Search

Background: Diabetes is a chronic condition that may become dangerous if there is insufficient insulin to help the body function properly. The proper care for diabetes depends on how well patients observe guidelines and prescriptions; consequently, patient education is critical. Poor learning may cause bad treatment and complications or other problems related to the disease. Objectives: This study aims to evaluate patients' knowledge of diabetes, assigning a knowledge (K) score out of 100, and investigate the possible impact of educating patients, through general means or via healthcare professionals, on patient knowledge of diabetes control demonstrated in the absence/presence of diabetic complications. Methods: This multi-center interview-based cross-sectional study used a questionnaire in Madinah, Saudi Arabia. This study was conducted on adults with diabetes who were aged 15–80. We used the Michigan Diabetic Knowledge Test (MDKT) to assess the knowledge of patients with diabetes. Results: This study included 364 participants. The gender distribution was 48.33% male and 51.67% female. Most of them had type 2 diabetes (T2DM) without insulin (48.63%), followed by those with T2DM on insulin (36.26%), and patients with type 1 diabetes (T1DM) (15.11%). Patients with T2DM had significantly higher K scores than patients with type 1. Additionally, T2DM non-insulin patients' k-scores significantly exceeded those with T1DM. General and healthcare education both helped increase patients' K-scores. Mostly, patients with diabetes without any complications had significantly higher knowledge compared to those having them. Lastly, regardless of whether the education was delivered by general or professional means, the effect on glycated hemoglobin (HbA1C) levels was not significant. Conclusions: Our study revealed that patients with T2DM exhibited higher knowledge than patients with T1DM. Furthermore, receiving education, whether by a healthcare professional or by general means, improved the knowledge levels of patients with T2DM but not patients with T1DM. Regarding diabetes complications, it was found that those with a higher level of knowledge had fewer complications. However, no evidence receiving education influenced the levels of HbA1C, neither in patients with T1DM nor T2DM. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

COVID-19 has been notoriously unpredictable in its clinical course. Such unpredictability poses a challenge to clinicians in predicting patients who will develop severe cases and possibly die from the infection. This study aims to assess and compare the diagnostic value of the NLR and SII as biomarkers in predicting COVID-19 severity, represented by mortality, with a multicentre comparative study including 855 patients in Saudi Arabia. Descriptive and analytical statistics were used to compare haematological indices between survivors and non-survivors. The median age of patients included was 41 years old, with an almost equal ratio of men to women. Most participants were Saudis, and the mortality rate in the study cohort was 13.22%. Non-survivors, as compared to survivors, were significantly older, had lower RBC counts, haemoglobin and haematocrit levels, as well as significantly higher WBC and neutrophil counts. Both the NLR and SII were capable of differentiating between survivors and non-survivors, with the latter having significantly higher values. However, the NLR was superior to the SII in such differentiation, as it had a larger area under the curve. This study further confirms the diagnostic values of the NLR and SII as biomarkers in predicting COVID-19 severity and mortality, with the NLR being more sensitive and specific. Clinical guidelines on managing COVID-19 cases should benefit from these findings by harnessing the value of the NLR in COVID-19 management. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, efforts have been made to underline its discourse and identify factors contributing to its severe forms. Clinically, many physicians depended on subjective criteria to determine its severe forms, which varied significantly between practices. However, they did not rely on objective laboratory findings. This study aimed to present a novel and objective laboratory-based indicator to predict mortality among COVID-19 patients. The study included 249 COVID-19 patients who were admitted to the ICU, of which 80 did not survive. The COVID-19 Mortality Prediction (CoMPred) indicator was developed by including the age and the following lab investigations: neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), D-Dimer, PT, aPTT, ESR, CRP, and urea levels. A CoMPred score of 7.5 or higher carries a sensitivity of 81.10% in predicting mortality, i.e., a patient with a CoMPred score of 7.5 or higher has an 81.10% chance of dying. The CoMPred indicator score directly correlates with mortality, i.e., the higher the score, the higher the possibility of the patient dying. In conclusion, the CoMPred indicator is an objective tool that is affordable and widely available, will assist physicians, and limit the burden on clinical decisions on an unpredicted course of COVID-19 in patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Saudi Medical Journal is the property of Saudi Medical Journal and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Background and Objectives : Statistics are of paramount significance to physicians as they allow them to critically interpret the medical literature and to contribute to it. However, teaching statistics to medical students and physicians, as well as learning statistics, is nothing short of difficult and anxiety-inducing to a great extent. Materials and Methods : In this study, an example of a novel approach to teaching statistics to medical students is introduced at a single college of medicine in Saudi Arabia. In this retrospective report, a new approach that has been developed and delivered to students is described. Results : The approach, referred to as the personal experience pathway, is part of a major curriculum change to the MBBS program. The track presents statistics to students as a tool, rather than a subject, that students will need to interpret results, either present in the literature or those of the research projects they are conducting. The outcome of this process has been assessed through measuring students' scholarly output through student self-reporting and has been followed up over four student cohorts graduating between the years 2019 and 2022. The approach has successfully equipped students with a solid foundation of statistical understanding that has allowed them to publish in peer-reviewed journals. Such scholarly output has increased significantly over the last two years. Conclusions : The current study presents a framework through which the detailed curriculum plan could be applied to other medical schools, nationally and internationally, which will better prepare future statistically oriented physicians.

Introduction: The COVID-19 pandemic, affecting adults and children equally, has caused significant disruption to countries worldwide, including Saudi Arabia. In Saudi Arabia, the fast preventative measures and mass vaccine enrollment were vital to contain the devastating impact of the pandemic. However, vaccine hesitancy, especially among parents toward vaccinating their children, was a significant obstacle to vaccine uptake., Methods: This systematic review followed PRISMA guidelines to assess parental willingness to vaccinate their children against COVID-19, determine the key determinants influencing such intention and attitudes, and underline the significant concerns and misconceptions regarding the vaccine among parents. The Joanne Briggs Institute (JBI) checklist for prevalence studies was used to assess included studies for risk of bias., Results: Twenty-three studies were included in this systematic review, representing a total of 20,926 participants, with over 66% of them were female. Over 37% of the participants were willing to vaccinate their children against COVID-19. Parents' age, gender, level of education, and income were the main determinants of their intention to vaccinate their children. The parents' main concerns were the potential vaccine side effects, safety, and efficacy. Major misconceptions about the COVID-19 vaccine included it being dangerous to children and that children are at lower risk of severe infection; hence, vaccines were not needed., Discussion: This seminal review provides insights to public health policymakers, which should be considered and taken together in light of other studies addressing parental vaccine hesitancy., Competing Interests: The author declares that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2024 Sayed.)

The COVID-19 pandemic has caused significant disruption to countries worldwide, including Saudi Arabia. The fast preventative measures and the mass vaccine enrollment were vital to contain the pandemic in the country. However, vaccine hesitancy was a significant obstacle to taking the vaccine but was not previously explored. One hundred eighty-six subjects with disabilities were enrolled in this study in an attempt to explore their hesitancy and attitudes toward COVID-19 vaccines. Most participants were previously diagnosed with COVID-19 and had a close family who was also diagnosed with it. Most of them were willing to be vaccinated but had not received previous vaccinations. Official sources of information, e.g., TV/radio, were an essential factor driving their intention to get vaccinated. Beliefs that drove participants' vaccine acceptance included vaccine safety, sufficient testing before its release, and its ability to protect from infection. The results of this seminal study provide insights to public health policymakers, which should be considered and taken together in light of other studies addressing the population's vaccine hesitancy., Competing Interests: The author declares that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2024 Sayed.)

Simultaneously with the development of the COVID-19 vaccination plan for minors, it is critical to understand the reasons related to parental COVID-19 vaccination hesitancy. This study aims to determine the reasons associated with vaccination hesitancy among parents, and the prevalence and the characteristics of the parents who are hesitant to allow their children aged between 5 to 11 years old to be administered the COVID-19 vaccines. A web-based questionnaire was used to perform this study between May 2022 to September 2022 in Saudi Arabia (SA). Several factors, personal and social, affected the participants' willingness to vaccinate their children with the COVID-19 vaccines. The age of the parents was found to have a significant impact on their decision to vaccinate their children. Those between the age of 40-49 years of age were the most willing to vaccinate (almost 41%) compared to those 50 years or older who were most resistant to vaccination. Female participants were more resistant to vaccinating their children compared to their male counterparts. Saudis were more resistant to vaccinating their children compared to the non-Saudi participants. Those private sector-employed parents were the most willing to vaccinate (16.6%), followed by those working in the governmental sector (13.8%). About 40.7% of non-healthcare workers were resistant to vaccinating their minor compared to healthcare workers (8.7%). In conclusion, the study presents several factors that affect the parental willingness to vaccinate their children in SA. These factors should be properly addressed when developing public health strategies to promote the COVID-19 vaccination of children in SA.

Since the beginning of the global novel coronavirus disease (Covid-19) pandemic, the response of governments has varied significantly across the world. This was one of the main reasons behind the difference in the disease fatality rates between countries. In this study, the public progressive measures taken in Saudi Arabia (SA) are described in detail. This is a descriptive study in which measures were retrieved via the government official news agency-Saudi Press Agency (SPA). The total number of Covid-19 cases and its fatality rate were obtained/calculated from the Saudi Ministry of Health (MoH) official Covid-19 port, as well as the WHO COVID-19 dashboard. SA took active measures in order to interrupt the spread of Covid-19 which were strict, rapid, and progressive in nature. Social distancing was at the heart of almost every measure taken by the government. The main themes of these interventions are as follows: travel bans, suspending religious activities, closure of non-essential shops, enforcing changes at workplaces, and imposing curfews. This was followed by the gradual return to working life with various precautions to prevent a spike in the number of cases. The imposed measures in SA succeeded in reducing the burden of Covid-19 and its fatality rate. Comparatively, the fatality rate in SA was significantly lower compared to developed countries with better healthcare infrastructure such as the United States and United Kingdom.