The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in preventative measures and has led to extensive changes in lifestyle for the vast majority of the American population. As the pandemic progresses, a growing amount of evidence shows that minority groups, such as the Deaf community, are often disproportionately and uniquely affected. Deaf people are directly affected in their ability to personally socialize and continue with daily routines. More specifically, this can constitute their ability to meet new people, connect with friends/family, and to perform in their work or learning environment. It also may result in further mental health changes and an increased reliance on technology. The impact of COVID-19 on the Deaf community in clinical settings must also be considered. This includes changes in policies for in-person interpreters and a rise in telehealth. Often, these effects can be representative of the pre-existing low health literacy, frequency of miscommunication, poor treatment, and the inconvenience felt by Deaf people when trying to access healthcare. Ultimately, these effects on the Deaf community must be taken into account when attempting to create a full picture of the societal shift caused by COVID-19.

The COVID-19 pandemic places significant strain on the U.S. healthcare system due to the high number of coronavirus cases. During the pandemic, there was much unknown about the virus, its course of the disease, COVID-19 diagnosis, treatments, or other imperative information needed to contain the virus. Resources within the healthcare system, such as PPE and healthcare workers, were in short supply and exacerbated the difficulty of managing the viral outbreak. Peer-reviewed articles suggest that telehealth, the application of electronic information and telecommunication technologies in healthcare, proved useful in public health and clinical care during the 2020 public health emergency due to a novel virus. The scoping review broadly assessed themes of telehealth’s strengths and weaknesses during the COVID-19 pandemic. These findings could suggest how virtual medicine may be a helpful tool to improve access in addition to the quality of care in the future of medicine. Assessments of case studies suggest that telehealth helped provide care to large patient volumes by aiding with communication, data collection, triage, remote patient monitoring, and critical care. Limitations of expanding telehealth subsequent to the pandemic include, but not limited to, a lack of national standards for practice and restrictions of utility for certain populations. Populations may include those with low socioeconomic status, specific cultural practices, and beliefs, or physical and cognitive ability barriers. Outlining the benefits and limitations of telehealth may suggest how virtual medicine can provide valuable in day-to-day medical practices and other pathogenic outbreaks.

The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in preventative measures and has led to extensive changes in lifestyle for the vast majority of the American population. As the pandemic progresses, a growing amount of evidence shows that minority groups, such as the Deaf community, are often disproportionately and uniquely affected. Deaf people are directly affected in their ability to personally socialize and continue with daily routines. More specifically, this can constitute their ability to meet new people, connect with friends/family, and to perform in their work or learning environment. It also may result in further mental health changes and an increased reliance on technology. The impact of COVID-19 on the Deaf community in clinical settings must also be considered. This includes changes in policies for in-person interpreters and a rise in telehealth. Often, these effects can be representative of the pre-existing low health literacy, frequency of miscommunication, poor treatment, and the inconvenience felt by Deaf people when trying to access healthcare. Ultimately, these effects on the Deaf community must be taken into account when attempting to create a full picture of the societal shift caused by COVID-19.

This thesis project is the result of close collaboration with the Arizona State University Biodesign Clinical Testing Laboratory (ABCTL) to document the characteristics of saliva as a test sample, preanalytical considerations, and how the ABCTL utilized saliva testing to develop swift COVID-19 diagnostic tests for the Arizona community. As of April 2021, there have been over 130 million recorded cases of COVID-19 globally, with the United States taking the lead with approximately 31.5 million cases. Developing highly accurate and timely diagnostics has been an important need of our country that the ABCTL has had tremendous success in delivering. Near the start of the pandemic, the ABCTL utilized saliva as a testing sample rather than nasopharyngeal (NP) swabs that were limited in supply, required highly trained medical personnel, and were generally uncomfortable for participants. Results from literature across the globe showed how saliva performed just as well as the NP swabs (the golden standard) while being an easier test to collect and analyze. Going forward, the ABCTL will continue to develop high quality diagnostic tools and adapt to the ever-evolving needs our communities face regarding the COVID-19 pandemic.

The COVID-19 pandemic has had an international impact since the novel coronavirus first surfaced in late 2019. Since then, different countries have taken different approaches to try and limit transmissions and deaths. While this is seemingly unprecedented in modern day times, many pandemics, or plagues, have happened relatively frequently in history. This paper examines three historical plagues through the lens of social psychologist Geert Hofstede’s six cultural dimensions to distinguish between cultures: power distance, individualism versus collectivism, masculinity versus femininity, uncertainty avoidance, long term orientation and indulgence versus restraint. This paper then applies these dimensions to the modern day U.S. and South Korea, two countries who have had different success in handling the COVID-19 pandemic. Through these dimensions, this paper aims to explain a factor in why South Korea has had better results than the U.S. It also recognizes that Hofstede’s cultural dimensions are not the only factor to affect the pandemic, and explores political influences in America through the lens of Henry David Thoreau and John Dewey. Overall, this paper argues that the U.S. has been unsuccessful in taming the pandemic because of certain cultural dimensions, such as more an individualist and indulgent culture, and its unstable and divisive political climate. Given this, the United States has a hopeful, yet arduous path moving forward with COVID-19 and future pandemics.

Survivors of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) often experience chronic symptoms that include fatigue, shortness of breath, and brain fog. The collection of ongoing post-COVID-19 symptoms have been classified as Post-Acute Sequela of SARS-CoV-2 (PASC). Older adult patients are especially susceptible to experiencing PASC related complications and have a high risk for long-term cognitive impairment symptoms. Definitions for categorizing PASC- associated cognitive impairment and neuropsychological assessments used to evaluate cognitive impairment are inconsistent between studies examining older adults. This systematic review aims to identify which neuropsychological tests best identify cognitive impairments associated with PASC and suggest a guide to standardize the measurement of PASC-related cognitive impairments. Through a literature search using PubMed, we included within this review 14 studies that fulfilled our inclusion and exclusion criteria evaluating middle-aged and older adult populations affected by PASC-associated cognitive impairments. The majority of the studies used tests designed to screen for general cognitive function to test for the prevalence of cognitive impairment, with the most common one being Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), followed by MMSE and TICS. MoCA reported the highest prevalence of the general cognitive screeners which suggests higher sensitivity and specificity. Telephone Interview for Cognitive Status (TICS) demonstrated similar scores as MoCA despite administration being remote while MMSE identified the lowest prevalence. Four studies also used domain-specific cognitive evaluations and reported instances of cognitive impairment in individuals who had previously tested healthy. Furthermore, the results gathered in this review were stratified based on disease symptom severity. This review identifies MoCA to be better suited for evaluating general cognitive impairment in older adults. TICS has the added utility in being able to access a wider range of older adults through remote screening. Disease severity must be clearly defined to allow better comparisons between studies and allow for standardization. Early identification of PASC-associated cognitive impairment in middle-aged and older adults can be performed using general cognitive function evaluations and administering a baseline cognitive evaluation one month after infection is suggested.

Studies during and following the height of the Coronavirus pandemic show that psychological and physical health levels decrease, due to factors such as reduced human contact and anxiety. However, there is little to no research on how quality of life levels would change over the course of the pandemic for families who have the added stress of having a child with a developmental complication. To answer this question, this study utilized longitudinal data from the Babble Boot Camp, a project under the ASU Speech Language Genetics Lab, to analyze quality of life measures in families who have children with Classic Galactosemia (CG). CG is an inborn metabolic disorder that causes an intolerance to galactose, a sugar in dairy, the effects of which can be deadly. These children often show signs of developmental delays in multiple areas within the first few years of life. Studying quality of life surveys before, during, and after the most intense phase of the pandemic, this study investigates the difference between these families and those with typical children.