included 34 postmenopausal women aged < 65 years with newly diagnosed dyslipidemia requiring statin therapy. Patients were randomly assigned to receive a statin drug. Statins were initiated at standard doses of 5 to 10 mg of rosuvastatin and 20 mg of atorvastatin. The levels of C-terminal telopeptide of type I collagen as a bone resorption marker and N-terminal propeptide of procollagen type I as a marker of bone formation, lipid concentrations and other biochemical parameters were assessed at baseline and after 6 and twelve months of treatment. Results: There were no statistically significant differences between the levels of bone turnover markers before and 6 months after statin implementation ( P > .05) - for all patients or subgroups according to statin use. Analysis of the results showed that after 12 months, there was a statistically significant decrease in N-terminal propeptide of procollagen type I concentration in all subjects ( P = .004). By statin subgroup, a statistically significant decrease in N-terminal propeptide of procollagen type I was observed only in patients receiving rosuvastatin ( P = .012) and not in those receiving atorvastatin ( P = .25). Moreover, changes in bone turnover markers did not correlate with changes in lipid concentrations. Conclusions: These results may indicate the superiority of atorvastatin over rosuvastatin in inhibiting adverse changes in bone turnover in postmenopausal women. Confirmed by studies involving a larger population, the observed differences might find particular applications in clinical practice, and the choice of atorvastatin over rosuvastatin for women could be considered in the early postmenopausal period to reduce the risk of osteoporosis and subsequent osteoporotic fractures.