Trends, characteristics, and impact of global scientific production on mental health of health workers in the context of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).

BACKGROUND: Healthcare workers are under significant constant stress as a result of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. The aim of this study, therefore, was to analyze bibliometrically the impact, trend, and characteristics of scientific production related to the mental health of health professionals during the COVID-19 pandemic. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A bibliometric analysis of the scientific production on the mental health of health professionals and COVID-19 in Scopus from December 2019 to December 2021 was performed. An advanced search was designed using Boolean operators in Scopus and applied in April 2022. The metadata was entered into Microsoft Excel for the elaboration of the tables, SciVal to obtain the bibliometric indicators, and VosViewer to plot collaborative networks. RESULTS: A total of 1393 manuscripts, 1007 of which met the eligibility criteria, were found on the mental health of health workers and COVID-19. The country with the highest academic production was the United States and Harvard University with 27 manuscripts as the most productive institution. The scientific journal with the highest scientific production was the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health with 138 manuscripts and 1580 citations, and the author with the most citations per publication was Carnnasi Claudia with 69.8. CONCLUSION: The countries with the highest economic income occupy the first places in scientific production on the mental health of health workers during the COVID-19 pandemic, with the United States as the leader. There is a gap in the scientific knowledge on the mental health of healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic in middle- and low-income countries.

Personal protective equipment: Analysis of supply among midwives during the COVID-19 pandemic in Peru.

OBJECTIVE: To report the details of provision of personal protective equipment to midwives during the COVID-19 pandemic in Peru METHODS: This is a non-experimental, descriptive, cross-sectional study. An online survey of 679 midwives working at public healthcare centres was conducted via questionnaires. The following aspects were outlined: method of supply and frequency of delivery of personal protective equipment, type of personal protective equipment provided by the institution, and self-purchase. Furthermore, features of the midwives' workplace were described. For statistical analysis, absolute frequencies and relative proportions were used for categorical variables, and mean and standard deviation were used for numerical variables. MEASUREMENTS AND FINDINGS: The most important finding of this study is that a large proportion of midwives (66.6%) did not receive new personal protective equipment for each shift; 41.9% of midwives who received personal protective equipment during each shift exclusively provided services in the COVID-19 ward, whereas 27.6% did not. The least received supplies were of N95 respirator masks (41.7%) and disposable isolation suit gown (50.5%). Only a certain proportion of midwives (38.6%) were trained by their own institutions on the use of personal protective equipment. KEY CONCLUSIONS: The provision of personal protective equipment to midwives and training on personal protective equipment were insufficient at all workplaces. Therefore, measures must be taken to increase the supply of this material to midwives who are essential workers in reproductive health.

Global academic output on COVID-19 and Guillain-Barre Syndrome: A bibliometric analysis.

The purpose of this study was to bibliometrically analyze scientific publications on Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) related to COVID-19. A specialized search of the Scopus was used (December 2019 to February 2022). Collected publications were evaluated in Scival (Elsevier). The results were arranged in tables for presentation. We found 959 papers that were collected and the highest percentage of these belonged to the area of Neurology. Josef Finsterer was the author with the highest academic production, but Benedict Michael was the one with the highest impact worldwide. Although the Universidade Federal de São Paulo (Brazil) was the college with the highest scientific production, it was King's College London that reported the highest impact. Regarding the journals, the Journal of Neurology is the one with the highest worldwide production. In addition, an increase in first quartile publication and articles with national collaboration was reported. Scholarly output on COVID-19 and GBS have been increasing. Although national collaboration has the highest proportion of manuscripts, it is the international type that reported a greater impact, this would show a great interest on the part of researchers from all over the world regarding this topic.

Scientometric analysis of the world scientific production on tuberculosis associated with COVID-19.

Background: Nowadays, tuberculosis and COVID-19 are the principal infections around the world. This study aimed to determine the global scientific production on COVID-19 associated to tuberculosis during the period 2019-2020. Methods: For the collection of metadata on COVID-19 associated to tuberculosis, the Scopus database was used, considering the period 2019-2020, with the last day of update being September 13, 2021. The main authors, countries, institutions, journal metrics, and documents were extracted. The Scival tool was used for the scientometric analysis of the data. Results: A total of 464 papers were retrieved where it was found that universities in South Africa, the United States, and England led the world's scientific production. The International Journal of Tuberculosis and Lung Disease was the journal with the highest production and The Lancet Global Health was the journal with the most citations per publication. On the other hand, most papers were published in Q1 journals, with infectious diseases within the area of medicine being the most addressed. Conclusion: South African universities lead the world in scientific output. Most of the research on this topic has been published in Q1 journals, with collaboration being largely national. Further analysis is needed in the aftermath of the pandemic.