CONCLUSION: Generally, HCWs in Perlis had good KAP with regards to COVID-19 infection and its preventive measures. Challenges underlined by HCWs while working during the MCO were increased workload, difficulty to shop for daily essentials, exercise and meet with family members. Should good COVID-19 KAP be sustained, they might contribute to success in combating this disease.

CONCLUSIONS: MERS provides rich information on the characteristics of reported MEs. Low contribution to reporting from healthcare facilities other than government hospitals and non-pharmacists requires further investigation. Thus, a feasible approach to promote MERS among healthcare providers in both public and private sectors needs to be formulated and strengthened. Preventive measures to minimise MEs should be directed to improve prescribing competency among the fallible prescribers identified.

RESULTS: A total of 240 healthcare workers participated and all of them received the Pfizer Messenger RNA vaccine. Our study found that a large majority of vaccine recipients (87.5%, n=210) experienced AEFI to COVID-19 vaccine for either the first, second, or both doses. More than 80% of them experienced more than one type of AEFI. The most common AEFI reported during the first and second dose was localised symptom such as pain at injection site (60-68%), pain on the injected arm (52-61%), and swelling at injection site (32-33%). Common systemic symptoms were fever (22- 57%), myalgia (20-45%), and dizziness (24-26%). Although a large majority experienced AEFI, these reactions were mostly of mild to moderate severity (47.3-73.6%). The mean duration of AEFI onset was within 30 minutes to about 1 day (0.33-22.5 hours) of injection and lasted between 30 minutes and 2.5 days. There was no association between demographic characteristic of participants and severity of AEFI to COVID-19 vaccine. Mean duration of fever was significantly (p=0.005) longer after the second dose (34.2 hours) of vaccine compared to first (20.6 hours) CONCLUSION: This study shows that a large majority of COVID-19 vaccine recipients experienced AEFI; however, these reactions were mostly of mild to moderate severity and lasted between 30 minutes and 2.5 days. A large majority experienced more than one type of AEFI. The most common AEFI was localised reactions consisting of pain and swelling at the injection site and pain on the injected arm. The most common systemic reactions were fever, myalgia, and dizziness. Duration of fever was significantly longer after the second dose.

TRIAL REGISTRATION DETAILS: The protocol for this scoping review is registered with Open Science Framework, available at DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/R3Y8U.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors screened search results, extracted data from included studies, assessed the risk of bias in the studies and judged the certainty of the available evidence. We used mean differences (MDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) as the effect estimate for continuous outcomes, and random-effects meta-analysis to combine data  MAIN RESULTS:  We included 17 studies with 830 participants aged 18 to 70 years. We judged three trials at high risk of bias, two at low risk and 12 at unclear risk of bias.  None of the studies measured our primary outcome of the incidence of infection in dental healthcare providers.  The primary outcome in the studies was reduction in the level of bacterial contamination measured in colony-forming units (CFUs) at distances of less than 2 m (intended to capture larger droplets) and 2 m or more (to capture droplet nuclei from aerosols arising from the participant's oral cavity). It is unclear what size of CFU reduction represents a clinically significant amount. There is low- to very low-certainty evidence that chlorhexidine (CHX) may reduce bacterial contamination, as measured by CFUs, compared with no rinsing or rinsing with water. There were similar results when comparing cetylpyridinium chloride (CPC) with no rinsing and when comparing CPC, essential oils/herbal mouthwashes or boric acid with water. There is very low-certainty evidence that tempered mouth rinses may provide a greater reduction in CFUs than cold mouth rinses. There is low-certainty evidence that CHX may reduce CFUs more than essential oils/herbal mouthwashes. The evidence for other head-to-head comparisons was limited and inconsistent.  The studies did not provide any information on costs, change in micro-organisms in the patient's mouth or adverse events such as temporary discolouration, altered taste, allergic reaction or hypersensitivity. The studies did not assess acceptability of the intervention to patients or feasibility of implementation for dentists.  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: None of the included studies measured the incidence of infection among dental healthcare providers. The studies measured only reduction in level of bacterial contamination in aerosols. None of the studies evaluated viral or fungal contamination. We have only low to very low certainty for all findings. We are unable to draw conclusions regarding whether there is a role for preprocedural mouth rinses in reducing infection risk or the possible superiority of one preprocedural rinse over another. Studies are needed that measure the effect of rinses on infectious disease risk among dental healthcare providers and on contaminated aerosols at larger distances with standardised outcome measurement.

CONCLUSION: Department, profession and ethnicity were the demographic characteristics that correlated with knowledge and attitudes of HCPs on organ donation. Efforts to improve DOD rates in Malaysia should include targeted interventions to address the knowledge and attitudes of HCPs working in critical care areas.