Search

Purpose: The World Health Organization (WHO) declared severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) a pandemic in March 2020, causing almost 3.5 million coronavirus disease (COVID-19) related deaths worldwide. The COVID-19 pandemic has imposed a significant burden on healthcare systems, economies, and social systems in many countries around the world. The access and delivery of rehabilitation care were severely disrupted, and patients have faced several challenges during the COVID-19 outbreak. These challenges include addressing new functional impairments faced by survivors of COVID-19 and infection prevention to avoid the virus spread to healthcare workers and other patients not infected with COVID-19. In this scoping review, we aim to develop rehabilitation recommendations during the COVID-19 pandemic across the continuum of rehabilitation care. Materials and Methods: Established frameworks were used to guide the scoping review methodology. Medline, Embase, Pubmed, CINAHL databases from inception to August 1, 2020, and prominent rehabilitation organizations' websites were searched. Study Selection: We included articles and reports if they were focused on rehabilitation recommendations for COVID-19 survivors or the general population at the time of the COVID-19 pandemic. Data Extraction: Two of our team members used the pre-tested data extraction form to extract data from included full-text articles. The strength and the quality of the extracted recommendations were evaluated by two reviewers using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach. Results: We retrieved 6,468 citations, of which 2,086 were eligible after removing duplicates. We excluded 1,980 citations based on the title and the abstract. Of the screened full-text articles, we included 106 studies. We present recommendations based on the patient journey at the time of the pandemic. We assessed the evidence to be of overall fair quality and strong for the recommendations. Conclusion: We have combined the latest research results and accumulated expert opinions on rehabilitation to develop acute and post-acute rehabilitation recommendations in response to the global COVID-19 pandemic. Further updates are warranted in order to incorporate the emerging evidence into rehabilitation guidelines. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: The coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) was declared a pandemic by the World Health Organization in March 2020. COVID-19, caused by SARS-CoV-2 has imposed a significant burden on health care systems, economies, and social systems in many countries around the world. The provision of rehabilitation services for persons with active COVID-19 infection poses challenges to maintaining a safe environment for patients and treating providers. Materials and Methods: Established frameworks were used to guide the scoping review methodology. Medline, Embase, Pubmed, CINAHL databases from inception to August 1, 2020, and prominent rehabilitation organizations' websites were searched. Study Selection: We included articles and reports if they were focused on rehabilitation related recommendations for COVID-19 patients, treating providers, or the general population. Data Extraction: Pairs of team members used a pre-tested data abstraction form to extract data from included full-text articles. The strength and the quality of the extracted recommendations were evaluated by two reviewers using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Results: We retrieved 6,468 citations, of which 2,086 were eligible for review, after duplicates were removed. We excluded 1,980 citations based on title and abstract screening. Of the screened full-text articles, we included all 106 studies. A summary of recommendations is presented. We assessed the overall evidence to be strong and of fair quality. Conclusion: The rehabilitation setting, and processes, logistics, and patient and healthcare provider precaution recommendations identified aim to reduce the spread of SARS-CoV-2 infection and ensure adequate and safe rehabilitation services, whether face-to-face or through teleservices. The COVID-19 pandemic is rapidly changing. Further updates will be needed over time in order to incorporate emerging best evidence into rehabilitation guidelines. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The effects of the COVID-19 pandemic have required substantial adjustments in terms of university teaching–learning processes. The aim of this study was to verify whether there were significant differences between the academic year of 2020 and the two preceding years in factors and symptoms and stress. A total of 642 university students (ages 18–25 years) participated by filling out validated self-reports during the months from March to August 2020. Using an ex post facto design, SEM analyses and simple and multiple ANOVAs were performed. Structural results showed that stress factors from the teaching process had a predictive value for the learning process, emotions, and academic burnout, and being a man was a factor predicting negative emotion. In a similar way, inferential results revealed no significant effect of academic year but did show an effect of gender on stress experiences during the pandemic. Aside from certain specific aspects, there was no significant global effect of the year 2020 on factors and symptoms of stress. The results showed that studying in the year of the COVID-19 outbreak did not have a significant effect on stress triggered by the teaching process. From these results, we draw implications for specific guidance interventions with university teachers and students. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In a population of young adults, this study analyzes possible linear relations of resilience and positivity to coping strategies and engagement-burnout. The aim was to establish a model with linear, associative, and predictive relations, to identify needs and make proposals for therapeutic intervention in different student profiles. A population of 1,126 undergraduate students with different student profiles gave their informed, written consent, and completed validated questionnaires (CD-RISC Scale; Positivity; Coping Strategies of Stress; Engagement, and Burnout). An ex post-facto design involved bivariate association analyses, multiple regression and structural predictions. The results offered evidence of associations and predictive relationships between resilience factors, positivity, coping strategies and engagement-burnout. The factors of resilience and positivity had significant differential associations (positive and negative) with factors of coping strategies. Their negative relationship to burnout factors, and positive relation to engagement factors, is especially important. Results of structural analysis showed an acceptable model of relationships between variables. We conclude with practical implications for therapeutic intervention: (1) the proactive factors of resilience reflect a perception of self-efficacy and the ability to change adaptively; (2) the reactive factors of resilience are usually associated with withstanding experiences of change, uncertainty or trauma. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Cognitive deficits are implicated in theoretical explanatory models for binge eating disorder (BED). Furthermore, evidence suggest that alterations in executive function may underlie symptoms in BED. The current systematic review and meta-analysis provides an update on executive functioning in individuals with BED. Methods: Literature searches (up to November 2019) were conducted in electronic databases combining binge eating or BED with executive functions. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement guidelines was used. Studies of any design comparing adults with BED with those without BED in executive function domains were selected. Methodological quality of studies was based on the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Results: Of 1,983 citations identified, 28 case-control studies met inclusion criteria for this review. Six meta-analyses that examined four domains (decision-making, cognitive flexibility, inhibitory control, and working memory) were conducted. The only meta-analysis to show a significant difference in executive functioning between BED and obese controls was working memory (SMD = 0.32, 95% IC: −0.60, −0.03; p = 0.028), with an effect size of small magnitude. Qualitative inspection of the literature indicated mixed findings for control inhibition, decision making and cognitive flexibility in individuals with BED compared to controls (obese or normal weight). In addition, people with BED showed poorer problem solving performance, but similar planning abilities to obese controls. Conclusions: Individuals with BED were found to show worse performance on working memory tasks compared to obese individuals without the disorder. The findings did not provide definitive evidence of alterations in other aspects of executive functioning. Interest in executive functioning in people with BED is increasing but is limited by insufficient data from small studies with varied methodology. Future studies should focus on using similar tests and outcome measures, in order to enable more pertinent comparisons across studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]