METHODS: In this research work, the systematic review, meta-analysis and meta-regression approaches are used to approximate the prevalence of stress, anxiety and depression within front-line healthcare workers caring for COVID-19 patients. The keywords of prevalence, anxiety, stress, depression, psychopathy, mental illness, mental disorder, doctor, physician, nurse, hospital staff, 2019-nCoV, COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2 and Coronaviruses were used for searching the SID, MagIran, IranMedex, IranDoc, ScienceDirect, Embase, Scopus, PubMed, Web of Science (ISI) and Google Scholar databases. The search process was conducted in December 2019 to June 2020. In order to amalgamate and analyze the reported results within the collected studies, the random effects model is used. The heterogeneity of the studies is assessed using the I2 index. Lastly, the data analysis is performed within the Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software.
RESULTS: Of the 29 studies with a total sample size of 22,380, 21 papers have reported the prevalence of depression, 23 have reported the prevalence of anxiety, and 9 studies have reported the prevalence of stress. The prevalence of depression is 24.3% (18% CI 18.2-31.6%), the prevalence of anxiety is 25.8% (95% CI 20.5-31.9%), and the prevalence of stress is 45% (95% CI 24.3-67.5%) among the hospitals' Hospital staff caring for the COVID-19 patients. According to the results of meta-regression analysis, with increasing the sample size, the prevalence of depression and anxiety decreased, and this was statistically significant (P
METHOD: A systematic review and metanalysis was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA criteria. The PubMed, Scopus, Science direct, Web of science, CINHAL, Medline, and Google Scholar databases were searched with no lower time-limt and until 24 June 2020. The heterogeneity of the studies was measured using I2 test and the publication bias was assessed by the Egger's test at the significance level of 0.05.
RESULTS: The I2 test was used to evaluate the heterogeneity of the selected studies, based on the results of I2 test, the prevalence of sleep disturbances in nurses and physicians is I2: 97.4% and I2: 97.3% respectively. After following the systematic review processes, 7 cross-sectional studies were selected for meta-analysis. Six studies with the sample size of 3745 nurses were examined in and the prevalence of sleep disturbances was approximated to be 34.8% (95% CI: 24.8-46.4%). The prevalence of sleep disturbances in physicians was also measured in 5 studies with the sample size of 2123 physicians. According to the results, the prevalence of sleep disturbances in physicians caring for the COVID-19 patients was reported to be 41.6% (95% CI: 27.7-57%).
CONCLUSION: Healthcare workers, as the front line of the fight against COVID-19, are more vulnerable to the harmful effects of this disease than other groups in society. Increasing workplace stress increases sleep disturbances in the medical staff, especially nurses and physicians. In other words, increased stress due to the exposure to COVID-19 increases the prevalence of sleep disturbances in nurses and physicians. Therefore, it is important for health policymakers to provide solutions and interventions to reduce the workplace stress and pressures on medical staff.
METHODS: This cross-sectional survey of patients with asthma and treating physicians was conducted in seven countries: Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Thailand, Vietnam (patient survey only), Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates. Assessment was carried out through an online/face-to-face questionnaire, where patients' viewpoints were focused on their attitudes and beliefs about asthma and treatment adherence, whereas physicians' viewpoints were gathered on their attitudes and beliefs about asthma management, knowledge of and adherence to asthma treatment guidelines, and asthma treatment regimens.
RESULTS: Overall, 1400 patients (mean age, 34 years) and 599 physicians (mean age, 43 years) were included in the survey. Physicians similarly prioritised symptom control (39%) and exacerbation reduction (40%) in moderate asthma, whereas patients prioritised symptom control (41%) over exacerbation reduction (22%). Although both groups (physicians, 86%; patients, 84%) perceived asthma as well-controlled, poor management was evident based on Asthma Control Test (ACT) scores (mean, 15.7; standard deviation, 4.14; 82% had an ACT score
METHODS: Two cross-sectional, anonymized, online surveys were completed between July and December 2022 by physicians diagnosing and treating HCC (55 questions on risk factors, surveillance, diagnosis, and treatment) and patients ≥ 18 years old diagnosed with HCC (36 questions on disease knowledge, quality of life, and experiences of diagnosis and treatment).
RESULTS: Responses were received from 276 physicians in all 7 countries and 130 patients in Thailand, Taiwan, and Vietnam. From the physician's perspective, surveillance programs are widespread but identify insufficient HCC cases; only 18% are early-stage HCC at diagnosis. From the patient's perspective, knowledge of risk factors increases after diagnosis, but few seek support from patient associations; patients would benefit from better communication from their doctors. Treatment affordability and side effects are key issues for patients.
CONCLUSIONS: Awareness of the risk factors for HCC should be raised in primary care and the general population, and surveillance should identify early-stage HCC. Because patients rely on their doctors for support, doctors should better understand their patients' needs, and patients could be supported by trained nurses or case managers. Programs are needed to increase patients' access to proven HCC treatments.
Methods: This cross-sectional observational study involved 465 adults prescribed analgesics for cancer-related pain from 22 sites across Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam. Pain intensity, pain control satisfaction, and adequacy of analgesics for pain control were documented using questionnaires.
Results: Most patients (84.4%) had stage III or IV cancer. On a scale of 0 (no pain) to 10 (worse pain), patients' mean worst pain intensity over 24 hours was 4.76 (SD 2.47). More physicians (19.0%) than patients (8.0%) reported dissatisfaction with patient's pain control. Concordance of patient-physician satisfaction was low (weighted kappa 0.36; 95% CI 0.03-0.24). Most physicians (71.2%) found analgesics to be adequate for pain control. Patients' and physicians' satisfaction with pain control and physician-assessed analgesic adequacy were significantly different across countries (P < 0.001 for all).
Conclusions: Despite pain-related problems with sleep and quality of life, patients were generally satisfied with their pain control status. Interestingly, physicians were more likely to be dissatisfied with patients' pain control. Enhanced patient-physician communication, physicians' proactivity in managing opioid-induced adverse effects, and accessibility of analgesics have been identified to be crucial for successful cancer pain management. This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (identifier NCT02664987).
METHODS: A qualitative approach was used to gain an in-depth knowledge of the issues. By using a semi-structured interview guide, 12 CPs practicing in the city of Lahore, Pakistan were conveniently selected. All interviews were audio-taped, transcribed verbatim, and were then analyzed for thematic contents by the standard content analysis framework.
RESULTS: Thematic content analysis yielded five major themes. (1) Familiarity with EPS, (2) current practice of EPS, (3) training needed to provide EPS, (4) acceptance of EPS and (5) barriers toward EPS. Majority of the CPs were unaware of EPS and only a handful had the concept of extended services. Although majority of our study respondents were unaware of pharmaceutical care, they were ready to accept practice change if provided with the required skills and training. Lack of personal knowledge, poor public awareness, inadequate physician-pharmacist collaboration and deprived salary structures were reported as barriers towards the provision of EPS at the practice settings.
CONCLUSION: Although the study reported poor awareness towards EPS, the findings indicated a number of key themes that can be used in establishing the concept of EPS in Pakistan. Over all, CPs reported a positive attitude toward practice change provided to the support and facilitation of health and community based agencies in Pakistan.