METHODS: We used a multicenter, prospective cohort to study 482 healthcare workers vaccinated with two and three doses of BNT162b2 for SARS-CoV-2 infection during the Omicron-dominant period in Malaysia.
RESULTS: Between January 31 and July 31, 2022, the cumulative incidence was 44.6% (95% CI 40.2-49.1%), and the incidence rate was 3.33 (95% CI 2.91-3.80) per 1000 person-days. Our study found that protection against Omicron infection was significantly higher for persons with previous SARS-CoV-2 infection (hazard ratio [HR] 0.41, 95% CI 0.27-0.62) and persons with a more recent immunity event (<30 days [reference] vs >90 days, HR 3.82, 95%CI 1.34-10.90) from the beginning of the Omicron period.
CONCLUSION: Pre-Omicron natural infection and a recent immunity event protect against future Omicron infections.
METHODS: A two-arm randomized controlled trial study using double blinding method was conducted with 150 nurses from two referral hospitals. Stratified simple random method was used to choose eligible nurses. For video self-instruction training (intervention group), participants learnt the CPR training via computer in a simulation lab for 7 days, in their own available time whereas for instructor-led training (control group), a 1-day program was conducted by AHA certified instructors. A generalized estimated equation model was used for statistical analysis.
RESULTS: Generalized Estimated Equation showed that there were no significant differences between the intervention group (p = 0.055) and control group (p = 0.121) for both CPR knowledge and skills levels respectively, whereas higher probability of having good knowledge and skills in a post-test, one month and three-month follow-up compared to baseline respectively, adjusted with covariates (p < 0.05). Participants had a lower probability of having good skills at 6-month follow-up compared to baseline, adjusted with covariates (p = 0.003).
CONCLUSION: This study showed no significant differences between the two training methods, hence video self-instruction training is suggested can train more nurses in a less cost-effective manner to maximize resource utilization and quality nursing care. It is suggested to be used to improve knowledge and skills among nurses to ensure cardiac arrest patients receive excellent resuscitation care.
METHODS: We searched the relevant peer-reviewed articles published in English in six databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Cochrane Library and ProQuest. The inclusion criteria of the review were: 1) studies examining 'eHealth literacy', which refers to the ability to search, select, judge and apply online health information to address or solve health problems and to improve wellbeing; 2) the type of study included observational and experimental studies, mixed method studies or qualitative studies; 3) the participants were healthy adults; 4) the main outcomes were the determinants (i.e. influencing or associated factors) and outcomes (i.e. benefits and disadvantages) of eHealth literacy. Articles were assessed by two reviewers using the Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal tool. A conceptual model to map the determinants and outcomes of eHealth literacy in healthy adults into the non-modifiable, individual, social and community networks and structural layers was developed to classify the identified determinants and outcomes.
RESULTS: Forty-four studies were included in this review, of which 43 studies were cross-sectional and one was qualitative. eHealth literacy determinants included age, sex, literacy factors, socioeconomic factors and language. eHealth literacy outcomes included better general health promotion behavior, COVID-19 preventive behaviors, psychological wellbeing, social support, self-rated health and health service utilisation.
CONCLUSIONS: Our results showed that eHealth literacy has multi-layered determinants and positive outcomes. Different strategies at different policy levels are needed to improve the eHealth literacy levels of healthy adults.
RECENT FINDINGS: Climate change is responsible for extreme weather conditions (shifts in rainfall, floods, droughts, and forest fires) and global warming. These consequences affect basic human needs of water and food, causing changes in population dynamics and pose significant threats to digestive health, including common esophageal disorders like GERD, EoE, and esophageal cancers. The changing patterns of esophageal diseases with climate change are likely mediated through risk factors, including nutrition, pollutants, microplastics, and the microbiota-gut-brain axis. The healthcare process itself, including GI endoscopy practices commonly employed in diagnosing and therapeutics of esophageal diseases, may, in turn, contribute to climate change through plastic wastage and greenhouse gas emissions, thus creating the climate change lifecycle. Breaking the cycle would involve changes at the individual level, community level, and national policy level. Prevention is key, with individuals identifying and remediating risk factors and reducing carbon footprints. The ABC (Advocacy, Broadcast, and Collaborate) activities would help enhance awareness at the community level. Higher-level programs such as the Bracing Resilience Against Climate Effects (BRACE) would lead to broader and larger-scale adoption of public health adaptation strategies at the national level. The impact of climate change on esophageal disorders is likely real, mediated by several risk factors, and creates a climate change lifecycle that may only break if changes are made at individual, community, and national levels.