METHODS: The Noor Evidence-Based Medicine Questionnaire was tested among physicians in a government hospital between July and August 2018. Exploratory factor analysis and internal consistency reliability-based Cronbach's alpha statistic were conducted.
RESULTS: The questionnaire was distributed among 94 physicians, and 90 responded (response rate of 95.7%). The initial number of items in the KAP domains of the Noor Evidence-Based Medicine Questionnaire were 15, 17, and 13, respectively; however, two items in the practice domain with communalities <0.25 and factor loadings <0.4 were removed. The factor structure accounted for 52.33%, 66.29%, and 55.39% of data variance in the KAP domains, respectively. Cronbach's alpha values were 0.81, 0.81, and 0.84 for KAP domains, respectively, indicating high reliability.
CONCLUSIONS: This questionnaire can be used to evaluate the knowledge, attitudes, and behaviour of healthcare professionals toward EBM. Future testing of this questionnaire among other medical personnel groups will help expand the scope of this tool.
METHODS: In this research work, the systematic review, meta-analysis and meta-regression approaches are used to approximate the prevalence of stress, anxiety and depression within front-line healthcare workers caring for COVID-19 patients. The keywords of prevalence, anxiety, stress, depression, psychopathy, mental illness, mental disorder, doctor, physician, nurse, hospital staff, 2019-nCoV, COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2 and Coronaviruses were used for searching the SID, MagIran, IranMedex, IranDoc, ScienceDirect, Embase, Scopus, PubMed, Web of Science (ISI) and Google Scholar databases. The search process was conducted in December 2019 to June 2020. In order to amalgamate and analyze the reported results within the collected studies, the random effects model is used. The heterogeneity of the studies is assessed using the I2 index. Lastly, the data analysis is performed within the Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software.
RESULTS: Of the 29 studies with a total sample size of 22,380, 21 papers have reported the prevalence of depression, 23 have reported the prevalence of anxiety, and 9 studies have reported the prevalence of stress. The prevalence of depression is 24.3% (18% CI 18.2-31.6%), the prevalence of anxiety is 25.8% (95% CI 20.5-31.9%), and the prevalence of stress is 45% (95% CI 24.3-67.5%) among the hospitals' Hospital staff caring for the COVID-19 patients. According to the results of meta-regression analysis, with increasing the sample size, the prevalence of depression and anxiety decreased, and this was statistically significant (P health policy-makers should take measures to control and prevent mental disorders in the Hospital staff.
METHODS: CINAHL and Medline (via EBSCOhost), Google Scholar, PubMed, ProQuest, Sage Journals, and Science Direct were searched. Both quantitative and/or qualitative studies in the English language were included. Intervention studies and studies focusing on HL assessment tools and prevalence of low HL were excluded. The risk of biasness reduced with the involvement of two reviewers independently assessing study eligibility and quality.
RESULTS: A total of 30 studies were included, which consist of 19 quantitative, 9 qualitative, and 2 mixed-method studies. Out of 17 studies, 13 reported deficiency of HL-related knowledge among healthcare providers and 1 among patients. Three studies showed a positive attitude of healthcare providers towards learning about HL. Another three studies demonstrated patients feel shame exposing their literacy and undergoing HL assessment. Common HL communication techniques reported practiced by healthcare providers were the use of everyday language, teach-back method, and providing patients with reading materials and aids, while time constraint was the most reported HL perceived barriers by both healthcare providers and patients.
CONCLUSION: Significant gaps exists in HL knowledge among healthcare providers and patients that needs immediate intervention. Such as, greater effort placed in creating a health system that provides an opportunity for healthcare providers to learn about HL and patients to access health information with taking consideration of their perceived barriers.
METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted in a universal sample of 307 health professionals comprising of nurses, medical assistants, medical residents, medical officers and physicians across medical and casualty departments in a Malaysian public hospital. The self-administered questionnaire consisted of items on socio-demographics, WhatsApp usage characteristics and the type of communication events during clinical practice.
RESULTS: The majority of respondents (68.4%) perceived WhatsApp as beneficial during clinical practice. In multivariate analysis, perceived benefits was significantly higher amongst the clinical management group (aOR=2.6, 95% CI 1.5-4.6, p=0.001), those using WhatsApp for >12months (aOR=1.7, 95% CI 1.0-3.0, p=0.047), those receiving response ≤15min to a new communication (aOR=1.9, 95% CI 1.1-3.2, p=0.017), and frequent information giving events (aOR=2.4, 95% CI 1.2-4.8, p=0.016).
CONCLUSION: Perceived benefits of WhatsApp use in clinical practice was significantly associated with usage characteristics and type of communication events. This study lays the foundation for quality improvement innovations in patient management delivered through m-Health technology.
METHODS: This is a quasi-experimental study conducted in 20 intervention and 20 matched control clinics. We surveyed all HCPs who were directly involved in patient management. A self-administered questionnaire which included six questions on job satisfaction were assessed on a scale of 1-4 at baseline (April and May 2017) and post-intervention phase (March and April 2019). Unadjusted intervention effect was calculated based on absolute differences in mean scores between intervention and control groups after implementation. Difference-in-differences analysis was used in the multivariable linear regression model and adjusted for providers and clinics characteristics to detect changes in job satisfaction following EnPHC interventions. A negative estimate indicates relative decrease in job satisfaction in the intervention group compared with control group.
RESULTS: A total of 1042 and 1215 HCPs responded at baseline and post-intervention respectively. At post-intervention, the intervention group reported higher level of stress with adjusted differences of - 0.139 (95% CI -0.266,-0.012; p = 0.032). Nurses, being the largest workforce in public clinics were the only group experiencing dissatisfaction at post-intervention. In subgroup analysis, nurses from intervention group experienced increase in work stress following EnPHC interventions with adjusted differences of - 0.223 (95% CI -0.419,-0.026; p = 0.026). Additionally, the same group were less likely to perceive their profession as well-respected at post-intervention (β = - 0.175; 95% CI -0.331,-0.019; p = 0.027).
CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that EnPHC interventions had resulted in some untoward effect on HCPs' job satisfaction. Job dissatisfaction can have detrimental effects on the organisation and healthcare system. Therefore, provider experience and well-being should be considered before introducing healthcare delivery reforms to avoid overburdening of HCPs.
METHOD: This is a multi-site cross-sectional study. The authors conducted a survey based on a translated self-administered questionnaire to participants from seven core hospital departments.
RESULTS: While most health-care workers regardless of department and specialty took their duty to prevent suicide seriously, a large majority of them expressed negative attitudes such as finding suicidal behavior irritating, and more than half believed suicidal attempts were a way of making others sorry. However, psychiatric workers were less likely to have judgmental attitudes that included believing suicide attempters as being selfish or trying to get sympathy from others.
CONCLUSIONS: As there were more similarities than differences in health-care workers' attitudes toward suicide, recommendations on basic and continuous suicide prevention and management training among hospital workers were made. The interventions focused on improving knowledge, affective, and skill-based areas that were aimed to correct the wrongful understanding of and to minimize the negative attitudes toward suicidal individuals indicated by the study results.
DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: Using difference in differences model, BIMC Hospitals and Siloam Hospital Bali were compared before and after shift schedule realignment to test the association between shift schedule realignment and patient safety culture.
FINDINGS: Shift schedule realignment was associated with a significant improvement in staffing (coefficient 1.272; 95% CI 0.842 - 1.702; p<0.001), teamwork within units (coefficient 1.689; 95% CI 1.206 - 2.171; p<0.001), teamwork across units (coefficient 1.862; 95% CI 1.415 - 2.308; p<0.001), handoffs and transitions (coefficient 0.999; 95% CI 0.616 - 1.382; p<0.001), frequency of error reported (coefficient 1.037; 95% CI 0.581 - 1.493; p<0.001), feedback and communication about error (coefficient 1.412; 95% CI 0.982 - 1.841; p<0.001) and communication openness (coefficient 1.393; 95% CI 0.968 - 1.818; p<0.001).
PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: With positive impact on patient safety culture, shift schedule realignment should be considered as quality improvement initiative. It stretches the compressed workload suffered by staff while maintaining 40 h per week in accordance with applicable laws and regulations.
ORIGINALITY/VALUE: Shift schedule realignment, designed to improve patient safety culture, has never been implemented in any Indonesian private hospital. Other hospital managers might also appreciate knowing about the shift schedule realignment to improve the patient safety culture.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: We performed literature search using 4 databases from Medline, Cinahl, PubMed and Scopus from inception up to March 15, 2021 and selected relevant cross-sectional studies. Publication bias was assessed using funnel plot. Random effects model was used to estimate the pooled prevalence while risk factors were reported in odds ratio (OR) with 95% CI.
RESULTS: We included 148 studies with 159,194 HCPs and the pooled prevalence for depression was 37.5% (95%CI: 33.8-41.3), anxiety 39.7(95%CI: 34.3-45.1), stress 36.4% (95%CI: 23.2-49.7), fear 71.3% (95%CI: 54.6-88.0), burnout 68.3% (95%CI: 54.0-82.5), and low resilience was 16.1% (95%CI: 12.8-19.4), respectively. The heterogeneity was high (I2>99.4%). Meta-analysis reported that both females (OR = 1.48; 95% CI = 1.30-1.68) and nurses (OR = 1.21; 95%CI = 1.02-1.45) were at increased risk of having depression and anxiety [(Female: OR = 1.66; 95% CI = 1.49-1.85), (Nurse: OR = 1.36; 95%CI = 1.16-1.58)]. Females were at increased risk of getting stress (OR = 1.59; 95%CI = 1.28-1.97).
CONCLUSION: In conclusion, one third of HCPs suffered from depression, anxiety and stress and more than two third of HCPs suffered from fear and burnout during the COVID-19 pandemic in Asia.
SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The COVID-19 pandemic has extensively impacted global healthcare systems. We hypothesized that the degree of psychological impact would be higher for surgical providers deployed for COVID-19 work, certain surgical specialties, and for those who knew of someone diagnosed with, or who died, of COVID-19.
METHODS: We conducted a global web-based survey to investigate the psychological impact of COVID-19. The primary outcomes were the depression anxiety stress scale-21 and Impact of Event Scale-Revised scores.
RESULTS: A total of 4283 participants from 101 countries responded. 32.8%, 30.8%, 25.9%, and 24.0% screened positive for depression, anxiety, stress, and PTSD respectively. Respondents who knew someone who died of COVID-19 were more likely to screen positive for depression, anxiety, stress, and PTSD (OR 1.3, 1.6, 1.4, 1.7 respectively, all P < 0.05). Respondents who knew of someone diagnosed with COVID-19 were more likely to screen positive for depression, stress, and PTSD (OR 1.2, 1.2, and 1.3 respectively, all P < 0.05). Surgical specialties that operated in the head and neck region had higher psychological distress among its surgeons. Deployment for COVID- 19-related work was not associated with increased psychological distress.
CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 pandemic may have a mental health legacy outlasting its course. The long-term impact of this ongoing traumatic event underscores the importance of longitudinal mental health care for healthcare personnel, with particular attention to those who know of someone diagnosed with, or who died of COVID-19.