Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 11 de 11
Filter
1.
PLoS One ; 16(11): e0244415, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1546844

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to identify coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine perception, acceptance, confidence, hesitancy, and barriers among health care workers (HCWs). METHODS: An online national cross-sectional pilot-validated questionnaire was self-administered by HCWs in Saudi Arabia, which is a nation with MERS-CoV experience. The main outcome variable was HCWs' acceptance of COVID-19 vaccine candidates. The factors associated with vaccination acceptance were identified through a logistic regression analysis, and the level of anxiety was measured using a validated instrument to measure general anxiety levels. RESULTS: Out of the 1512 HCWs who completed the study questionnaire-of which 62.4% were women-70% were willing to receive COVID-19 vaccines. A logistic regression analysis revealed that male HCWs (ORa = 1.551, 95% CI: 1.122-2.144), HCWs who believe in vaccine safety (ORa = 2.151; 95% CI: 1.708-2.708), HCWs who believe that COVID vaccines are the most likely way to stop the pandemic (ORa = 1.539; 95% CI: 1.259-1.881), and HCWs who rely on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention website for COVID 19 updates (ORa = 1.505, 95% CI: 1.125-2.013) were significantly associated with reporting a willingness to be vaccinated. However, HCWs who believed that the vaccines were rushed without evidence-informed testing were found to be 60% less inclined to accept COVID-19 vaccines (ORa = 0.394, 95% CI: 0.298-0.522). CONCLUSION: Most HCWs are willing to receive COVID-19 vaccines once they are available; the satisfactoriness of COVID-19 vaccination among HCWs is crucial because health professionals' knowledge and confidence toward vaccines are important determining factors for not only their own vaccine acceptance but also recommendation for such vaccines to their patients.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines/immunology , COVID-19/immunology , COVID-19/psychology , Health Personnel/psychology , Middle East Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus/immunology , Vaccination Hesitancy/psychology , Adult , Cross-Sectional Studies , Female , Humans , Logistic Models , Male , Middle Aged , Multivariate Analysis , Saudi Arabia , Young Adult
2.
Front Public Health ; 9: 700769, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1463522

ABSTRACT

Objective: To describe the utility and patterns of COVID-19 simulation scenarios across different international healthcare centers. Methods: This is a cross-sectional, international survey for multiple simulation centers team members, including team-leaders and healthcare workers (HCWs), based on each center's debriefing reports from 30 countries in all WHO regions. The main outcome measures were the COVID-19 simulations characteristics, facilitators, obstacles, and challenges encountered during the simulation sessions. Results: Invitation was sent to 343 simulation team leaders and multidisciplinary HCWs who responded; 121 completed the survey. The frequency of simulation sessions was monthly (27.1%), weekly (24.8%), twice weekly (19.8%), or daily (21.5%). Regarding the themes of the simulation sessions, they were COVID-19 patient arrival to ER (69.4%), COVID-19 patient intubation due to respiratory failure (66.1%), COVID-19 patient requiring CPR (53.7%), COVID-19 transport inside the hospital (53.7%), COVID-19 elective intubation in OR (37.2%), or Delivery of COVID-19 mother and neonatal care (19%). Among participants, 55.6% reported the team's full engagement in the simulation sessions. The average session length was 30-60 min. The debriefing process was conducted by the ICU facilitator in (51%) of the sessions followed by simulation staff in 41% of the sessions. A total of 80% reported significant improvement in clinical preparedness after simulation sessions, and 70% were satisfied with the COVID-19 sessions. Most perceived issues reported were related to infection control measures, followed by team dynamics, logistics, and patient transport issues. Conclusion: Simulation centers team leaders and HCWs reported positive feedback on COVID-19 simulation sessions with multidisciplinary personnel involvement. These drills are a valuable tool for rehearsing safe dynamics on the frontline of COVID-19. More research on COVID-19 simulation outcomes is warranted; to explore variable factors for each country and healthcare system.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Critical Care , Cross-Sectional Studies , Humans , Infant, Newborn , Patient Care Team , SARS-CoV-2
3.
Vaccine ; 39(40): 5762-5768, 2021 09 24.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1386706

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) was the fourth country in the world to authorize the BNT162b2 coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine, which it rolled out on December 17, 2020 and first targeted at healthcare workers (HCWs). This study assesses vaccine uptake among this group during the first month of its availability. METHODS: A national cross-sectional, pilot-validated, self-administered survey was conducted among HCWs in the KSA between December 27, 2020 and January 3, 2021. The survey included sociodemographic details, previous contact with COVID-19 patients, previous infection with COVID-19, receiving (or registering with the Ministry of Health website to receive) the COVID-19 vaccine, sources of HCWs' information on vaccines, awareness of emerging variants of concern, and anxiety level using the 7-item Generalized Anxiety Disorder assessment. A descriptive bivariate analysis and multivariate logistic binary regression analysis were performed. The primary evaluated outcome was vaccine uptake. RESULTS: Of the 1058 participants who completed the survey, 704 (66.5%) were female, and 626 (59.2%) were nurses. Of all the respondents, 352 (33.27%) were enrolled to receive or had already received the vaccine, while 706 (66.73%) had not enrolled. In a bivariate analysis, not enrolling for vaccination was more likely in females than males (78.5% vs. 21.5%, P < 0.001), HCWs between the ages of 20 and 40 years than those >40 years (70.4% vs. 29.6%, P = 0.005), Saudi HCWs than expatriates (78% vs 22%, P < 0.001), and among HCWs who used social media as a source of information than those who did not (69.8% vs. 38.6%, P < 0.001). In a multivariate analysis, independent factors associated with uptake were being a Saudi national (aOR = 1.918, 95 %CI = 1.363-2.698, P < 0.001), working in an intensive care unit (aOR = 1.495, 95 %CI = 1.083-2.063, P = 0.014), and working at a university hospital (aOR = 1.867, 95 %CI = 1.380-2.525, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: A low level of vaccine uptake was observed especially in female HCWs, those younger than 40 years old, and those who used social media as their source of vaccine information. This survey provides important information for public health authorities in order to scale up vaccination campaigns targeting these HCWs to increase vaccine enrollment and uptake.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Vaccines , Adult , BNT162 Vaccine , COVID-19 Vaccines , Cross-Sectional Studies , Female , Health Personnel , Humans , Male , SARS-CoV-2 , Young Adult
4.
Healthcare (Basel) ; 9(8)2021 Jul 28.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1335031

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The educational process in different medical schools has been negatively affected by the COVID-19 pandemic worldwide. As a part of the Saudi government's attempts to contain the spread of the virus, schools' and universities' educational activities and face-to-face lectures have been modified to virtual classrooms. The purpose of this study was to explore the perceptions of the faculty and the students of an electronic objective structured clinical examination (E-OSCE) activity that took place during the COVID-19 pandemic in the oldest medical school in Saudi Arabia. METHODS: An e-OSCE style examination was designed for the final-year medical students by the pediatrics department, College of Medicine at King Saud University in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. The examination was administered by Zoom™ video conferencing where both students and faculty participated through their laptop or desktop computers. In order to explore the students' and the faculty's perceptions about this experience, a newly designed 13-item online questionnaire was administered at the end of the e-OSCE. RESULTS: Out of 136 participants (23 faculty and 112 students), 73 respondents (e.g., 54% response rate) filled out the questionnaire. Most of the respondents (69.8%) were very comfortable with this new virtual experience. Most participants (53.4%) preferred the e-OSCE compared to the classic face-to-face clinical OSCE during the pandemic. Regarding the e-OSCE assessment student tool, 46.6% reported that it is similar to the classic face-to-face OSCE; however, 38.4% felt it was worse. CONCLUSIONS: The e-OSCE can be a very effective alternative to the classic face-to-face OSCE due to the current circumstances that still pose a significant risk of infection transmission. Future studies should examine different virtual strategies to ensure effective OSCE delivery from the perspective of both faculty and students.

5.
BMJ Open ; 11(6): e048586, 2021 06 21.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1280432

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare the perception, confidence, hesitancy and acceptance rate of various COVID-19 vaccine types among healthcare workers (HCWs) in Saudi Arabia, a nation with Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus experience. DESIGN: National cross-sectional, pilot-validated questionnaire. SETTING: Online, self-administered questionnaire among HCWs. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 2007 HCWs working in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia participated; 1512 (75.3%) participants completed the survey and were included in the analysis. INTERVENTION: Data were collected through an online survey sent to HCWs during 1-15 November 2020. The main outcome measure was HCW acceptance of COVID-19 candidate vaccines. The associated factors of vaccination acceptance were identified through a logistic regression analysis and via measurement of the level of anxiety, using the Generalised Anxiety Disorder 7 scale. RESULTS: Among the 1512 HCWs who were included, 62.4% were women, 70.3% were between 21 and 40 years of age, and the majority (62.2%) were from tertiary hospitals. In addition, 59.5% reported knowing about at least one vaccine; 24.4% of the participants were sure about their willingness to receive the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine, and 20.9% were willing to receive the RNA BNT162b2 vaccine. However, 18.3% reported that they would refuse to receive the Ad5-vectored vaccine, and 17.9% would refuse the Gam-COVID-Vac vaccine. Factors that influenced the differential readiness of HCWs included their perceptions of the vaccine's efficiency in preventing the infection (33%), their personal preferences (29%) and the vaccine's manufacturing country (28.6%). CONCLUSIONS: Awareness by HCWs of the several COVID-19 candidate vaccines could improve their perceptions and acceptance of vaccination. Reliable sources on vaccine efficiency could improve vaccine uptake, so healthcare authorities should use reliable information to decrease vaccine hesitancy among frontline healthcare providers.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines , COVID-19 , Adenoviridae , BNT162 Vaccine , ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 , Cross-Sectional Studies , Female , Health Personnel , Humans , Male , Perception , RNA , SARS-CoV-2 , Saudi Arabia , Surveys and Questionnaires
6.
Front Public Health ; 9: 686958, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1268319

ABSTRACT

Background: Healthcare workers' (HCWs') travel-related anxiety needs to be assessed in light of the emergence of SARS-CoV-2 mutations. Methods: An online, cross-sectional questionnaire among HCWs between December 21, 2020 to January 7, 2021. The outcome variables were HCWs' knowledge and awareness of the SARS-CoV-2 B.1.1.7 lineage that was recently reported as the UK variant of concern, and its associated travel worry and Generalized Anxiety Disorder (GAD-7) score. Results: A total of 1,058 HCWs completed the survey; 66.5% were female, 59.0% were nurses. 9.0% indicated they had been previously diagnosed with COVID-19. Regarding the B.1.1.7 lineage, almost all (97.3%) were aware of its emergence, 73.8% were aware that it is more infectious, 78.0% thought it causes more severe disease, and only 50.0% knew that current COVID-19 vaccines are effective in preventing it. Despite this, 66.7% of HCWs were not registered to receive the vaccine. HCWs' most common source of information about the new variant was social media platforms (67.0%), and this subgroup was significantly more worried about traveling. Nurses were more worried than physicians (P = 0.001). Conclusions: Most HCWs were aware of the emergence of the SARS-CoV-2 B.1.1.7 variant and expressed substantial travel worries. Increased worry levels were found among HCWs who used social media as their main source of information, those with lower levels of COVID-19 vaccine uptake, and those with higher GAD-7 scores. The utilization of official social media platforms could improve accurate information dissemination among HCWs regarding the Pandemic's evolving mutations. Targeted vaccine campaigns are warranted to assure HCWs about the efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines toward SARS-CoV-2 variants.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines , COVID-19 , Anxiety , Cross-Sectional Studies , Female , Health Personnel , Humans , Male , Perception , SARS-CoV-2 , Travel , Travel-Related Illness , United Kingdom
7.
Medicine (Baltimore) ; 100(18): e25825, 2021 May 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1216696

ABSTRACT

ABSTRACT: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has caused an unprecedented health crisis around the world, not least because of its heterogeneous clinical presentation and course. The new information on the pandemic emerging daily has made it challenging for healthcare workers (HCWs) to stay current with the latest knowledge, which could influence their attitudes and practices during patient care.This study is a follow-up evaluation of changes in HCWs' knowledge, attitudes, and practices as well as anxiety levels regarding COVID-19 since the beginning of the pandemic. Data were collected through an anonymous, predesigned, self-administered questionnaire that was sent online to HCWs in Saudi Arabia.The questionnaire was sent to 1500 HCWs, with a 63.8% response rate (N = 957). The majority of respondents were female (83%), and the most common age group was 31 to 40 years (52.2%). Nurses constituted 86.3% of the respondents. HCWs reported higher anxiety during the COVID-19 pandemic which increased from 4.91 ±â€Š2.84 to 8.6 ±â€Š2.27 on an 11-point Likert scale compared to other viral outbreaks. HCWs believed that their own preparedness as well as that of their hospital's intensive care unit or emergency room was higher during the COVID-19 pandemic than during the Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus pandemic (2012-2015). About 58% of HCWs attended one or more simulations concerning the management of COVID-19 patients in their intensive care unit/emergency room, and nearly all had undergone N95 mask fit testing. The mean score of HCWs' knowledge of COVID-19 was 9.89/12. For most respondents (94.6%), the perception of being at increased risk of infection was the main cause of anxiety related to COVID-19; the mean score of anxiety over COVID-19 increased from 4.91 ±â€Š2.84 before to 8.6 ±â€Š2.27 during the pandemic in Saudi Arabia.HCWs' anxiety levels regarding COVID-19 have increased since a pandemic was declared. It is vital that healthcare facilities provide more emotional and psychological support for all HCWs.


Subject(s)
Anxiety Disorders/epidemiology , COVID-19/epidemiology , Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice , Health Personnel/psychology , Occupational Stress/epidemiology , Adult , Female , Humans , Male , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2 , Saudi Arabia/epidemiology , Surveys and Questionnaires
8.
Saudi Med J ; 41(8): 791-801, 2020 Aug.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-918552

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: To map research production by Saudi-affiliated investigators in order to identify areas of strength and weakness. Method: We followed the Arksey and O'Malley (2005) framework. Medline and Cochrane databases were searched with a focus on identifying articles related to COVID-19 and Saudi Arabia following the PRISMA protocol. The study was conducted at King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia between March and May 2020. Results: A total of 53 articles were ultimately included. Most of the research production from Saudi Arabia was opinion and narrative reviews related to the clinicopathological features of COVID-19 as well as control and prevention of virus spread.  Conclusion: The results of this scoping review identify a relative deficiency in original research, which requires further investigation.


Subject(s)
Betacoronavirus , Biomedical Research , Coronavirus Infections , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral , COVID-19 , Coronavirus Infections/diagnosis , Coronavirus Infections/therapy , Humans , Pneumonia, Viral/diagnosis , Pneumonia, Viral/therapy , SARS-CoV-2 , Saudi Arabia
11.
J Infect Public Health ; 13(6): 877-882, 2020 Jun.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-436729

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The global pandemic of coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19) has led to unprecedented psychological stress on health workers (HCWs). We aimed to assess the psychological impact of COVID-19 on HCWs in comparison to the stress brought on by the Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) epidemic in Saudi Arabia. METHOD: Between February 5th and 16th, 2020, 811 health-care workers (HCWs) of a tertiary care teaching hospital were invited to fill a questionnaire regarding concerns and worries about the novel coronavirus pandemic, along with Generalized Anxiety Disorder (GAD-7) Anxiety Severity screening tool. RESULTS: Out of 582 HCWs who completed the survey questionnaire (response rate of 71.8%), about 40% were exposed previously to MERS-CoV infected or suspected patients during a previous hospital outbreak. While there were no COVID-19 cases reported yet in Saudi Arabia at the time of data collection, still, the anxiety level from COVID-19 was significantly higher than that from MERS-CoV or seasonal influenza: 41.1% were more worried about COVID-19, 41.4% were similarly worried about both MERS-CoV and COVID-19, and 17.5% were more stressed by the previous MERS-CoV hospital outbreak. The most frequent concern was transmitting the infection to family and friends (2.71/5) than to themselves only (2.57/5). CONCLUSION: Pandemic and epidemic infectious diseases such as COVID-19 or MERS-CoV impose a significant level of anxiety and stress on healthcare workers who are caring of infected patients, with their main concern being the risk of transmitting the infection to their families or to acquire it themselves. Therefore, optimizing the compliance of healthcare workers with the proper infection prevention and control measures is paramount during the infectious disease outbreak, to ensure their safety, to decrease the likelihood of getting infected or transmitting the infection to others, and consequently to alleviate their psychological stress and anxiety.


Subject(s)
Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Coronavirus Infections/psychology , Health Personnel/psychology , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Pneumonia, Viral/psychology , Adult , Anxiety/etiology , COVID-19 , Endemic Diseases , Female , Hospitals, Teaching/statistics & numerical data , Humans , Infection Control , Male , Middle Aged , Middle East Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus , Pandemics , Saudi Arabia/epidemiology , Stress, Psychological/etiology , Surveys and Questionnaires , Tertiary Care Centers/statistics & numerical data
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL