Global prevalence of low resilience among the general population and health professionals during the COVID-19 pandemic: A meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the global prevalence of low resilience among the general population and health professionals during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: Embase, Ovid-MEDLINE, PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, CINAHL, WHO COVID-19 databases, and grey literature were searched for studies from January 1, 2020, to August 22, 2022. Hoy's assessment tool was used to assess for risk of bias. Meta-analysis and moderator analysis was performed using the Generalized Linear Mixed Model with a corresponding 95 % confidence interval (95 % CI) adopting the random-effect model in R software. Between-study heterogeneity was measured using I2 and τ2 statistics. RESULTS: Overall, 44 studies involving 51,119 participants were identified. The pooled prevalence of low resilience was 27.0 % (95 % CI: 21.0 %-33.0 %) with prevalence among the general population being 35.0 % (95 % CI: 28.0 %-42.0 %) followed by 23.0 % (95 % CI: 16.0 %-30.9 %) for health professionals. The 3-month trend analysis of the prevalence of low resilience beginning January 2020 to June 2021 revealed upward then downward patterns among overall populations. The prevalence of low resilience was higher in females, studied during the delta variant dominant period, frontline health professionals, and undergraduate degree education. LIMITATIONS: Study outcomes showed high heterogeneity; however, sub-group and meta-regression analyses were conducted to identify potential moderating factors. CONCLUSIONS: Globally, 1 out of 4 people among the general population and health professionals experienced low resilience due to COVID-19 adversity. The prevalence of low resilience was twice as much among the general population compared to health professionals. These findings provide information for policymakers and clinicians in the development and implementation of resilience-enhancing programs.

Prevalence of oropharyngeal dysphagia and risk of mortality among hospitalized COVID-19 patients: A meta-analysis.

Background: Post-extubation and neurologic complications in COVID-19 patients have been shown to cause oropharyngeal dysphagia (OD). We performed the first meta-analysis to explore and estimate the pooled prevalence of OD, risk of mortality, and associated factors among hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Methods: We searched Scopus, PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, WHO COVID-19 database, and Web of Science for literature on dysphagia in COVID-19 patients. We used the generalized linear mixed model (GLMM) to determine the prevalence estimates of OD in the R software and the DerSimonian-Lard random-effects model in the Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software to explore the risk of mortality and associated factors of OD, presented as odds ratios (ORs) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We used Cochran's Q, τ2, and the I2 statistic to assess heterogeneity and conducted a moderator analysis to identify moderator variables. Results: We included eighteen studies with a total of 2055 participants from the 910 studies retrieved from electronic databases. The prevalence of OD among hospitalized COVID-19 patients was estimated at 35% (95% CI = 21-52; low certainty of evidence) associated with a high risk of mortality (OR = 6.41; 95% CI = 1.48-27.7; moderate certainty of evidence). Intubation (OR = 16.3; 95% CI = 7.10-37.3; high certainty of evidence), use of tracheostomies (OR = 8.09; 95% CI = 3.05-21.5; high certainty of evidence), and proning (OR = 4.97; 95% CI = 1.34-18.5; high certainty of evidence) among hospitalized COVID-19 patients were highly associated with developing OD. The prevalence of OD was higher among hospitalized COVID-19 patients who were admitted in intensive care units (ICU), intubated, and mechanically ventilated. Conclusions: The prevalence of OD among hospitalized COVID-19 patients is estimated at 35% associated with a high risk of mortality. OD assessment among hospitalized COVID-19 patients who are managed in an ICU, prone position, intubated, and mechanical ventilated deserves more attention. Registration: PROSPERO CRD42022337597.

Prevalence of depression, anxiety, and stress among first responders for medical emergencies during COVID-19 pandemic: A meta-analysis.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has been shown to cause enormous psychological burden among health care workers, including first responders. However, psychological well-being of first responders, essential in the fight against COVID-19 pandemic, has often been ignored. We performed the first meta-analysis to explore the prevalence of 1) depression, 2) anxiety, and 3) stress among first responders for medical emergencies during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: A comprehensive search was conducted in Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, PsychInfo, PubMed, and the WHO COVID-19 database from 2020. The Freeman-Tukey double-arcsine transformation model in R-software determined the pooled prevalence and Comprehensive Meta-Analysis for associated factors of depression, anxiety, and stress with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI). The Cochrane Q, τ2, and I2 statistics were used to examine heterogeneity. Sub-group analysis was conducted to identify moderator variables. Results: We identified 765 records, from which 17 studies were included with 8096 first responders. The pooled prevalence was 31% (95% CI = 21%-41%) for depression; 67% (95% CI = 64%-70%) for mild depression, 24% (95% CI = 17%-31%) for moderate depression, and 16% (95% CI = 4%-34%) for severe depression. The pooled prevalence for anxiety was 32% (95% CI = 20%-44%); 60% (95% CI = 46%-73%) for mild anxiety, 27% (95% CI = 14%-42%) for moderate anxiety, and 14% (95% CI = 7%-22%) for severe anxiety. The pooled prevalence for stress was 17% (95% CI = 4%-34%); 58% (95% CI = 38%-77%) for mild stress, 22% (95% CI = 5%-44%) for moderate stress, and 19% (95% CI = 5%-37%) for severe stress. The prevalence of depression was 37% (95% CI = 25%-52%) for paramedics, 28% (95% CI = 12%-54%) for EMS personnel and 22% (95% CI = 13%-33%) for police. Similarly, the prevalence of anxiety was 38% (95% CI = 20%-60%) for paramedics, 28% (95% CI = 11%-53%) for EMS personnel, and 19% (95% CI = 10%-32%) for police. Married responders were likely at risk for depression (1.50, 95% CI = 1.26-1.78) and anxiety (1.94, 95% CI = 1.62-2.33), while unmarried responders were less likely at risk for depression (0.67, 95% CI = 0.56-0.79) and anxiety (0.50, 95% CI = 0.43-0.63). Conclusions: High prevalence of depression, anxiety, and stress during the COVID-19 pandemic among first responders for medical emergencies emphasizes the need for monitoring their psychological well-being. Early assessment and management of mild depression, anxiety, and stress among first responders are crucial in preventing progression into moderate and severe types.