Displaying all 7 publications

Abstract:
Sort:
  1. Norhayati MN, Che Yusof R, Azman MY
    PLoS One, 2021;16(6):e0252603.
    PMID: 34086747 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0252603
    BACKGROUND: In the fight against the COVID-19 pandemic, frontline healthcare providers who are engaged in the direct diagnosis, treatment, and care of patients face a high risk of infection yet receive inadequate protection from contamination and minimal support to cope with overwork, frustration, and exhaustion. These problems have created significant psychological and mental health concerns for frontline healthcare providers. This study aimed to compare the levels of vicarious traumatization between frontline and non-frontline healthcare providers in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

    METHODOLOGY: All the subjects who met the inclusion criteria were recruited for this comparative cross-sectional study, which was conducted from May to July 2020 in two hospitals in Kelantan, Malaysia. A self-administered questionnaire, namely, the Malay-version Vicarious Traumatization Questionnaire and the Medical Outcome Study Social Support Survey were utilized. A descriptive analysis, independent t-test, and analysis of covariance were performed using SPSS Statistics version 26.

    RESULTS: A total of 160 frontline and 146 non-frontline healthcare providers were recruited. Vicarious traumatization was significantly higher among the non-frontline healthcare providers (estimated marginal mean [95% CI]: 79.7 [75.12, 84.30]) compared to the frontline healthcare providers (estimated marginal mean [95% CI]: 74.3 [68.26, 80.37]) after adjusting for sex, duration of employment, and social support.

    CONCLUSION: The level of vicarious traumatization was higher among non-frontline compared to frontline healthcare providers. However, the level of severity may differ from person to person, depending on how they handle their physical, psychological, and mental health. Hence, support from various resources, such as colleagues, family, the general public, and the government, may play an essential role in the mental health of healthcare providers.

  2. Norhayati MN, Che Yusof R, Azman MY
    PLoS One, 2021;16(8):e0256932.
    PMID: 34464399 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0256932
    BACKGROUND: Healthcare providers are vulnerable in the fight against COVID-19 and may experience significant psychological and mental health consequences. This study aimed to compare the levels of depressive symptoms among frontline and non-frontline healthcare providers in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

    METHODS: A comparative cross-sectional study was conducted in two government hospitals managing COVID-19-related cases in Kelantan, Malaysia from May to July 2020 to identify and compared depressive symptoms levels of frontline and non-frontline healthcare providers. Convenient sampling was applied in the selection of eligible participants and those diagnosed as having any psychiatric illnesses were excluded. The self-administered questionnaires for the Malay versions of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale to measure depressive symptoms score and the Medical Outcome Study Social Support Survey to measure social support score as an important confounder. A descriptive analysis, independent t-test and ANCOVA were performed using SPSS version 26.

    RESULTS: A total of 306 respondents from healthcare providers were recruited which 160 were frontline healthcare providers and 146 were non-frontline healthcare providers. The level of depressive symptoms (HADS score >8) was 27.5% for the frontline healthcare providers and 37.7% for the non-frontline healthcare providers. The mean depressive symptoms score for the non-frontline healthcare providers was 0.75 points higher than that of the frontline healthcare providers after adjusting for gender, duration of employment and social support.

    CONCLUSION: Non-frontline healthcare providers are also experiencing psychological distress during the COVID-19 pandemic even though they do not have direct contact with COVID-19 patients.

  3. Norhayati MN, Che Yusof R, Azman YM
    Front Med (Lausanne), 2021;8:783982.
    PMID: 35155467 DOI: 10.3389/fmed.2021.783982
    INTRODUCTION: Vaccination is an essential intervention to curb the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. This review aimed to estimate the pooled proportion of COVID-19 vaccine acceptance worldwide.

    METHODS: A systematic search of the MEDLINE (PubMed) database using "COVID-19," "vaccine" and "acceptance" to obtain original research articles published between 2020 and July 2021. Only studies with full text and that were published in English were included. The Joanna Briggs Institute meta-analysis was used to assess the data quality. The meta-analysis was performed using generic inverse variance with a random-effects model using the Review Manager software.

    RESULTS: A total of 172 studies across 50 countries worldwide were included. Subgroup analyses were performed with regard to vaccine acceptance, regions, population, gender, vaccine effectiveness, and survey time. The pooled proportion of COVID-19 vaccine acceptance was 61% (95% CI: 59, 64). It was higher in Southeast Asia, among healthcare workers, in males, for vaccines with 95% effectiveness, and during the first survey.

    CONCLUSION: COVID-19 vaccine acceptance needs to be increased to achieve herd immunity to protect the population from the disease. It is crucial to enhance public awareness of COVID-19 vaccination and improve access to vaccines.

    SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO 2021, identifier CRD42021268645.

  4. Norhayati MN, Che Yusof R, Azman MY
    Int J Environ Res Public Health, 2021 Aug 30;18(17).
    PMID: 34501747 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph18179157
    COVID-19 has impacted people psychologically globally, including healthcare providers. Anxiety, depression, and stress are the most common impacts that have affected these people. Thus, this study was aimed to ascertain the estimated prevalence of psychological impacts among healthcare providers in the Asian region. A systematic search was performed in the MEDLINE, CINAHL, and Scopus databases for original research articles published between 2020 and April 2021. Only studies published in English were included. The quality of data was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute Meta-Analysis, and the analysis was performed using generic inverse variance with a random-effects model by Review Manager software. A total of 80 studies across 18 countries in Asia region were pooled to assess the data prevalence on anxiety (34.81% (95% CI: 30.80%, 38.83%)), depression (34.61% (95% CI: 30.87%, 38.36%)), stress (31.72% (95% CI: 21.25%, 42.18%)), insomnia (37.89% (95% CI: 25.43%, 50.35%)), and post-traumatic stress disorder (15.29% (95% CI: 11.43%, 19.15%)). Subgroup analyses were conducted across regions, type of healthcare providers, sex, and occupation. This review has identified a high prevalence of anxiety, depression, stress, and insomnia but a low prevalence of post-traumatic stress disorder among healthcare providers in Asia regions. Effective intervention support programs are urgently needed to improve psychological health of healthcare providers and maintaining the health system.
  5. Mohd Noor N, Che Yusof R, Yacob MA
    PMID: 33498397 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph18030861
    In response to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, healthcare providers are exposed to psychological and mental health implications, including vicarious traumatization, anxiety, and depression. Gradual increases in the number of COVID-19 cases meant they were inadequately protected from contamination due to a shortage of protective equipment, excessive workloads, emotional exhaustion and frustration. These circumstances affect their work performance in delivering health services. This study aims to compare the levels of anxiety in frontline and non-frontline healthcare providers during the COVID-19 pandemic. This study applied a comparative cross-sectional design between May and July 2020 at the Hospital Raja Perempuan Zainab II. Convenient sampling was applied in the selection of eligible participants. The case report form contained two self-administered questionnaires, namely, The Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale and Medical Outcome Study Social Support Survey. Descriptive analysis, analysis of variance, and analysis of covariance were conducted using SPSS version 26. The number of participants recruited was 306, including 160 healthcare providers in the frontline group and 146 in the non-frontline group. The non-frontline healthcare providers reported a significantly higher anxiety mean score of 1.7 than the frontline providers after adjusting for gender, duration of employment, and social support. It indicates that non-frontline healthcare providers require psychological support similar to that of frontline healthcare providers during the COVID-19 pandemic.
  6. Che Yusof R, Norhayati MN, Mohd Azman Y
    Front Public Health, 2022;10:909254.
    PMID: 35937243 DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2022.909254
    INTRODUCTION: School-based child sexual abuse intervention programs were developed to educate the school children to protect them from sexual abuse. The programs were evaluated to make sure the interventions were effective in reducing child sexual abuse cases (CSA). This review aimed to determine the effectiveness of the school-based child sexual abuse intervention programs in the new millennium era (2000-2021) in improving the knowledge, skills, and attitude of school children under 18 years old toward child sexual abuse.

    METHODS: A systematic search was conducted through MEDLINE (PubMed), EBSCO, and SCOPUS databases to collect full English articles related to school-based CSA intervention programs published from 2000 to 2021.

    RESULTS: A total of 29 studies from randomized control trial and quasi-experimental from several countries was analyzed. Comparisons within group of pre-post intervention for knowledge, skills, and attitude were measured by standardized mean difference (SMD) and 95% CI of -1.06 (95% CI: -1.29, -0.84), -0.91 (95% CI: -1.2, -0.61), and -0.51 (95% CI: -3.61, 0.58), respectively. Meanwhile for between intervention and control group comparisons, the SMD of knowledge was 0.9 (95% CI: 0.63, 1.18), skills was 0.39 (95% CI: 0.07, 0.71), and attitude was 1.76 (95% CI: 0.46, 3.07).

    CONCLUSION: The programs were found to be effective in improving the knowledge, skills, and attitude of the students from pre-intervention to post-intervention and between the intervention and control groups.Systematic Review Registration: www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42022312383, identifier: CRD42022312383.

  7. Che Yusof R, Norhayati MN, Mohd Azman Y
    Int J Environ Res Public Health, 2022 Oct 13;19(20).
    PMID: 36293763 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph192013183
    Hemorrhage of arteriovenous malformation (AVM) is a rare condition during pregnancy. This study was proposed to pool the proportion of AVM hemorrhage per pregnancy. A systematic review and meta-analysis with three databases were performed to review the studies published until April 2022. The Newcastle Ottawa Scale was used for risk assessment of data quality. The meta-analysis was conducted by a generic inverse variance of double arcsine transformation with a random model using Stata software. Twelve studies were included in this review. The pooled proportion of AVM hemorrhage per pregnancy was 0.16 (95% CI: 0.08, 0.26). The subgroup analyses were carried out based on world regions and study designs, and the study duration with the highest proportion of each subgroup was Europe [0.35 (95% CI: 0.02, 0.79)], with retrospective review [0.18 (95% CI: 007, 0.32)] and 10 to 20 years of study duration [0.37 (95% CI: 0.06, 0.77)]. The AVM hemorrhage per pregnancy in this review was considered low. However, the conclusion must be carefully interpreted since this review had a small study limitation.
Related Terms
Filters
Contact Us

Please provide feedback to Administrator ([email protected])

External Links