جستجوی مقالات مرتبط با کلیدواژه "health‑care workers" در نشریات گروه "پزشکی"

Health‑care workers (HCWs) are in the frontline for fighting the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‑19) pandemic and are at higher risk of acquiring the infection. Therefore, the defining immunity status among HCWs helps mitigate the exposure risk. In this study, we investigated the anti‑SARS‑CoV‑2 immunoglobulin G (IgG) and immunoglobulin M (IgM) and also the associated risk factors in the HCWs working in Isfahan University of Medical Sciences COVID‑19 referral hospitals.

In a cross‑sectional study, demographics, COVID‑19 symptoms during the past 2 weeks, and health‑care details were collected from 200 consenting health workers of COVID‑center‑hospitals of Isfahan University of Medical Sciences from 23 October to 21 December 2020. The recombinant SARS‑CoV2 nucleocapsid protein enzyme‑linked immunosorbent assay‑based IgM, and IgG antibody tests were evaluated. Data were analyzed using Chi‑square and independent‑t‑student tests, and P < 0.05 was considered significant.

One hundred and forty‑one women and 59 men with a mean age of 36.4 ± 7.77 years participated in the study. IgG Ab and IgM Ab were positive in 77 (38.5%) and 12 (6%) of samples, respectively, and both antibodies were detected in 9 (4.5%). Higher ages, direct contact with the patients with COVID‑19, muscle pain, loss of taste and smell, fever, and cough were the factors associated with antibody seropositivity against SARS‑CoV2.

This study demonstrated that the prevalence of HCWs with antibodies against SARS‑CoV‑2 is relatively high in Isfahan University referral hospitals. The development of safety protocols and screening and vaccination strategies in the frontline HCWs must be implemented to reduce the burden of infection.

Prophylaxis could be an established strategy to potentially prevent and control infectious diseases and should be considered in the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‑19) pandemic. The present study aimed to assess the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine as a prophylaxis treatment strategy in the reduction of the risk of COVID‑19 among health professionals.

The health professionals were randomly assigned (1:1) to the control group without receiving any hydroxychloroquine as prophylaxis and the hydroxychloroquine group receiving a weekly hydroxychloroquine dose of 400 mg up to 12 weeks.

A total of 146 health professionals were randomly enrolled in this study between August 11 and November 11 in 2020. Among the screened health professionals, 21 (14.6%) were infected with COVID‑19 during the 12 weeks, and 14 (66.6%) out of the 21 health professionals were in the control group. Most participants with COVID‑19 had mild symptoms (62%). In addition, 9.5% (n = 2) of the participants suffered from moderate disease and 28.5% were diagnosed with severe symptoms. In the hydroxychloroquine group, 5 (7.1%) and 2 (2.8%) participants were reported with mild and moderate symptoms of COVID‑19, respectively, and 2 participants had moderate, 8 (10.9%) participants had mild symptoms, and 6 (8.2%) participants had severe symptoms in the control group, within 3 months. Severe symptoms of COVID‑19 were not observed in the hydroxychloroquine group.

This study addressed the effect and benefit of hydroxychloroquine administration for the prevention of COVID‑19 among health professionals. The improved perception of prophylaxis might highlight its important role in future COVID‑19 outbreaks to prevent hospital transmission, which is a major route of spread.

Health‑care workers have to use the N95 mask as a part of the protection kit during the COVID‑19 pandemic. The adverse effects of such practice are not fully elucidated. The study aims to evaluate negative impacts of N95 face masks on health‑care personnel at COVID‑19 care units.

One hundred and twenty‑two health‑care workers (aged 20–58 years) from various health‑care settings in Sulaimani, Iraq, from January to August 2020, were enrolled in this prospective, cross‑sectional study. The physiological variables (blood pressure, heart rate, and oxygen saturation) were recorded before putting on the N95 mask and postremoval of the mask. The incidence of adverse effects such as headache, difficulty breathing, redness, irritation, and dizziness were also reported as a number and percent at the end of the work shift.

There was a statistically significant difference in the physiological parameters after removal of the mask compared with baseline. Only diastolic pressure was significantly lower in those working >6 h when compared to those working 1–6 h. The changes in physiological markers were poorly and nonsignificantly associated with the duration of wearing the mask. Moreover, 67.2%–70.5% of the participants complain of headaches and breathing difficulties, while 45.9%–51.6% reported signs of itching, redness, and irritation. However, health‑care workers who put on the face mask >6 h showed signs of headache, breathing difficulties, and itching at the exposed areas higher than those working for 1–6 h.

N95 mask negatively impacts the physiological variables of health‑care providers. The adverse effects may lead to excessive exhaustion after long shifts in the intensive care unit during treatment of COVID‑19 patients.

Coronavirus disease (COVID‑19) is a respiratory illness caused by a novel coronavirus which can spread from person to person. Health‑care workers of any medical college and hospital are at more risk to the coronavirus disease (COVID‑19) than the general population. The aim of this study was to assess the epidemiological profile of confirmed COVID‑19 cases among health‑care workers of Municipal Corporation of Delhi.

A cross‑sectional study was planned among 422 health‑care workers of Municipal Corporation of Delhi. The questionnaire consisted of questions about sociodemographic data, personal history, and clinical profile such as signs and symptoms and their duration. Data were analyzed by SPSS software version 21.0, and, Chi‑square test and logistic regression were used.

Mean age of study subjects was 41.1 ± 9.8 years, and males (57.6%) were more as compared to (42.4%) females. Out of total participants, about one‑third (36.4%) of study participants were asymptomatic. Study participants with higher education status adjusted odds ratio (AOR) 2.43 (1.25–4.70), living in overcrowding AOR 3.74 (1.86–7.54), and having some comorbidity AOR 2.78 (1.57–4.92) were at higher risk of being symptomatic.

This study concludes that about one‑third of study participants were asymptomatic. Factors such as higher education status, living in overcrowding, presence of some comorbidity, and smokeless tobacco consumption were significantly associated with symptomatic COVID‑19 cases. Hence, there is a need to identify these risk factors at an early stage in order to design prevention strategies for better control of such pandemics in future.

The World Health Organization declared vaccine hesitancy as one of the planet’s top 10 global health threats in 2019. With the rollout of the coronavirus disease‑19 (COVID‑19) vaccines, a survey was conducted to find out the hesitancy and the apprehensions that come along with taking COVID‑19 vaccines among health‑care workers (HCWs).

This was an online cross‑sectional survey which was developed and shared through social media platforms among the HCWs of Kashmir. The survey captured demographic data and used a validated hesitancy measurement tool from January 2021 to February 2021. The data were analyzed by descriptive statistics and multivariable logistic regression using Stata 15 (Stata Corp. 2017. Stata Statistical Software: Release 15. College Station, TX: Stata Corp LLC).

Willingness to take the COVID‑19 vaccine when available was seen in 67.7% of the HCWs. Overall, 9.59% of respondents reported unwillingness to receive a vaccine for COVID‑19, while 22.7% were unsure. The most commonly cited reason for willingness to get vaccinated was an understanding of the disease and vaccination, as reported by 81.5%. Being single was significantly related to an increased risk of vaccine hesitancy (adjusted odds ratio = 5.27, 95% confidence interval: 2.07–13.40). Among vaccine attitudes, concerns about the safety of the vaccine, unforeseen problems in children, and possible unknown future adverse effects of the vaccine were the most important determinants of unwillingness.

A significant proportion of the HCWs showed vaccine hesitancy to the COVID‐19 vaccine. Hesitancy attitudes were almost always driven by concern around the vaccine safety. States and health‑care authorities need to recognize the massive trust deficit around the Covid‑19 vaccine and use the popular media used by people to share credible and reliable information.

For any effective vaccination strategy, the willingness of the beneficiaries and its contributing factors are important. This study was conducted among the health‑care workers (HCWs) and community members to find the perceptions regarding the COVID‑19 vaccine and understand the influencers and the barriers of vaccine acceptance.

A qualitative study was conducted from October 2020 to December 2020 in two primary care settings in an urban area. Eighteen in‑depth interviews (IDIs) after taking consent were conducted with the help of IDI guide developed and validated beforehand by the experts. IDIs were done among the ten community members and eight HCWs selected conveniently. Data collection were continued till data saturation when no new information yielded from the interviews. Thematic analysis was performed.

All the participants were hopeful about availability of the vaccine. The key influencers identified for promoting willingness to accept the vaccine among both the groups were opinion of the health‑care providers, colleagues’ and other people’s acceptance of the vaccine, effectiveness of vaccine on other people, and perceived risk of the disease. Fear of adverse reactions was the most important barrier among all the respondents. The prevalent perception was that other preventive practices and vaccine together can only be the best solution to prevent COVID‑19 illness. The HCWs perceived that acceptance of vaccine among the community members would be good overall but apprehended some initial difficulties. Mass campaign to promote COVID‑19 vaccination and sensitization events are the need of the hour.

Since opinion of health‑care personnel emerged as an important influencer of vaccine acceptance, mass campaign and sensitization programs spearheaded by the health‑care providers can bring about change by increasing the vaccine acceptance among the beneficiaries at large. Re‑enforcement regarding practice of preventive measures should be made among the population irrespective of the vaccination status.

To reduce the likelihood of transmission of infection to health‑care workers (HCWs), personal protective equipment is used. However, wearing personal protective equipment (PPE) increases the risk of heat stress and loss of dexterity, leads to poor compliance to PPE. To address the issues of poor compliance to PPE, it was necessary to gain a deeper understanding about the factors that influence compliance. Thus this qualitative study was planned to explore barriers faced by HCWs while using PPE during a pandemic situation in a tertiary care hospital, Uttarakhand, India.

A exploratory qualitative study was undertaken among health care workers involved in the care of COVID patients. FGDs were done and an unstructured interview guide with open‑ended questions was used which helped to explore the factors which can be potential barriers to the HCWs while working wearing PPE.

Organizational and individual factors acting as barriers such as unavailability of essential personal protective equipment, a disharmonious work environment, lack of comfort, inadequate size, and quality of PPE were identified as the major barriers in the present study.

Future efforts to optimize PPE use should focus on to adequate supplies both in quality and quantity can help in avoidance of such barriers. Resources should be prioritized with the needs of the HCWs in the times of pandemic. Regular training and feedbacks are necessary for the satisfaction of HCWs and improving PPE compliance.

COVID-19 pandemic has changed the life of people in many facets, economic, social, and psychological. Frontline health-care workers (HCWs) fighting against this pandemic faced some psychological as well as social issues which are of major concern. The objective of the study is to evaluate the magnitude of mental health problems, namely depression, anxiety, and stress among frontline HCWs as well as their perception on ongoing events and surroundings.

It was a prospective, observational study on n = 85 HCWs over a 4-month period. Study participants were sampled purposively in accordance with inclusion and exclusion criteria; data were collected by online survey method. A semi-structured scale was used: Part A of which assessed the demography and perception of HCWs on surrounding along with ongoing social events and Part B consisted of the Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Scale-21 that was used to assess mental health issues. All the associations were tested in percentages and proportions. Statistics was calculated by using SPSS 24th version.

Majority of the participants were female doctors and belonged to 21–30 years' age group. Most of them were marginally worried of contacting infection (73%) but were substantially apprehensive of transmitting infection to their family (56.5%) and hoped positive outcome ultimately in the form of recovery from infection. Majority (96.4%) gathered information from authentic sources and were confident of adequacy of their knowledge. Majority (88.3%) were satisfied about their occupational safety and responded on scientific solution of pandemic. However, we got a mixed result about their professional appreciation. Depression symptom score was higher than anxiety and stress symptom score in our participants.

Doctors and nurses both were suffering from mental health issues, and provision of adequate information and occupational safety may lessen these burdens.

The spread of novel coronavirus diseases‑2019 (COVID‑19) across the world and its associated morbidity and mortality confronted the nations by various means. COVID19 pandemic had significant psychological effects not only on the general population but also on health‑care workers (HCWs). Hence, we aimed to found the level of anxiety and depression among health‑care professionals amidst coronavirus.

This is a cross‑sectional study conducted on 829 participants including doctors and nurses and other medical staff who were posted in the COVID ward and COVID intensive care unit using a well‑structured questionnaire through the Google Forms. The two scales used to measure anxiety and depression among the HCWs were the Hamilton anxiety scale (HAM‑A) and the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ‑9), Cronbach’s alpha of HAM A is 0.921 and Cronbach’s alpha of PHQ 9 is 0.851. Data analysis was done using SPSS 26, Chi‑square test and Fisher’s exact test were used to establish the association between categorical independent and dependent variables.

The results of this study demonstrate that anxiety and depression were significantly higher in doctors and staff nurses as compared to other medical staff. According to HAM‑A, 65.1% of respondents were in the mild category, 22.0% mild to moderate, and 12.9% moderate to severe. The HAM‑A (P = 0.022) and PHQ‑9 (P = 0.001) for anxiety and depression respectively were significantly higher in females. The means of the scales got increased after postings in the corona wards.

Concerning the high occurrence of anxiety and fear among health‑care professionals, appropriate psychological/psychiatric intervention necessitates and emphasizes the need to implement urgent measures to prevent further progress to severe mental health disorder.

Conventional hepatitis B virus vaccination fails to achieve efficient protection in about 5%–10% of the world population. Different factors influence the immunogenicity of hepatitis B vaccine. This study aimed to evaluate these factors in health‑care workers.

This was a descriptive study which was implemented among 140 of medical and dental staff working as health‑care workers who were low responder after vaccination entered the study.

Age (>40 years), weight (body mass index >25), immunodeficiency diseases, (primary immune deficiency and immunosuppressant drugs), diabetes mellitus, and smoking were the important factors.

In the high‑risk group of hepatitis B disease, the risk factors of immunogenicity must be evaluated at vaccination and check titers of antibody after vaccination.

 This study was carried out to understand the awareness, attitude, and practices about needle prick injuries and postexposure prophylaxis (PEP) against human immunodeficiency virus, hepatitis B (surface antigen), and hepatitis C virus among health-care workers (HCWs) of the tertiary care center. 

 This was a descriptive hospital-based, cross-sectional study carried out over a period of 1½ year. After informed consent and ethical clearance from the institutional ethics committee, patients were interviewed; previous records about needle prick injuries and PEP were analyzed. HCWs from Queen Mary's Hospital and Trauma Center of King Georges Medical University, Lucknow, India, were evaluated for needle prick injuries and PEP. During the study period, 140 hospital staffs including 74 resident doctors, 40 nurses, and 26 fourth-class employees were interviewed. Data were obtained from predetermined questionnaire regarding knowledge, attitude, and practices about needle prick injury types, precautions, reporting to the nodal officer, and delay in PEP if accidentally needle pricked. 

 Out of 140 participants, 105 (75%) were aware about PEP and 93 (66.42%) HCWs had positive attitude toward PEP. A total of 34 (24.28%) patients were injured, including 10 doctors, 16 nurses, and 8 fourth-class employees. 100% doctors, 50% nurses, and 42.3% fourth-class employees had knowledge about PEP. Out of 13 deep penetrating needlestick injuries, 4 injuries occurred during injection administration, 4 of them during suturing, and 5 during recapping. After exposure, all 13 cases had received PEP and all were seronegative after 6 months of follow-up. 

 Needlestick injuries and sharp object injuries represent a major health problem to HCWs. Prevention should be based on immunization, education of HCWs, and proper training about biomedical waste managemen