Vegawrenn3604

Blood centers (BCs) rely on schools and businesses. Shelter-in-place orders closed them. This study determined how COVID-19 affected donation habits.

Two periods were reviewed (May 1 through June 30, 2018 vs 2019 [control] and 2019 vs 2020 [study-COVID period]). These donations were reviewed first-time, repeat (donation ≤ 2 years), and lapsed (no donation > 2 years); sex; age; ethnicity; and ABO blood groups at high school and college drives. Testing all donors for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies started May 18, 2020.

In the study period donations significantly increased (control P = .683, study P ≤ .0001) and comparing sex (control male P = .716, female P = .657; study male P = .004, female P ≤ .0001). In the study period there was a significant decrease in Hispanic (P = .001) and African American (P < .0001) donations also seen among high school and college drives and an increase in Caucasian (P < .0001) donations. There was a significant increase in first-time (P < .0001) and lapsed donors (P < .0001) in the study period vs control (first-time P = .087, lapsed P = .308) and a significant decrease in donors not more than 30 years (study 16-20 P < .0001, 21-30 P < .0001). There was a significant increase in all blood types in the study period (P < .0001) and in donations after implementation of SARS-CoV-2 antibody testing (P = .001).

Significant changes occurred in donation habits in the study vs the control periods. These included increased total donations, comparing sexes, first-time and lapsed donors, all blood types, and Caucasian donations. Significant decreases were seen in Hispanic and African American donations and those not more than 30 years old.

Significant changes occurred in donation habits in the study vs the control periods. These included increased total donations, comparing sexes, first-time and lapsed donors, all blood types, and Caucasian donations. Significant decreases were seen in Hispanic and African American donations and those not more than 30 years old.

Reflect upon the visibility of nursing-led research during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The emerging SARS-CoV-2 infection has galvanized collaborative and multidisciplinary efforts in clinical and research practice worldwide. The scarce evidence-base to manage patients with COVID-19 has included limited nurse-led research.

Clinical research nurses have greatly contributed to the delivery of COVID-19 research, yet the number of COVID-19 nursing-led research papers appears to be limited, with even fewer nurse-led research projects funded.

Authors' views and PubMed search on 'COVID-19 and nursing'.

There is a dearth of nursing-led research. Most papers describe the nursing contribution to COVID-19 care, changes in nursing working arrangements and emotional burden. There are opportunities to explore the consequences to vulnerable population groups of public health measures implemented to stop the progress of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Workforce gaps, limited integration in research structures and clinical redeployment may have hampered nurse-led research. COVID-19 may exacerbate staffing deficits by disrupting the education pipeline, obstructing the transition from clinical to academic practice, particularly in areas where clinical academic roles are yet to emerge.

The absence of nurse-led research in COVID-19 can be explained by chronic, underlying factors and the features of the pandemic response. Emerging models of care, effective staffing and inequalities related to COVID-19 appear obvious research areas. Nursing leadership needs to strengthen its political voice and lobbying skills to secure nurse-led research funding.

Embracing international nursing research, strengthening collaborations and lobbying policymakers for investment in nurse-sensitive research would enhance the response to COVID-19.

Embracing international nursing research, strengthening collaborations and lobbying policymakers for investment in nurse-sensitive research would enhance the response to COVID-19.

It is unknown whether older adults at high risk of falls but without cognitive impairment have higher rates of subsequent cognitive impairment.

This was an analysis of cross-sectional and longitudinal data from National Health and Aging Trends Study (NHATS).

NHATS, secondary analysis of data from 2011 to 2019.

Community dwelling adults aged 65 and older without cognitive impairment.

Participants were classified at baseline in three categories of fall risk (low, moderate, severe) using a modified algorithm from the Center for Disease Control's STEADI (Stop Elderly Accidents, Deaths, and Injuries) and fall risk from data from the longitudinal NHATS. Impaired global cognition was defined as NHATS-derived impairment in either the Alzheimer's Disease-8 score, immediate/delayed recall, orientation, clock-drawing test, or date/person recall. The primary outcome was the first incident of cognitive impairment in an 8 year follow-up period. Cox-proportional hazard models ascertained time to onset of cognitive impairment (referent = low modified STEADI incidence).

Of the 7,146 participants (57.8% female), the median age category was 75 to 80 years. EGFR inhibitors list Prevalence of baseline fall modified STEADI risk categories in participants was low (51.6%), medium (38.5%), and high (9.9%). In our fully adjusted model, the risk of developing cognitive impairment was hazard ratio (HR) 1.18 [95% CI = 1.08, 1.29] in the moderate risk category, and HR 1.74 [95% CI = 1.53, 1.98] in the high-risk category.

Older, cognitively intact adults at high fall risk at baseline had nearly twice the risk of cognitive decline at 8 year follow-up.

Older, cognitively intact adults at high fall risk at baseline had nearly twice the risk of cognitive decline at 8 year follow-up.The serological responses towards severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) nucleoprotein, receptor-binding domain (RBD), and spike protein S1 are characterized by incomplete avidity maturation. Analysis with varying concentrations of urea allows to determine distinct differences in avidity maturation, though the total process remains at an unusually low level. Despite incomplete avidity maturation, this approach allows to define early and late stages of infection. It therefore can compensate for the recently described irregular kinetic patterns of immunoglobulin M and immunoglobulin G (IgG) directed towards SARS-CoV-2 antigens. The serological responses towards seasonal coronaviruses neither have a negative nor positive impact on SARS-CoV-2 serology in general. Avidity determination in combination with measurement of antibody titers and complexity of the immune response allows to clearly differentiate between IgG responses towards seasonal coronaviruses and SARS-CoV-2. Cross-reactions seem to occur with very low probability.