Search

Background: Adolescents are at high risk of incident psychopathology. Fleeting psychotic experiences (PEs) that emerge in young people in response to stress may be warning signs that are missed by research that fails to study stressed populations, such as late high school and college/university students. Our aim in this systematic review was to conduct a meta-analysis that estimates prevalence rates of PEs in students, and to assess whether these rates differ by gender, age, culture, and COVID-19 exposure., Method: We searched nine electronic databases, from their inception until January 31, 2022 for relevant studies. We pooled the estimates using the DerSimonian-Laird technique and random-effects meta-analysis. Our main outcome was the prevalence of self-reported PEs in high school and college/university students. We subsequently analyzed our data by age, gender, population, country, culture, evaluation tool, and COVID-19 exposure., Results: Out of 486 studies retrieved, a total of 59 independent studies met inclusion criteria reporting 210' 024 students from 21 different countries. Nearly one in four students (23.31%; 95% CI 18.41%-29.05%), reported having experienced PEs (heterogeneity [Q = 22,698.23 (62), p = 0.001] τ 2  = 1.4418 [1.0415-2.1391], τ = 1.2007 [1.0205-1.4626], I 2  = 99.7%, H = 19.13 [18.59-19.69]). The 95% prediction intervals were 04.01%-68.85%. Subgroup analyses showed that the pooled prevalence differed significantly by population, culture, and COVID-19 exposure., Conclusion: This meta-analysis revealed high prevalence rates of self-reported PEs among teen and young adult students, which may have significance for mental health screening in school settings. An important realization is that PEs may have very different mental health meaning in different cultures., (© 2022 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the extent of sleep disturbances during the COVID-19 pandemic. Eleven databases and six preprint repositories were searched for the period from November 1, 2019, to July 15, 2021. The DerSimonian and Laird method was used to develop random-effect meta-analyses. Two hundred and fifty studies comprising 493,475 participants from 49 countries were included. During COVID-19, the estimated global prevalence of sleep disturbances was 40.49% [37.56; 43.48%]. Bayesian meta-analysis revealed an odds of 0.68 [0.59; 0.77] which translates to a rate of approximately 41%. This provides reassurance that the estimated rate using classical meta-analysis is robust. Six major populations were identified; the estimated prevalence of sleep problem was 52.39% [41.69; 62.88%] among patients infected with COVID-19, 45.96% [36.90; 55.30%] among children and adolescents, 42.47% [37.95; 47.12%] among healthcare workers, 41.50% [32.98; 50.56%] among special populations with healthcare needs, 41.16% [28.76; 54.79%] among university students, and 36.73% [32.32; 41.38%] among the general population. Sleep disturbances were higher during lockdown compared to no lockdown, 42.49% versus 37.97%. Four in every ten individuals reported a sleep problem during the COVID-19 pandemic. Patients infected with the disease, children, and adolescents appeared to be the most affected groups., Competing Interests: Conflicts of interest The authors do not have any conflicts of interest to disclose., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Maha M AlRasheed,1 Afnan M Alkadir,1 Khulood I Bin Shuqiran,1 Sinaa Al-Aqeel,1 Haitham A Jahrami,2,3 Ahmed S BaHammam4,5 1Clinical Pharmacy Department, College of Pharmacy, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia; 2Ministry of Health, Manama, Kingdom of Bahrain; 3College of Medicine and Medical Sciences, Arabian Gulf University, Manama, Bahrain; 4University Sleep Disorders Centre, Department of Medicine, College of Medicine, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia; 5The Strategic Technologies Program of the National Plan for Sciences and Technology and Innovation in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Riyadh, Saudi ArabiaCorrespondence: Maha M AlRasheedClinical Pharmacy Department, College of Pharmacy, King Saud University, P.O. Box 2457, Riyadh, 11451, Saudi ArabiaTel +96611 4678707Fax +966-11-4677480Email mahalrasheed@ksu.edu.saPurpose: We investigated the impact of isolation on sleep quality and psychological distress during the COVID-19 pandemic in Saudi Arabia.Methods: An online survey was conducted on 353 (88 isolated and 265 not isolated) individuals from May to June 2020. Subjective sleep quality was determined using the Pittsburgh sleep quality index (PSQI), and psychological distress measured using the Kessler psychological distress scale (K10).Results: The mean age of the isolated group was 28.6 years versus 27.5 years for the non-isolated group, with male participants accounting for 37% in both groups. The mean PSQI score was 8.5± 3.6 and 8.4± 3.5 for the isolated and non-isolated groups, respectively (P= 0.92). The mean K-10 score was 27.6± 9.4 and 25.3± 9.5 for the isolated and non-isolated groups, respectively (P= 0.04). Poor sleep (PSQI ≥ 6) was reported in 235 (66.6%) and psychological distress (K-10 ≥ 20) in 244 (69.1%) participants. Isolation was not associated with poor sleep (OR: 0.73 (95% CI: 0.41– 1.3), P=0.29), but was statistically significant with psychological distress (OR: 2.12 (95% CI: 1.10– 4.08), P=0.03).Conclusion: Poor sleep and psychological distress symptoms were highly prevalent in our study population. Isolation may influence psychological distress but not sleep quality during the COVID-19 pandemic.Keywords: SARS-CoV-2, COVID-19, pandemic, quarantine, sleep quality, psychological distress, self-isolation

Maha M AlRasheed,1 Amani H AlShahrani,1 Sara A AlMuhaini,1 Hadeel A AlKofide,1 Tariq M Alhawassi,1,2 Ahmed Aldemerdash,1 Omar A Alhaj,3 Nicola L Bragazzi,4 Haitham A Jahrami5,6 1Department of Clinical Pharmacy, College of Pharmacy, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia; 2Medication Safety Research Chair, College of Pharmacy, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia; 3Department of Nutrition, Faculty of Pharmacy and Medical Sciences,University of Petra, Amman, Jordan; 4Laboratory for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, Departments and Statistics, York University, Toronto, ON, Canada; 5Ministry of Health, Manama, Bahrain; 6College of Medicine and Medical Sciences, Arabian Gulf University, Manama, BahrainCorrespondence: Maha M AlRasheed Tel +966 11 4678707Fax +966-11-4677480Email mahalrasheed@ksu.edu.saPurpose: The COVID-19 outbreak has caused governments to put pandemic-related guidelines requiring compliance and understanding by healthcare professionals to mitigate its spread uncontrollably. We studied pharmacists’ knowledge, attitude, and practice towards the COVD-19 outbreak compared with other healthcare workers during the pandemic in Saudi Arabia.Methods: We surveyed pharmacists’ socio-demographics (n=50) compared with other healthcare professionals (n=378) during lockdown starting in June 2020. We measured respondents’ level of knowledge (n=10 questions, maximum score of 10), attitude (n=17 questions, maximum score of 80), and their practices (n=16 questions, maximum score of 80) towards COVID-19 infection.Results: Median knowledge score was 8 (25th– 75th percentiles: 7– 9), attitude score 76 (70– 80) and practice score 74 (68– 78). Good knowledge predictors were > 20 years working experience [OR: 2.05 (95% CI: 1.03– 4.06); P=0.04] and > 50% working in clinical practice [OR: 1.72 (95% CI: 1.12– 2.66); P=0.01], in inverse relationship with paramedical professions [OR: 0.45 (95% CI: 0.45 (0.28– 0.72)); P=0.001] and working in a university hospital [OR: 0.51 (95% CI: 0.33. 0.81); P=0.004]. Availability of pharmaceutical information and treatment options was associated with good attitude [OR: 2.19 (95% CI: 1.04– 4.59); P=0.039] and acquaintance as primary information sources negatively associated with good attitude [OR: 0.34 (95% CI: 0.15– 0.8); P=0.013]. Good practice predictors were female gender [OR: 3.84 (95% CI: 2.37– 6.24); P< 0.001], military hospital employment [OR: 2.32 (95% CI: 1.25– 4.31); P=0.008], USA [OR: 3.41 (95% CI: 1.03– 11.22); P=0.044] or UK [OR: 8.86 (95% CI: 1.91– 41.07); P=0.005] qualifications, and information on supportive measures [OR: 2.2 (95% CI: 1.36– 3.56); P=0.001].Conclusion: Health workers displayed good knowledge about COVID-19, while profession and working experience predicted adequate knowledge, positive attitude, or practice towards disease management.Keywords: COVID-19, pandemic, pharmacists, knowledge, attitudes, practices