MATERIALS AND METHODS: This cross-sectional observational study comprised 523 health science students. A well-structured online questionnaire consisting of closed-ended questions based on student's general information, Patient Heath Questionnaire (PHQ)-9 and Generalized Anxiety Disorder (GAD)-7 scales were used to assess the psychological impact of COVID-19.
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: SPSS-25 was used to analyze the outcome of this study. Multiple linear regression analysis test was used to assess variables which had impact on PHQ-9 and GAD-7 scores among the participants. A p-value of ≤ 0.05 was considered as statistically significant.
RESULTS: Among the 523 participants, 365 (69.55%) students were from developing countries and 158 (30.21%) from developed countries; 424 (81.1%) students were tested negative for COVID-19 and 99 (18.9%) had suffered from severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection during pandemic. The mean GAD-7 and PHQ-9 scores were 7.16 ± 5.755 and 7.30 ± 6.166, respectively. Significant impact on anxiety levels was associated with age, gender, education status, and COVID-19 positive patient, while depression was not significantly associated with gender, COVID-19, and its reported symptoms in participants.
CONCLUSION: As the world is trying to contain the health effects of COVID-19, the psychological effects might take a longer time to be addressed. Our study highlights the dire need to identify mental well-being of health science students as this may have a direct impact on their professional commitments and future responsibilities.
Methods: We adopted a comparative cross-sectional study on pre-clinical medical students who appeared in two different admission tests. The stress, anxiety, and depression levels of students were measured by the depression, anxiety, stress scale (DASS-21), and their burnout level was measured by the Copenhagen Burnout Inventory.
Results: The stress, anxiety, and depression scores between MMI and PI were not significantly different (p-value > 0.05). The personal, work and client burnout scores between MMI and PI were not significantly different (p-value > 0.05). The prevalence of stress (MMI = 39%, PI = 36.9%), anxiety (MMI = 78%, PI = 67.4%), depression (MMI = 41%, PI = 36.2%) and burnout (MMI = 29%, PI = 31.9%) between MMI and PI cohorts was not significantly different (p-value > 0.05). These results showed similar levels of stress, anxiety, depression, and burnout in students at the end of the pre-clinical phase.
Conclusions: This study showed similar psychological health status of the pre-clinical students who were enrolled by two different admission tests. The prevalence of stress, anxiety, burnout, and depression among the pre-clinical medical students was comparable to the global prevalence. The results indicate that medical schools can consider implementing either MMI or PI to recruit suitable candidates for medical training.
Objective: The aim of this study was to determine knowledge, awareness and preparedness regarding coronavirus disease 2019 among CPPs working in Kathmandu, Nepal.
Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted using a convenience sampling method from 10 February to 25 March 2020. Data were analysed descriptively, and one-sample independent t-test and one-way analysis of variance were used to compare scores among different subgroups of respondents (p
METHOD: A cross-sectional survey was completed by national representatives in all ASEAN countries (Brunei, Cambodia, East Timor, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam).
RESULTS: Overall facilities for initial epilepsy pre-surgical evaluation are available in most countries, but further non-invasive and invasive investigations are limited. Three countries (Brunei, Cambodia, and East Timor) have no epilepsy center, and 2 countries (Laos, Myanmar) have level 2 centers doing tumor surgery only. Level-3 epilepsy centers are available in 6 countries (Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippine, Singapore, Thailand, Vietnam); only 5 countries (Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippine, Singapore, Thailand) has at least one level-4 epilepsy care facility. Indonesia with 261 million population only has one level 3 and another level 4 center. The costs of presurgical evaluation and brain surgery vary within and among the countries. The main barriers towards epilepsy surgery in ASEAN include lack of expertise, funding and facilities.
CONCLUSIONS: Epilepsy surgery is underutilized in ASEAN with low number of level 3 centers, and limited availability of advanced presurgical evaluation. Lack of expertise, facilities and funding may be the key factors contributing to the underutilization.