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: We surveyed 366 PHP in May 2021 on their burnout, demographic, and work-related characteristics. Logistic regression analyses were conducted to identify associated factors.
RESULTS: 45% PHP reported burnout. Higher PHP burnout was associated with younger age (AOR 0.96, 95% CI 0.93-0.99), prolonged COVID-19 involvement (AOR 2.35, 95% CI 1.16-4.72), as well as perceiving medium (AOR 2.10, 95% CI 1.27-3.48) and high emotional demand (AOR 4.45, 95% CI 1.67-11.77), low (AOR 2.10, 95% CI 1.27-3.48) and medium (AOR 4.18, 95% CI 1.64-10.59) role clarity, medium job satisfaction (AOR 3.21, 95% CI: 1.11-9.29), and low organisational justice (AOR 3.32, 95% CI 1.51-7.27).
CONCLUSIONS: Improving job content and organisational characteristics may be key to reducing PHP burnout.
METHOD: Variables included in our model are categorized into four pillars: (i) incidence of cases, (ii) reliability of case data, (iii) vaccination, and (iv) variant surveillance. These measures are combined based on weights that reflect their corresponding importance in risk assessment within the context of the pandemic to calculate the risk score for each country. As a validation step, the outcome of the risk stratification from our model is compared against four countries.
RESULTS: Our model is found to have good agreement with these benchmarked risk designations for 27 out of the top 30 countries with the strongest travel ties to Malaysia (90%). Each factor within this model signifies its importance and can be adapted by governing bodies to address the changing needs of border control policies for the recommencement of international travel.
CONCLUSION: In practice, the proposed model provides a turnkey solution for nations to manage transmission risk by enabling stakeholders to make informed, evidence-based decisions to minimize fluctuations of imported cases and serves as a structure to support the improvement, planning, and activation of public health control measures.
AREAS COVERED: Using the publicly available IVAC VIEW-hub platform, we reviewed 52 studies on vaccine effectiveness (VE) after booster vaccinations. VE were reported for SARS-CoV-2 symptomatic infection, severe disease and death and stratified by vaccine schedule and age. In addition, a non-systematic literature review of safety was performed to identify single or multi-country studies investigating adverse event rates for at least two of the currently available COVID-19 vaccines.
EXPERT OPINION: Booster shots of the current COVID-19 vaccines provide consistently high protection against Omicron-related severe disease and death. Additionally, this protection appears to be conserved for at least 3 months, with a small but significant waning after that. The positive risk-benefit ratio of these vaccines is well established, giving us confidence to administer additional doses as required. Future vaccination strategies will likely include a combination of schedules based on risk profile, as overly frequent boosting may be neither beneficial nor sustainable for the general population.
METHODS: This cross-sectional seroprevalence study with a two-stage stratified random cluster sampling design included 5,131 representative community dwellers in Malaysia aged ≥1 year. Data collection lasted from 7 August to 11 October 2020 involving venous blood sampling and interviews for history of COVID-19 symptoms and diagnosis. Previous SARS-CoV-2 infection was defined as screened positive using the Wantai SARS-CoV-2 Total Antibody enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay and confirmed positive using the GenScript SARS-CoV-2 surrogate Virus Neutralization Test. We performed a complex sampling design analysis, calculating sample weights considering probabilities of selection, non-response rate and post-stratification weight.
RESULTS: The overall weighted prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection was 0.49% (95%CI 0.28-0.85) (N = 150,857). Among the estimated population with past infection, around 84.1% (95%CI 58.84-95.12) (N = 126 826) were asymptomatic, and 90.1% (95%CI 67.06-97.58) (N = 135 866) were undiagnosed.
CONCLUSIONS: Our study revealed a low pre-variant and pre-vaccination seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in Malaysia up to mid-October 2020, with a considerable proportion of asymptomatic and undiagnosed cases. This led to subsequent adoption of SARS-CoV-2 antigen rapid test kits to increase case detection rate and to reduce time to results and infection control measures.
DATA DESCRIPTION: Data were collected from 1583 (Mage = 32.22, SD = 12.90, Range = 19-82) respondents from Japan, China, the United States, and Malaysia between October to November 2020. We collected data across age and sex, marital status, number of children, and occupations. We also accounted for stay-at-home measures, change in income, COVID-19 infection status, place of residence, and subjective social status in the study. Our variables included mental health-related and resilience constructs, namely (i) fear of COVID-19, (ii) depression, anxiety, and stress; (iii) present, past, and future life satisfaction, (iv) sense of control, (v) positive emotions, (vi) ego-resilience, (vii) grit, (viii) self-compassion, (ix) passion, and (x) relational mobility. All questionnaires were assessed for their suitability across the four countries with the necessary translation checks. Results from this study can be instrumental in examining the impact of multiple resilience factors and their interaction with demographic variables in shaping mental health outcomes.
METHODS: We collected data from 1583 citizens from four countries via an online survey between October 14 and November 2, 2020. We gathered demographic data and measured mental distress (depression, anxiety, and stress) and fear of COVID-19. Data on sense of control, ego-resilience, grit, self-compassion, and resilience indicators were also collected.
RESULTS: Sense of control was negatively associated with mental distress in all four countries. Self-compassion was negatively associated with mental distress in the samples from Japan, China, and the U.S. We also found an interaction effect for sense of control: the lower the sense of control, the stronger the deterioration of mental distress when the fear of COVID-19 was high.
LIMITATIONS: This study's cross-sectional design precludes causal inferences. Further, lack of data from people who were actually infected with the virus limits comparisons of people who were and were not infected. Finally, as this study only compared data from four countries, comparisons with more countries are needed.
CONCLUSIONS: A sense of control and self-compassion may help buffer against mental health deterioration during the COVID-19 pandemic. Sense of control was consistently associated with mental health across cultures.
METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A living systematic review will be conducted which includes an initial systematic review and bimonthly review updates. Searching and screening for the review and subsequent updates will be done in four streams: a systematic search of six databases, grey literature review, preprint review and citizen sourcing. The screening will be done by a minimum of two reviewers at title/abstract and full-text in Covidence, a systematic review management software. Data will be extracted across predefined fields in an excel spreadsheet that includes information about article characteristics, context and population, community engagement approaches, and outcomes. Synthesis will occur using the convergent integrated approach. We will explore the potential to quantitatively synthesise primary outcomes depending on heterogeneity of the studies.
ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The initial review and subsequent bimonthly searches and their results will be disseminated transparently via open-access methods. Quarterly briefs will be shared on the reviews' social media platforms and across other interested networks and repositories. A dedicated web link will be created on the Community Health-Community of Practice site for sharing findings and obtaining feedback. A mailing list will be developed and interested parties can subscribe for updates.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42022301996.
METHODS AND FINDINGS: A total of 36603 subjects who were tested for COVID-19 infection via molecular assays at Sunway Medical Centre between Oct 1, 2020 and Jan 31, 2021, and consented to participate in this observation study were included for analysis. Descriptive statistics was used to summarize the study cohort, whereas logistic regression analysis was used to identify risk factors associated with SARS-CoV-2 positivity. Among the reasons listed for COVID-19 screening were those who needed clearance for travelling, clearance to return to work, or clearance prior to hospital admission. They accounted for 67.7% of tested subjects, followed by the self-referred group (27.3%). Most of the confirmed cases were asymptomatic (62.6%), had no travel history (99.6%), and had neither exposure to SARS-CoV-2 confirmed cases (61.9%) nor exposure to patients under investigation (82.7%) and disease clusters (89.2%). Those who presented with loss of smell or taste (OR: 26.91; 95% CI: 14.81-48.92, p<0.001), fever (OR:3.97; 95% CI: 2.54-6.20, p<0.001), running nose (OR: 1.75; 95% CI:1.10-2.79, p = 0.019) or other symptoms (OR: 5.63; 95% CI:1.68-18.91, p = 0.005) were significantly associated with SARS-CoV-2 positivity in the multivariate logistic regression analysis.
CONCLUSION: Our study showed that majority of patients seeking COVID-19 testing in a private healthcare setting were mainly asymptomatic with low epidemiological risk. Consequently, the average positivity rate was 1.2% compared to the national cumulative positivity rate of 4.65%. Consistent with other studies, we found that loss of smell or taste, fever and running nose were associated with SARS-CoV-2 positivity. We believe that strengthening the capacity of private health institutions is important in the national battle against the COVID-19 pandemic, emphasizing the importance of public-private partnership to improve the quality of clinical care.