Materials and methods: A retrospective review of all surgically treated DRF cases with one year follow-up in a tertiary hospital in Malaysia was done. Patients who left the follow-up clinic before one-year post-surgery or before fracture union were excluded. A total of 82 patients with 88 DRF were finally included into the study and outcome in terms of union time and need of multiple surgeries were analysed along with the predictors.
Results: In this study, mean age of the patient was 46.2 years. Motor vehicle accident was the commonest cause of the fracture and AO Type C fracture was the commonest fracture type. Seventeen (19.3%) out of 88 fractures were compound fracture. Open reduction and internal fixation with volar plate was the most common surgical technique done in this series (93.2%). Three (3.5%) out of 88 fractures required multiple surgeries and eighty-three (94.3%) DRF cases were united before nine months of the surgery in this study. There was statistically significant association between clinical type of the fracture and the union time (p-value <0.05).
Conclusion: There was a 1.7:1 male-female ratio with AO-C fracture being the most common type of fracture. The most common method of fixation was ORIF with volar locked plate. Patients with closed fractures have a higher rate of union compared to open fractures at nine months.
METHODS: Participants were invited to an online cross-sectional survey from Aug-Sep 2020. The study assessed psychological distress using the Kessler Psychological Distress Scale, level of fear using the Fear of COVID-19 Scale, and coping strategies using the Brief Resilient Coping Scale. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were conducted to adjust for potential confounders.
RESULTS: The mean age (±SD) of the participants (N = 720) was 31.7 (±11.5) years, and most of them were females (67.1%). Half of the participants had an income source, while 216 (30%) identified themselves as frontline health or essential service workers. People whose financial situation was impacted due to COVID-19 (AOR 2.16, 95% CIs 1.54-3.03), people who drank alcohol in the last four weeks (3.43, 1.45-8.10), people who were a patient (2.02, 1.39-2.93), and had higher levels of fear of COVID-19 (2.55, 1.70-3.80) were more likely to have higher levels of psychological distress. Participants who self-isolated due to exposure to COVID-19 (3.12, 1.04-9.32) and who had moderate to very high levels of psychological distress (2.56, 1.71-3.83) had higher levels of fear. Participants who provided care to a family member/patient with a suspected case of COVID-19 were more likely to be moderately to highly resilient compared to those who did not.
CONCLUSION: Vulnerable groups of individuals such as patients and those impacted financially during COVID-19 should be supported for their mental wellbeing. Behavioural interventions should be targeted to reduce the impact of alcohol drinking during such crisis period.
OBJECTIVES: We aimed to examine the extent and identify factors associated with psychological distress, fear of COVID-19 and coping.
METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study across 17 countries during Jun-2020 to Jan-2021. Levels of psychological distress (Kessler Psychological Distress Scale), fear of COVID-19 (Fear of COVID-19 Scale), and coping (Brief Resilient Coping Scale) were assessed.
RESULTS: A total of 8,559 people participated; mean age (±SD) was 33(±13) years, 64% were females and 40% self-identified as frontline workers. More than two-thirds (69%) experienced moderate-to-very high levels of psychological distress, which was 46% in Thailand and 91% in Egypt. A quarter (24%) had high levels of fear of COVID-19, which was as low as 9% in Libya and as high as 38% in Bangladesh. More than half (57%) exhibited medium to high resilient coping; the lowest prevalence (3%) was reported in Australia and the highest (72%) in Syria. Being female (AOR 1.31 [95% CIs 1.09-1.57]), perceived distress due to change of employment status (1.56 [1.29-1.90]), comorbidity with mental health conditions (3.02 [1.20-7.60]) were associated with higher levels of psychological distress and fear. Doctors had higher psychological distress (1.43 [1.04-1.97]), but low levels of fear of COVID-19 (0.55 [0.41-0.76]); nurses had medium to high resilient coping (1.30 [1.03-1.65]).
CONCLUSIONS: The extent of psychological distress, fear of COVID-19 and coping varied by country; however, we identified few higher risk groups who were more vulnerable than others. There is an urgent need to prioritise health and well-being of those people through well-designed intervention that may need to be tailored to meet country specific requirements.