ABSTRACT
COVID-19 is a global challenge that negatively affects the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of the general population. The current study aimed to evaluate HRQoL and its associated factors among the Iranian general population during the COVID-19 pandemic. The data were collected in 2021 using the EuroQol 5-Dimension 3-Level (EQ-5D-3L) and EQ-5D Visual Analog Scale (EQ VAS) questionnaires through an online survey. Participants were recruited via social media from the Fars province. The multiple binary logistic regression model was used to identify factors influencing participants' HRQoL. Kolmogorov-Smirnov, the t-test, ANOVA, and the chi-square test were used. All tests were conducted at a significance level of 5% using Stata 14.2 and SPSS 16. A total of 1,198 participants were involved in this cross-sectional study. The mean age of participants was 33.3 (SD:10.2), and more than half were women (55.6%). The mean EQ-5D-3L index value and EQ-VAS of the respondents were 0.80 and 77.53, respectively. The maximum scores of the EQ-5D-3L and EQ-VAS in the present study were 1 and 100, respectively. The most frequently reported problems were anxiety/depression (A/D) (53.7%), followed by pain/discomfort (P/D) (44.2%). Logistic regression models showed that the odds of reporting problems on the A/D dimension increased significantly with supplementary insurance, including concern about getting COVID-19, hypertension, and asthma, by 35% (OR = 1.35; P = 0.03), 2% (OR = 1.02; P = 0.02), 83% (OR = 1.83; P = 0.02), and 6.52 times (OR = 6.52; P = 0.01), respectively. The odds of having problems on the A/D dimension were significantly lower among male respondents, those in the housewives + students category, and employed individuals by 54% (OR = 0.46; P = 0.04), 38% (OR = 0.62; P = 0.02) and 41% (OR = 0.59; P = 0.03), respectively. Moreover, the odds of reporting a problem on the P/D dimension decreased significantly in those belonging in a lower age group and with people who were not worried about getting COVID-19 by 71% (OR = 0.29; P = 0.03) and 65% (OR = 0.35; P = 0.01), respectively. The findings of this study could be helpful for policy-making and economic evaluations. A significant percentage of participants (53.7%) experienced psychological problems during the pandemic. Therefore, effective interventions to improve the quality of life of these vulnerable groups in society are essential.
ABSTRACT
This study aimed to explore the strengths and weaknesses of e-learning during the COVID-19 pandemic from the perspective of its primary stakeholders, namely professors and students, and to provide practical solutions. Design is a qualitative study. We enrolled 22 faculty members and 58 students purposively. Research data were collected through a data collection checklist and via email and continued until the data were saturated. The qualitative content analyses were the basis of analysis in this study. Strengths were presented in 6 themes and 26 subthemes, weaknesses in 5 themes and 23 subthemes, and solutions were presented in 5 themes and 20 subthemes. Save money, time and energy; use modern software and educational technologies; and the ability to individualize education were among the strengths of e-learning. The most important weaknesses related to e-learning include infrastructure difficulties, problems related to the ability of professors and students to use educational systems. The most beneficial solutions offered included improving and upgrading the e-learning infrastructure, empowering professors and students to use educational systems. We concluded that using online teaching has many strengths as well as some weaknesses. Identifying these strengths and weaknesses can help policymakers plan better.
ABSTRACT
Background: Although several studies have assessed the safety, efficacy, and effectiveness of interventions in treating the COVID-19, many of them have limitations that can have an immense impact on their results. This study aims to assess the potential limitations in systematic reviews (SRs) that evaluate the effect of interventions on the treatment of the COVID-19. Methods: PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Sciences (WOS) databases were searched from inception to January 1, 2022. All systematic reviews investigated the effectiveness, efficacy, safety, and outcome of the main intervention (Favipiravir, Remdesivir, Hydroxychloroquine, Ivermectin, Lopinavir/Ritonavir, or Tocilizumab) for the treatment of COVID-19 patients and reported the potential limitations of the included studies. We assessed the quality of the included studies using the Quality Assessment Tool (QAT) for review articles. We conducted a content analysis and prepared a narrative summary of the limitations. Results: Forty-six studies were included in this review. Ninety one percent of the included studies scored as strong quality and the remaining (9%) as moderate quality. Only 29.7% of the included systematic reviews have a registered protocol. 26% of the included studies mentioned a funding statement. The main limitations of the included studies were categorized in 10 domains: sample size, heterogeneity, follow-up, treatment, including studies, design, definitions, synthesis, quality, and search. Conclusion: Various limitations have been reported in all the included studies. Indeed, the existence of limitations in studies can affect their results, therefore, identifying these limitations can help researchers design better studies. As a result, stronger studies with more reliable results will be reported and disseminated. Further research on COVID-19 SRs is essential to improve research quality and also, efficiency among scientists across the world.
ABSTRACT
Background Although several studies have assessed the safety, efficacy, and effectiveness of interventions in treating the COVID-19, many of them have limitations that can have an immense impact on their results. This study aims to assess the potential limitations in systematic reviews (SRs) that evaluate the effect of interventions on the treatment of the COVID-19. Methods PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Sciences (WOS) databases were searched from inception to January 1, 2022. All systematic reviews investigated the effectiveness, efficacy, safety, and outcome of the main intervention (Favipiravir, Remdesivir, Hydroxychloroquine, Ivermectin, Lopinavir/Ritonavir, or Tocilizumab) for the treatment of COVID-19 patients and reported the potential limitations of the included studies. We assessed the quality of the included studies using the Quality Assessment Tool (QAT) for review articles. We conducted a content analysis and prepared a narrative summary of the limitations. Results Forty-six studies were included in this review. Ninety one percent of the included studies scored as strong quality and the remaining (9%) as moderate quality. Only 29.7% of the included systematic reviews have a registered protocol. 26% of the included studies mentioned a funding statement. The main limitations of the included studies were categorized in 10 domains: sample size, heterogeneity, follow-up, treatment, including studies, design, definitions, synthesis, quality, and search. Conclusion Various limitations have been reported in all the included studies. Indeed, the existence of limitations in studies can affect their results, therefore, identifying these limitations can help researchers design better studies. As a result, stronger studies with more reliable results will be reported and disseminated. Further research on COVID-19 SRs is essential to improve research quality and also, efficiency among scientists across the world.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 appeared in December 2019 in Wuhan, China. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the clinical manifestations including signs and symptoms, laboratory results, and perinatal outcomes in pregnant women with COVID-19. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Scholarly databases such as PubMed via LitCovid hub, Embase, Scopus, Web of sciences, and Google scholar were searched on April 7, 2020. Meta-analysis was performed via comprehensive meta-analysis software using the Mantel-Haenszel method. The event rate with 95% CI was calculated for each variable. RESULTS: Ten studies were selected. The pooled prevalence for fever, post-partum fever, cough, myalgia, fatigue, dyspnea, sore throat, and diarrhea were 66.8%, 37.1%, 35%, 24.6 %, 14.9%, 14.6%, 11.5%, and 7.6%, respectively. Laboratory test results were 49.8% for lymphopenia, 47.7% for leukocytosis, 83.7% for elevated neutrophil ratio, 57% for elevated C-reactive protein, and 71.4% for decreased lymphocyte ratio. The rate of cesarean section for delivery in all cases was 84%. Of the newborns of the corona-positive mothers, only one had a positive test result. Also, there was only one death due to a decreased lymphocyte ratio. CONCLUSION: Fever was the most common sign and symptom in pregnant women with COVID-19. Among the laboratory tests, the highest amount was related to elevated neutrophil ratio. It seems that due to the differences between pregnant women and the general population, special measures should be considered to treat these patients.
ABSTRACT
Background: Emerged in December 2019, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is one of the largest pandemics ever. During the early phase, little was known about public knowledge, attitudes, and practices (KAP) relating to coronavirus disease. This study was designed to determine KAP of Iranians toward COVID-19. Methods: A cross-sectional online survey was carried out in Iran from February 25 to April 25 using a self-administered questionnaire on 1,480 people. COVID-19-related KAP questions were adapted from other internationally validated questionnaires specific for infectious diseases. Results: All participants were aware of COVID-19. When asked unprompted, 80% of respondents could correctly cite fever, difficulty in breathing, and cough as signs/symptoms of COVID-19. Most of our sample population knew that staying at home and isolated (95.3%) as well as constant handwashing and using disinfectants (92.5%) could prevent COVID-19. However, there were also widespread misconceptions such as the belief that COVID-19 can be transmitted by wild animals (58%) and by air (48.3%). Unprompted, self-reported actions taken to avoid COVID-19 infection included handwashing with soap and water (95.4%), avoiding crowded places (93%), cleansing hands with other disinfectants (80.), and covering mouth and nose when coughing or sneezing (76.1%). The Internet and social media (94.5%) were the main coronavirus information sources. However, the most trusted information sources on coronavirus were health and medical professionals (79.3%). The majority of participants (77.0%) wanted more information about coronavirus to be available. Conclusion: Our findings suggest that people's knowledge and attitude toward COVID-19 at the time of its outbreak was at a high level.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Disease Outbreaks , Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice , Adult , Cross-Sectional Studies , Disease Outbreaks/prevention & control , Female , Hand Disinfection , Humans , Iran , Male , SARS-CoV-2 , Self Report , Sex Factors , Surveys and QuestionnairesABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) is one of the most important outcome measures for patients. The purpose of this study was to evaluate HRQoL and related factors in Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients. METHODS: A total of 420 COVID-19 patients who had been discharged from hospital were selected using a systematic sampling. The EuroQol 5-dimensional-5 levels (EQ-5D-5L) questionnaire along with medical records of the patients were used to gather the data. The t test and analysis of variance were employed to test the difference between mean EQ-5D-5L scores, and the BetaMix model was used to investigate factors associated with EQ-5D-5L scores. RESULTS: The mean score for the patients who completed the EQ-5D-5L questionnaire (n = 409) was 0.6125. The EQ-5D-5L scores were significantly higher in males, patients with younger age, those with a low level of education, the employed, patients who worked in uncrowded workplaces, patients without diabetes, and those who were not admitted to intensive care unit. The BetaMix model showed that gender, age, education, employment status, having diabetes, heart failure, and admission to the intensive care unit were significant independent predictors of the EQ-5D-5L index values. CONCLUSION: The mean score for EQ-5D-5L in COVID-19 patients was low in this study. Some of the factors, especially aging and having diabetes, should be considered in the aftercare of patients to improve their HRQoL.