DESCRIPTION: COVID-19 directly affects pregnant women causing more severe disease and adverse pregnancy outcomes. The indirect effects due to the monumental COVID-19 response are much worse, increasing maternal and neonatal mortality.
ASSESSMENT: Amidst COVID-19, governments must balance effective COVID-19 response measures while continuing delivery of essential health services. Using the World Health Organization's operational guidelines as a base, countries must conduct contextualized analyses to tailor their operations. Evidence based information on different services and comparative cost-benefits will help decisions on trade-offs. Situational analyses identifying extent and reasons for service disruptions and estimates of impacts using modelling techniques will guide prioritization of services. Ensuring adequate supplies, maintaining core interventions, expanding non-physician workforce and deploying telehealth are some adaptive measures to optimize care. Beyond the COVID-19 pandemic, governments must reinvest in maternal and child health by building more resilient maternal health services supported by political commitment and multisectoral engagement, and with assistance from international partners.
CONCLUSIONS: Multi-sectoral investments providing high-quality care that ensures continuity and available to all segments of the population are needed. A robust primary healthcare system linked to specialist care and accessible to all segments of the population including marginalized subgroups is of paramount importance. Systematic approaches to digital health care solutions to bridge gaps in service is imperative. Future pandemic preparedness programs must include action plans for resilient maternal health services.
METHODS: This was a data review involving children aged
METHODOLOGY: A total of 571 healthcare workers at COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 wards as well as the emergency department and laboratory staff at COVID-19 testing labs were recruited. The presence of novel human coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) and IgM/IgG antibodies were confirmed in all healthcare workers. The healthcare workers responded to an online Google Forms questionnaire that evaluates demographic information and comorbidities, exposure and adherence to infection prevention and control measures against COVID-19. Descriptive analysis was performed using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences 24.0.
RESULTS: Three healthcare workers (0.5%) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, while the remaining 568 (99.5%) were negative. All were negative for IgM and IgG antibodies during recruitment (day 1) and follow-up (day 15). More than 90% of the healthcare workers followed infection prevention and control practices recommendations regardless of whether they have been exposed to occupational risk for COVID-19.
CONCLUSIONS: The healthcare workers' high level of adherence to infection prevention practices at this hospital helped reduce and minimize their occupational exposure to COVID-19.
METHODS: Electronic databases and country-specific healthcare databases were searched to identify relevant studies/reports. The quality assessment of individual studies was conducted using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Country-specific proportion of individuals with COVID-19 who developed ARDS and reported death were combined in a random-effect meta-analysis to give a pooled mortality estimate of ARDS.
RESULTS: The overall pooled mortality estimate among 10,815 ARDS cases in COVID-19 patients was 39% (95% CI: 23-56%). The pooled mortality estimate for China was 69% (95% CI: 67-72%). In Europe, the highest mortality estimate among COVID-19 patients with ARDS was reported in Poland (73%; 95% CI: 58-86%) while Germany had the lowest mortality estimate (13%; 95% CI: 2-29%) among COVID-19 patients with ARDS. The median crude mortality rate of COVID-19 patients with reported corticosteroid use was 28.0% (lower quartile: 13.9%; upper quartile: 53.6%).
CONCLUSIONS: The high mortality in COVID-19 associated ARDS necessitates a prompt and aggressive treatment strategy which includes corticosteroids. Most of the studies included no information on the dosing regimen of corticosteroid therapy, however, low-dose corticosteroid therapy or pulse corticosteroid therapy appears to have a beneficial role in the management of severely ill COVID-19 patients.
METHOD: A systematic review and metanalysis was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA criteria. The PubMed, Scopus, Science direct, Web of science, CINHAL, Medline, and Google Scholar databases were searched with no lower time-limt and until 24 June 2020. The heterogeneity of the studies was measured using I2 test and the publication bias was assessed by the Egger's test at the significance level of 0.05.
RESULTS: The I2 test was used to evaluate the heterogeneity of the selected studies, based on the results of I2 test, the prevalence of sleep disturbances in nurses and physicians is I2: 97.4% and I2: 97.3% respectively. After following the systematic review processes, 7 cross-sectional studies were selected for meta-analysis. Six studies with the sample size of 3745 nurses were examined in and the prevalence of sleep disturbances was approximated to be 34.8% (95% CI: 24.8-46.4%). The prevalence of sleep disturbances in physicians was also measured in 5 studies with the sample size of 2123 physicians. According to the results, the prevalence of sleep disturbances in physicians caring for the COVID-19 patients was reported to be 41.6% (95% CI: 27.7-57%).
CONCLUSION: Healthcare workers, as the front line of the fight against COVID-19, are more vulnerable to the harmful effects of this disease than other groups in society. Increasing workplace stress increases sleep disturbances in the medical staff, especially nurses and physicians. In other words, increased stress due to the exposure to COVID-19 increases the prevalence of sleep disturbances in nurses and physicians. Therefore, it is important for health policymakers to provide solutions and interventions to reduce the workplace stress and pressures on medical staff.
METHODS: We surveyed 16 512 adults from July 2020 to August 2021 in 30 territories. Participants self-reported their medical histories and the perceived impact of COVID-19 on 18 lifestyle factors and 13 health outcomes. For each disease subgroup, we generated lifestyle, health outcome, and bridge networks. Variables with the highest centrality indices in each were identified central or bridge. We validated these networks using nonparametric and case-dropping subset bootstrapping and confirmed central and bridge variables' significantly higher indices through a centrality difference test.
FINDINGS: Among the 48 networks, 44 were validated (all correlation-stability coefficients >0.25). Six central lifestyle factors were identified: less consumption of snacks (for the chronic disease: anxiety), less sugary drinks (cancer, gastric ulcer, hypertension, insomnia, and pre-diabetes), less smoking tobacco (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease), frequency of exercise (depression and fatty liver disease), duration of exercise (irritable bowel syndrome), and overall amount of exercise (autoimmune disease, diabetes, eczema, heart attack, and high cholesterol). Two central health outcomes emerged: less emotional distress (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, eczema, fatty liver disease, gastric ulcer, heart attack, high cholesterol, hypertension, insomnia, and pre-diabetes) and quality of life (anxiety, autoimmune disease, cancer, depression, diabetes, and irritable bowel syndrome). Four bridge lifestyles were identified: consumption of fruits and vegetables (diabetes, high cholesterol, hypertension, and insomnia), less duration of sitting (eczema, fatty liver disease, and heart attack), frequency of exercise (autoimmune disease, depression, and heart attack), and overall amount of exercise (anxiety, gastric ulcer, and insomnia). The centrality difference test showed the central and bridge variables had significantly higher centrality indices than others in their networks (P