METHODS: A rapid online survey comprising 22 items was administered during the rapid outbreak of COVID-19 in Pakistan. Questions were focused on the prevention, transmission, clinical features, and control of COVID-19. In addition, the attitudes and practices of the participants were explored. Descriptive statistics, Mann-Whitney tests, Kruskal-Wallis tests, and regression analysis were carried out during data analysis.
RESULTS: A total of 1257 respondents participated in this study. Most of the respondents had good knowledge (good = 64.8%, average = 30.5%, poor = 4.7%) of COVID-19. Gender, marital status, education, and residence were observed to have a significant association with the knowledge score. A vast majority of the survey respondents (77.0%) believed that COVID-19 would be controlled successfully in Pakistan. The practices of wearing a mask (85.8%) and handwashing (88.1%) were common among the participants.
CONCLUSION: The participants demonstrated good knowledge and reasonable attitudes and practices toward most aspects of the COVID-19 outbreak. Improvements in certain areas could be made by mass-level education.
MAIN BODY: Recent successes in malaria control and elimination have reduced the global malaria burden, but these gains are fragile and progress has stalled in the past 5 years. Withdrawing successful interventions often results in rapid malaria resurgence, primarily threatening vulnerable young children and pregnant women. Malaria programmes are being affected in many ways by COVID-19. For prevention of malaria, insecticide-treated nets need regular renewal, but distribution campaigns have been delayed or cancelled. For detection and treatment of malaria, individuals may stop attending health facilities, out of fear of exposure to COVID-19, or because they cannot afford transport, and health care workers require additional resources to protect themselves from COVID-19. Supplies of diagnostics and drugs are being interrupted, which is compounded by production of substandard and falsified medicines and diagnostics. These disruptions are predicted to double the number of young African children dying of malaria in the coming year and may impact efforts to control the spread of drug resistance. Using examples from successful malaria control and elimination campaigns, we propose strategies to re-establish malaria control activities and maintain elimination efforts in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, which is likely to be a long-term challenge. All sectors of society, including governments, donors, private sector and civil society organisations, have crucial roles to play to prevent malaria resurgence. Sparse resources must be allocated efficiently to ensure integrated health care systems that can sustain control activities against COVID-19 as well as malaria and other priority infectious diseases.
CONCLUSION: As we deal with the COVID-19 pandemic, it is crucial that other major killers such as malaria are not ignored. History tells us that if we do, the consequences will be dire, particularly in vulnerable populations.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: A validated database was used to generate data related to countries with declared lockdown. Simple regression analysis was conducted to assess the rate of change in infection and death rates. Subsequently, a k-means and hierarchical cluster analysis was done to identify the countries that performed similarly. Sweden and South Korea were included as counties without lockdown in a second-phase cluster analysis.
RESULTS: There was a significant 61% and 43% reduction in infection rates 1-week post lockdown in the overall and India cohorts, respectively, supporting its effectiveness. Countries with higher baseline infections and deaths (Spain, Germany, Italy, UK, and France-cluster 1) fared poorly compared to those who declared lockdown early on (Belgium, Austria, New Zealand, India, Hungary, Poland and Malaysia-cluster 2). Sweden and South Korea, countries without lock-down, fared as good as the countries in cluster 2.
CONCLUSION: Lockdown has proven to be an effective strategy is slowing down the SARS-CoV-2 disease progression (infection rate and death) exponentially. The success story of non-lock-down countries (Sweden and South Korea) need to be explored in detail, to identify the variables responsible for the positive results.
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.
OBJECTIVE: Thus, this study aimed to evaluate their perception of face mask wearing during COVID-19 and its contributing factors.
METHODOLOGY: A total of 1024 respondents, aged ≥ 18 years, participated in this online cross-sectional survey from October 2021 to December 2021. The Face Mask Perception Scale (FMPS) was used to measure their perceptions.
RESULTS: Most of the respondents perceived wearing a face mask as uncomfortable. Our findings also revealed statistically significant differences and a small effect (f2 = 0.04) in which respondents who were concerned about being infected by the virus perceived face mask wearing appearance positively (B = - 0.09 units of log-transformed, 95% CI = - 0.15, - 0.04), whereas married respondents perceived it negatively (B = 0.07 units of log-transformed, 95% CI = 0.03, 0.09). There were no statistically significant differences in other domains of FMPS.
CONCLUSION: In conclusion, discomfort was a major complaint. Marital status and fear of COVID-19 infection affected their perceptions. The public health implications of these findings highlight the importance of addressing discomfort and societal perceptions, particularly those influenced by factors such as marital status and COVID-19 experience, to promote widespread acceptance and consistent usage of face masks, which is crucial in mitigating the spread of COVID-19.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the global impact of COVID-19 on urological providers and the provision of urological patient care.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A cross-sectional, web-based survey was conducted from March 30, 2020 to April 7, 2020. A 55-item questionnaire was developed to investigate the impact of COVID-19 on various aspects of urological services. Target respondents were practising urologists, urology trainees, and urology nurses/advanced practice providers.
OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The primary outcome was the degree of reduction in urological services, which was further stratified by the geographical location, degree of outbreak, and nature and urgency of urological conditions. The secondary outcome was the duration of delay in urological services.
RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: A total of 1004 participants responded to our survey, and they were mostly based in Asia, Europe, North America, and South America. Worldwide, 41% of the respondents reported that their hospital staff members had been diagnosed with COVID-19 infection, 27% reported personnel shortage, and 26% had to be deployed to take care of COVID-19 patients. Globally, only 33% of the respondents felt that they were given adequate personal protective equipment, and many providers expressed fear of going to work (47%). It was of concerning that 13% of the respondents were advised not to wear a surgical face mask for the fear of scaring their patients, and 21% of the respondents were advised not to discuss COVID-19 issues or concerns on media. COVID-19 had a global impact on the cut-down of urological services, including outpatient clinic appointments, outpatient investigations and procedures, and urological surgeries. The degree of cut-down of urological services increased with the degree of COVID-19 outbreak. On average, 28% of outpatient clinics, 30% of outpatient investigations and procedures, and 31% of urological surgeries had a delay of >8 wk. Urological services for benign conditions were more affected than those for malignant conditions. Finally, 47% of the respondents believed that the accumulated workload could be dealt with in a timely manner after the COVID-19 outbreak, but 50% thought the postponement of urological services would affect the treatment and survival outcomes of their patients. One of the limitations of this study is that Africa, Australia, and New Zealand were under-represented.
CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 had a profound global impact on urological care and urology providers. The degree of cut-down of urological services increased with the degree of COVID-19 outbreak and was greater for benign than for malignant conditions. One-fourth of urological providers were deployed to assist with COVID-19 care. Many providers reported insufficient personal protective equipment and support from hospital administration.
PATIENT SUMMARY: Coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) has led to significant delay in outpatient care and surgery in urology, particularly in regions with the most COVID-19 cases. A considerable proportion of urology health care professionals have been deployed to assist in COVID-19 care, despite the perception of insufficient training and protective equipment.
METHODS: This is an international, multicenter, hospital-based study on stroke incidence and outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic. We will describe patterns in stroke management, stroke hospitalization rate, and stroke severity, subtype (ischemic/hemorrhagic), and outcomes (including in-hospital mortality) in 2020 during COVID-19 pandemic, comparing them with the corresponding data from 2018 and 2019, and subsequently 2021. We will also use an interrupted time series (ITS) analysis to assess the change in stroke hospitalization rates before, during, and after COVID-19, in each participating center.
CONCLUSION: The proposed study will potentially enable us to better understand the changes in stroke care protocols, differential hospitalization rate, and severity of stroke, as it pertains to the COVID-19 pandemic. Ultimately, this will help guide clinical-based policies surrounding COVID-19 and other similar global pandemics to ensure that management of cerebrovascular comorbidity is appropriately prioritized during the global crisis. It will also guide public health guidelines for at-risk populations to reduce risks of complications from such comorbidities.
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.