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.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: The validity and reliability of the Mal-HRQOL-20 were assessed in patients with and without lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS). The reliability was evaluated using the test-retest method and the internal consistency using Cronbach's alpha. Sensitivity to change was expressed as the effect size in the score before and after intervention in additional patients with LUTS who underwent transurethral resection of the prostate.
RESULTS: The internal consistency was excellent; there was a high degree of internal consistency for each of the 20 items and for the overall score (Cronbach's alpha > or = 0.57 and 0.79, respectively) in the population study. The test-retest correlation coefficient for the 20 item scores was highly significant. The intra-class correlation coefficient was high (> or = 0.55). The sensitivity and specificity were high for the effects of treatment. There was a very significant agreement between scores before and after treatment across all domains in the treatment cohort, but not in the control group.
CONCLUSION: The Mal-HRQOL-20 is suitable, reliable, valid and sensitive to clinical change in the Malaysian population.
Methods: A total of 20 menopausal women were recruited using purposive sampling through social media in the state of Pahang, Malaysia. In-depth semi-structured interviews were used to explore how they perceived their menopausal experience. The data were then analyzed using thematic analysis.
Results: Three themes that emerged from the findings included perceptions of menopause, biopsychosocial changes and help-seeking behavior. For many Muslim women, menopause was perceived as a time for them to engage in religious commitment more than they had before.
Conclusion: The study findings uncovered a knowledge gap and a lack of support for women impacted by menopause. Muslim women regarded their menopause phase as a time for them to engage in religious duty fully. These results indicate the need for a psychosocial intervention and educational program to ensure women a better transition throughout their menopausal phase.