METHODS: A cross-sectional survey study utilising snowball sampling was performed involving doctors, nurses and allied health professions from 23 hospitals in Singapore, Malaysia, India and Indonesia between 29 May 2020 and 13 July 2020. This survey collated demographic data and workplace conditions and included three validated questionnaires: the Safety Attitudes Questionnaire (SAQ), Oldenburg Burnout Inventory and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale. We performed multivariate mixed-model regression to assess independent associations with the SAQ total percentage agree rate (PAR).
RESULTS: We obtained 3,163 responses. The SAQ total PARs were found to be 35.7%, 15.0%, 51.0% and 3.3% among the respondents from Singapore, Malaysia, India and Indonesia, respectively. Burnout scores were highest among respondents from Indonesia and lowest among respondents from India (70.9%-85.4% vs. 56.3%-63.6%, respectively). Multivariate analyses revealed that meeting burnout and depression thresholds and shifts lasting ≥12 h were significantly associated with lower SAQ total PAR.
CONCLUSION: Addressing the factors contributing to high burnout and depression and placing strict limits on work hours per shift may contribute significantly towards improving safety culture among HCWs and should remain priorities during the pandemic.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted using an online survey between February and May 2022, with 423 respondents. The questionnaire consisted of socio-demographic, assessment of knowledge level and acceptance level towards COVID-19 vaccine. The descriptive analysis and non-parametric tests were employed to investigate the study outline objectives.
RESULTS: Of all 423 participants, 293 (69.3%) of the participants had a high level of knowledge about the COVID- 19 vaccine (median knowledge score 6; IQR = 3), and 239 (56.5%) were reported to have a low level of vaccine acceptance (median acceptance scores 4; IQR=2). The knowledge level towards the COVID-19 vaccine was significantly associated with the vaccine acceptance level (p<0.001).
CONCLUSION: The community's level of knowledge towards COVID-19 vaccine was high; however, the vaccine acceptance was low.
METHODS: This is an open labelled interventional study of a virtual brief psychosocial intervention, called SANUBARI. The program was conducted among COVID-19 patients hospitalized in the COVID-19 wards of two centres from May 2020 until August 2020. Inclusion criteria include patients aged eighteen years and above, diagnosed with COVID-19, medically stable, speaking and reading Bahasa Melayu or English. All study subjects attended two sessions on OHP via telecommunication method and answered questionnaires (General Self-Efficacy (GSE) Scale, Patient Health Questionnaire and Generalized Anxiety Disorder Questionnaire) via computer-assisted self-interview. Data collection was done before the start of the intervention, at the end of the intervention and a month post-intervention.
RESULTS: A total of 37 patients were recruited and more than half of the subjects were males (62.2%), single (75.5%) and from the Malay ethnicity (78.4%). Seventy-three per cent of subjects had received tertiary education, and most of them were students reflecting a higher unemployment status (73%). Most subjects have no comorbid chronic medical illness (89.2%), and none has a comorbid psychiatric illness. Comparison of the GSE score across 3-time points (preintervention, immediate post-intervention and a month postintervention) showed statistically significant improvement in the mean total GSE score immediate and a month postintervention as compared to the pre-intervention; from mean total GSE score of 29.78 pre-intervention to 34.73 (mean difference 4.946, 95% Confidence Interval 95%CI: 3.361, 6.531) immediate post-intervention and 33.08 (mean difference 3.297, 95%CI: 1.211, 5.348) a month post intervention. There was no significant association between the socio-demographic or clinical data, depressive and anxiety symptoms, and changes in GSE scores over three time points.
CONCLUSION: COVID-19 patients improved their self-efficacy levels after the virtual brief OHP intervention, and it maintained a month post-intervention, protecting them from psychological stress and ultimately enhances wellbeing during this coronavirus pandemic.
METHODS: A COVID-19 working group within the International Late Effects of Childhood Cancer Guideline Harmonization Group (IGHG) distributed a questionnaire to LTFU service providers in 37 countries across Europe, Asia, North America, Central/South America, and Australia. The questionnaire assessed how care delivery methods changed during the pandemic and respondents' level of worry about the pandemic's impact on LTFU care delivery, their finances, their health, and that of their family and friends.
RESULTS: Among 226 institutions, providers from 178 (79%) responded. Shortly after the initial outbreak, 42% of LTFU clinics closed. Restrictions during the pandemic resulted in fewer in-person consultations and an increased use of telemedicine, telephone, and email consultations. The use of a risk assessment to prioritise the method of LTFU consultation for individual CCS increased from 12 to 47%. While respondents anticipated in-person consultations to remain the primary method for LTFU service delivery, they expected significantly increased use of telemedicine and telephone consultations after the pandemic. On average, respondents reported highest levels of worry about psychosocial well-being of survivors.
CONCLUSIONS: The pandemic necessitated changes in LTFU service delivery, including greater use of virtual LTFU care and risk-stratification to identify CCS that need in-person evaluations.
IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Increased utilisation of virtual LTFU care and risk stratification is likely to persist post-pandemic.
METHODS: We propose a Susceptible-Vaccinated-Exposed-Infectious-Hospitalized-Death-Recovered model with a time-varying transmission rate [Formula: see text] to fit the multiple waves of the COVID-19 pandemic and to estimate the IFR and [Formula: see text] in the aforementioned six countries. The level of immune evasion and the intrinsic transmissibility advantage of the Omicron variant are also considered in this model.
RESULTS: We fit our model to the reported deaths well. We estimate the IFR (in the range of 0.016 to 0.136%) and the reproduction number [Formula: see text] (in the range of 0 to 9) in the six countries. Multiple pandemic waves in each country were observed in our simulation results.
CONCLUSIONS: The invasion of the Omicron variant caused the new pandemic waves in the six countries. The higher [Formula: see text] suggests the intrinsic transmissibility advantage of the Omicron variant. Our model simulation forecast implies that the Omicron pandemic wave may be mitigated due to the increasing immunized population and vaccine coverage.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We reviewed the medical records of all patients that underwent bullectomy from 1st June 2017 to 31st May 2022. Mann Whitney U-test was completed for all variables. Primary objective was to compare operating time (OT), global operating time (GOT), post-operative length of stay (LOS) and complication rate.
RESULTS: A total of 90 bullectomies performed in which 36 were approached via iVATS and 54 NiVATS. It was found that the post-operative LOS, GOT, and OT were significantly shorter in the NiVATS as compared to iVATS. Complication rate between both groups showed no significant difference.
CONCLUSION: NiVATS bullectomy demonstrated a safe and reliable alternative surgical approach with superior surgical outcome than iVATS bullectomy.