Search

Background: Repeated contact with patients with COVID-19 and working in quarantine conditions has made health workers vulnerable to psychological distress during the COVID-19 pandemic. The goal of the present systematic review and meta-analysis was to examine the prevalence of the various psychological distresses among health workers during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases were searched for access to papers examining psychological distress among healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic. Risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). Heterogeneity among the studies was examined using the Cochran's Q test; because heterogeneity was significant, the random effects model was used to examine the prevalence of psychological distress. Results: Overall, 12 studies with a total sample size of 5265 were eligible and included in the analysis. Prevalence rates of depression, anxiety, and PTSD were 20% (95% CI: 14-27), 23% (95% CI: 18-27), and 8% (95% CI: 6-9), respectively. The highest prevalence rates of depression and anxiety were related to the SDS and the GAD-7, respectively, and the lowest prevalence rates of the two aforementioned variables were related to the DASS-21. Conclusions: The high prevalence of psychological distress among healthcare workers during the COVID-19 epidemic can have negative effects on their health and the quality of services provided. Therefore, training coping strategies for psychological distress in this pandemic seems necessary. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Data for COVID-19 incidence and the source of infection among health care workers (HCWs) in Indian population are limited. The main objective of the study was to assess the incidence of COVID-19 infection and identify the source of infection among the HCWs in a tertiary teaching hospital. Methods: A prospective cohort study was conducted among the 2134 HCWs recruited by purposive sampling from a tertiary teaching hospital from May to August 2020 (4-month period--123 days). Over the 4-month period, all the HCWs who had symptoms or those were close contacts of COVID positive patients were traced and tested using validated COVID diagnostic test (reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction [RT-PCR] test). A semi-structured questionnaire was used to interview each positive HCW to identify the source of exposure of the infection. Results: Incidence proportion was 9.3% among HCWs and was two times higher among males compared to females. Hazard ratio was found to be higher among males and HCWs working in the non-COVID areas. Test positivity rate was found to highest (around 57.8%) among those aged less than 30 years. The most common source of infection was infected HCW colleagues (40.9%) followed by exposure to patients in non-COVID areas (27.3%). Only 5.1% of total infection was found in HCWs who had worked in COVID zones. Conclusions: People working in non-COVID areas, those using shared workplace, dining halls, and staff hostels, must follow strict COVID protocols by using appropriate Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) and following social distancing measures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Medical error reporting is fundamental for improving patient safety. We surveyed healthcare professionals to evaluate their experience of adverse events witness and reporting, knowledge about adverse events, attitude toward own and colleagues' errors, and perceived barriers in reporting errors. Methods: This cross-sectional study was conducted on healthcare professionals from May to October 2017 at Chamran hospital, which is the largest referral orthopedic center in southern Iran. The self-administered questionnaire comprised 32 items covering five domains: (1) demographic and professional characteristics, (2) medical error witness and reporting, (3) actual and perceived knowledge regarding type of events and the status of completed training courses, (4) attitude toward reporting one's own and colleagues' errors, and (5) perceived barriers in error reporting. Questionnaire validity and reliability was proven in our previous study. Results: From a total of 210 participants, 164 returned completed questionnaires (response rate = 78.1%); 87 (53%) were physicians and 77 (47%) were nurses. Underreporting was common, particularly among physicians. Out of physicians and nurses, 57.1% and 49.4% had poor knowledge, respectively. Participants reported their own or colleagues' errors alike, but physicians tended to only provide verbal warning to their colleagues (36.8%), and nurses stated they would report the colleagues' errors, if it was serious (32.4%). Fear of blame and punishment and fear of legal ramification were the most important perceived barriers. Conclusions: Improvements in current medical error registry system, implementing effective educational courses, and modifying the curricula for students seem to be necessary to resolve the problem of underreporting and poor knowledge level. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Colonoscopy is the preferred screening method for colorectal cancer (CRC). This study aimed to identify factors motivating a beneficial health behavior, that is, the decision to complete a colonoscopy. Methods: We surveyed 91 primarily urban minority health care workers who were ineligible for a large randomized controlled trial due to self-reported asymptomatic colonoscopy screening. Participants were asked an open-ended question about what made them get screened. Responses were classified as external or internal motivations. Results: The most commonly reported external motivation was a primary care physician's recommendation (n = 60, 65.9%). Other external motivations were familiarity with CRC or polyps through family or work (n = 16, 17.6%) and pressure from relatives or friends (n = 8, 8.8%). Seventeen respondents were deemed self-motivated; these individuals were more likely have income over $50K/year (P < 0.05) and to be US born (P = 0.05); they were more likely to mention being age-appropriate for screening (P < 0.05); knew more people who had colonoscopies (P < 0.001); they were less likely to believe that most of the age-appropriate population in New York City has been screened (P < 0.01) and less likely to be deterred from colonoscopy by work schedule (P < 0.001) or by having to take a powerful laxative (P < 0.001). Conclusions: A primary care physician's recommendation may be the most prevalent motivating factor in patients' decisions to receive a colonoscopy, but a subgroup seeks CRC screening on their own. Analysis of the motivations of individuals who have sought colonoscopy screening may offer useful insights into motivating those who have not. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Different strategies can promote healthy behaviors. Although the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine is very important due to its effect in reducing cervical cancer, the behavior of HPV vaccination is low among young adults in Iran. Therefore, this study aimed to determine strategies for improving HPV vaccination among young adults. Methods: The present study was conducted with a qualitative content analysis method. The participants were 30 health professionals and young adults in Tehran city who were selected using purposive and snowball sampling. The data were collected through semistructured interviews and analyzed by Graneheim and Lundman's approach. Results: In total, two categories were identified: (1) access to services: access to the vaccine, vaccine insurance coverage; (2) educational coverage: subgroup training, educational content, time for training, educational channels, education strategies, and educational conditions. Conclusions: This is the first study conducted to determine strategies for improving HPV vaccination in Iran. The policymakers and planners, schools, and health centers are recommended to use the strategies obtained from this study to increase HPV vaccine imports, as well as increase the community members' knowledge and acceptance of the HPV vaccine. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]