OBJECTIVE: To investigate the global impact of COVID-19 on urological providers and the provision of urological patient care.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A cross-sectional, web-based survey was conducted from March 30, 2020 to April 7, 2020. A 55-item questionnaire was developed to investigate the impact of COVID-19 on various aspects of urological services. Target respondents were practising urologists, urology trainees, and urology nurses/advanced practice providers.
OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The primary outcome was the degree of reduction in urological services, which was further stratified by the geographical location, degree of outbreak, and nature and urgency of urological conditions. The secondary outcome was the duration of delay in urological services.
RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: A total of 1004 participants responded to our survey, and they were mostly based in Asia, Europe, North America, and South America. Worldwide, 41% of the respondents reported that their hospital staff members had been diagnosed with COVID-19 infection, 27% reported personnel shortage, and 26% had to be deployed to take care of COVID-19 patients. Globally, only 33% of the respondents felt that they were given adequate personal protective equipment, and many providers expressed fear of going to work (47%). It was of concerning that 13% of the respondents were advised not to wear a surgical face mask for the fear of scaring their patients, and 21% of the respondents were advised not to discuss COVID-19 issues or concerns on media. COVID-19 had a global impact on the cut-down of urological services, including outpatient clinic appointments, outpatient investigations and procedures, and urological surgeries. The degree of cut-down of urological services increased with the degree of COVID-19 outbreak. On average, 28% of outpatient clinics, 30% of outpatient investigations and procedures, and 31% of urological surgeries had a delay of >8 wk. Urological services for benign conditions were more affected than those for malignant conditions. Finally, 47% of the respondents believed that the accumulated workload could be dealt with in a timely manner after the COVID-19 outbreak, but 50% thought the postponement of urological services would affect the treatment and survival outcomes of their patients. One of the limitations of this study is that Africa, Australia, and New Zealand were under-represented.
CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 had a profound global impact on urological care and urology providers. The degree of cut-down of urological services increased with the degree of COVID-19 outbreak and was greater for benign than for malignant conditions. One-fourth of urological providers were deployed to assist with COVID-19 care. Many providers reported insufficient personal protective equipment and support from hospital administration.
PATIENT SUMMARY: Coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) has led to significant delay in outpatient care and surgery in urology, particularly in regions with the most COVID-19 cases. A considerable proportion of urology health care professionals have been deployed to assist in COVID-19 care, despite the perception of insufficient training and protective equipment.
CONTENT: This project was undertaken by a Thematic Working Group on Environmental Health Experts (TWG 10) under the Malaysian National Environmental Health Action Plan. Sixteen pre-selected environmental health issues were presented to a two focus group discussions among 20 environmental health and related professionals who then scored each issue on its magnitude and severity scale.
SUMMARY: The total of these scores generated a list of priority environmental health issues for Malaysia. Children environmental health came out as the environmental health issue of the highest priority.
OUTLOOK: We hope that this list of priority environmental health issues will be used for prioritising academic and professional manpower training, research funding allocation and planning for intervention programmes by various stakeholders.
METHODS: We downloaded COVID-19 outbreak data of the number of confirmed cases in all countries as of October 19, 2020. The IRT-based predictive model was built to determine the pandemic IP for each country. A model building scheme was demonstrated to fit the number of cumulative infected cases. Model parameters were estimated using the Solver add-in tool in Microsoft Excel. The absolute advantage coefficient (AAC) was computed to track the IP at the minimum of incremental points on a given ogive curve. The time-to-event analysis (a.k.a. survival analysis) was performed to compare the difference in IPs among continents using the area under the curve (AUC) and the respective 95% confidence intervals (CIs). An online comparative dashboard was created on Google Maps to present the epidemic prediction for each country.
RESULTS: The top 3 countries that were hit severely by COVID-19 were France, Malaysia, and Nepal, with IP days at 263, 262, and 262, respectively. The top 3 continents that were hit most based on IP days were Europe, South America, and North America, with their AUCs and 95% CIs at 0.73 (0.61-0.86), 0.58 (0.31-0.84), and 0.54 (0.44-0.64), respectively. An online time-event result was demonstrated and shown on Google Maps, comparing the IP probabilities across continents.
CONCLUSION: An IRT modeling scheme fitting the epidemic data was used to predict the length of IP days. Europe, particularly France, was hit seriously by COVID-19 based on the IP days. The IRT model incorporated with AAC is recommended to determine the pandemic IP.
METHODS: This is a cross-sectional study where patients with haematological cancers attending two major hospitals were recruited. Anxiety and depression symptoms were assessed using the Hospital Anxiety and Depression scale (HADS). Quality of life (QoL) of these patients was measured using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer quality of life questionnaire (EORTC QLQ C30). An overall summary QoL score in combination with financial difficulty score and global health score were used for analysis.
RESULTS: A total of 319 patients were recruited. Thirty-three percent of patients had anxiety symptoms, 23.5% had depression symptoms. In summary the overall score of QoL is significantly lower in patients with higher scores for depression and anxiety, (p<0.05). Patients who exhibit anxiety symptoms were more frequently female, still undergoing treatment whereas patients who had higher depression scores were older and had acute leukemias or myeloproliferative neoplasms. Patients who have depression are significantly associated with a higher financial difficulty score, p<0.05.
CONCLUSION: The poor quality of life in patients who have anxiety and depression should raise awareness amongst the health professions treating them so that additional support can be provided.