METHODS: A cross-sectional population survey using an online questionnaire commenced on 14 February 2020. The study participants were residents of Taiwan ages 20 to 70 years. The 6-item state version of the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI-6) was used to assess anxiety symptoms. The questions about preventive measures asked participants about their personal protection, cough etiquette, contact precautions, voluntary quarantine, and prompt reporting. Multivariable logistic regression was used to determine the factors influencing an increase in the preventive measures scores.
RESULTS: Of a total of 3555 completed responses, a total of 52.1% (95% confidence interval [CI] 50.4-53.7) of the respondents reported moderate to severe levels of anxiety symptoms in the past week, whereas 48.8% (95%CI 47.2-50.5) reported moderate to severe anxiety symptoms at the beginning of the outbreak. With a higher score indicating greater anxiety, the median scores for anxiety symptoms in the past week and at the beginning of the outbreak were 46.7 (IQR [interquartile range] 36.7-53.3) and 43.3 (IQR 36.7-53.3), respectively. The median scores for the preventive measures taken in the past week and at the beginning of the outbreak were 26.0 (IQR 21.0-30.0) and 24.0 (IQR 19.0-28.0), respectively, out of a maximum score of 36. In the multivariable analysis, an increased anxiety symptom score from the beginning of the outbreak to the past week (adjusted OR = 7.38, 95%CI 6.28-8.66) was a strongly significant determinant of an increased preventive measures score in the past week compared with the score at the beginning of the outbreak.
CONCLUSIONS: Anxiety and preventive measures scores were high and increased with the epidemic rate. Higher anxiety was associated with an increased use of preventive measures against COVID-19.
METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was conducted from 3 to 12 April 2020. The health belief model (HBM) was used to assess predictors of the intent to receive the vaccine and the WTP.
RESULTS: A total of 1,159 complete responses was received. The majority reported a definite intent to receive the vaccine (48.2%), followed by a probable intent (29.8%) and a possible intent (16.3%). Both items under the perceived benefits construct in the HBM, namely believe the vaccination decreases the chance of infection (OR = 2.51, 95% CI 1.19-5.26) and the vaccination makes them feel less worry (OR = 2.19, 95% CI 1.03-4.65), were found to have the highest significant odds of a definite intention to take the vaccine. The mean ± standard deviation (SD) for the amount that participants were willing to pay for a dose of COVID-19 vaccine was MYR$134.0 (SD±79.2) [US$30.66 ± 18.12]. Most of the participants were willing to pay an amount of MYR$100 [US$23] (28.9%) and MYR$50 [US$11.5] (27.2%) for the vaccine. The higher marginal WTP for the vaccine was influenced by no affordability barriers as well as by socio-economic factors, such as higher education levels, professional and managerial occupations and higher incomes.
CONCLUSIONS: The findings demonstrate the utility of HBM constructs in understanding COVID-19 vaccination intention and WTP.
METHODS: An online questionnaire was distributed to cytopathology laboratories in 24 Asia-Pacific countries to explore the impact of restrictive measures on access to health care, use of general and personal protective equipment (PPE), and changes in cytology workflow and workload from February to April 2020.
RESULTS: A total of 167 cytopathology laboratories from 24 countries responded to the survey; the majority reported that restrictive measures that limited the accessibility of health care services had been implemented in their cities and/or countries (80.8%) and their hospitals (83.8%). The respondents noted that COVID-19 had an impact on the cytologic workflow as well as the workload. Approximately one-half of the participants reported the implementation of new biosafety protocols (54.5%) as well as improvements in laboratory facilities (47.3%). Rearrangement or redeployment of the workforce was reported in 53.3% and 34.1% of laboratories, respectively. The majority of the respondents reported a significant reduction (>10%) in caseload associated with both gynecological (82.0%) and nongynecological specimens (78.4%). Most laboratories reported no significant change in the malignancy rates of both gynecological (67.7%) and nongynecological specimens (58.7%) compared with the same period in 2019.
CONCLUSIONS: The results of the survey demonstrated that the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in a significant reduction in the number of cytology specimens examined along with the need to implement new biosafety protocols. These findings underscore the need for the worldwide standardization of biosafety protocols and cytology practice.
METHODS: An anonymous questionnaire survey was distributed electronically between December 2020-January 2021 to the practicing ophthalmic anaesthesia providers in different parts of the world.
RESULTS: The survey identified that apart from reducing elective operating services, the ophthalmic units were ill prepared for the pandemic and the overall management was lacklustre. There was a definite lack of effective peri-operative patient screening, and, streaming processes. Measures for personal protection of staff were not optimal especially during regional/local ophthalmic anaesthesia. Severity of the pandemic, sudden job plan changes, and redeployment to intensive care units/acute covid wards had an adverse psychological impact on the affected staff.
CONCLUSION: Ophthalmic anaesthesia services worldwide have had poor attentiveness to the life-threatening menace and reality of Covid-19 pandemic. A review of the institutional practices to address correctible deficiencies is urgently required. Robust, mandatory, elective, timely preventative strategies need to be implemented to protect patients, and, the precious ophthalmic workforce from potential adverse physical and psychological injuries.
MAIN BODY: Focusing on COVID-19 and migrant workers in Malaysia, this review addresses two research queries: (i) what are the policy responses of the government toward migrants with regard to COVID-19? (ii) what are the lessons learned from the Malaysian experience of COVID-19 and migrants that can inform pandemic preparedness, especially regarding migrant health policy? The review used Arksey and O'Malley's methodological framework refined by Levac, Colquhoun, and O'Brien. In addition to the PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and EBSCO databases, and Malaysian English language newspapers, including the Malay Mail, Malaysiakini, and the New Straits Times, the search also included reports from the websites of government ministries and departments, such as the Immigration Department, Ministry of Human Resources, Ministry of Health, and the International Trade and Industry Ministry.
CONCLUSION: Using the case example of Malaysia and the policy approach toward migrant populations in Malaysia during the height of the COVID pandemic in 2020 and 2021, this paper unravels complex pathways and inter-linkages between the contexts of migration and health which coalesced to engender and exacerbate vulnerability to disease and ill-health for the migrant workers. The lack of coordination and coherence in policies addressing migrant workers during the pandemic, the normalization of cheap and disposable labor in neoliberal economic regimes, and the securitization of migration were key factors contributing to the failure of migration policies to provide protection to migrant workers during COVID-19. The review suggests that policy approaches embodying the principles of Health in All Policies, a whole-of-society approach, and the promotion of safe, just, and regular migration, predicated on equity and inclusion, are integral to a comprehensive and effective response to pandemics such as COVID-19.
METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted from 27 May 2020 to 17 June 2020 using the convenient sampling technique in the general population of Pakistan. Data were collected by designing an online questionnaire consisting of demographic information, knowledge, attitude perceptions, barriers, utilization, and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on telemedicine.
RESULTS: Of the 602 participants included in the study, 70.1% had heard about telemedicine, 54.3% had a good understanding of the definition of "telemedicine," 81.4% had not used telemedicine in the past, 29.9% did not know that telemedicine was available before the COVID-19 pandemic, and 70.4% responded that the COVID-19 pandemic had changed their attitudes toward telemedicine. Gender (p = 0.017) and family income (p = 0.027) had a significant association with the perception of the benefits of telemedicine.
CONCLUSION: The knowledge and usage of telemedicine are lacking due to inadequate awareness and technology. The need of the hour is to maximize the application of telemedicine to overcome the deficiencies of the healthcare system. Hence, it is essential to increase awareness through various means and develop an appropriate infrastructure to attain maximum benefits from telehealth services.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A quality improvement (QI) project was employed over four months, from June to September 2021, during the COVID-19 pandemic in HSB. All adults hospitalised for COVID-19 with intravenous lines were subjected to data collection. A baseline audit was conducted to study BSI incidence from April to May 2021. Implementation was carried out by PDSA cycles and data on BSI rates per 100 admissions was described using a monthly run chart.
RESULTS: At baseline, the BSI rate per 100 admissions was 5.44 before implementing our QI project. Initial changes via PDSA cycles did not bring significant improvements to BSI rates and a rising trend in BSI rates was observed after two PDSA cycles. Further audits identified the problem of noncompliance with the practice of aseptic non-touch technique (ANTT) and a lack of effective leadership in implementing the PVC care bundle. The third PDSA cycle focused on adopting practical leadership skills among senior clinicians to ensure compliance with the prevention bundle and to encourage the use of ultrasound guidance for difficult line insertion. After the third PDSA cycle, the BSI rate per 100 admissions was reduced from 6.41 to 4.34 (p < 0.05). The BSI rates continued to decline down the line for another five months.
CONCLUSION: Through QI initiatives, the risk of BSI can be significantly reduced.
METHODS: As a result, we devised a retrospective study to look at the prevalence of presymptomatic patients with COVID-19 from data sourced via our medical records office. Subsequently, we identify early indicators of infection through demographic information, biochemical and radiological abnormalities which would allow early diagnosis and isolation. In addition, we will look into the clinical significance of this group and their outcome; if it differs from asymptomatic or symptomatic patients. Descriptive statistics were used in addition to tabulating the variables and corresponding values for reference. Variables are compared between the presymptomatic group and others via Chi-square testing and Fisher's exact test, accepting a p value of