Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 7 de 7
Filter
1.
Psychol Health Med ; : 1-9, 2022 Nov 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-20233728

ABSTRACT

During the COVID-19 pandemic, undergraduate medical students (UMS) exposed to isolation, social distancing and complete or partial face-to-face educational activities interruption may present increased stress, depression and anxiety. This study was undertaken to evaluate if, during isolation, UMS involved in online group activities as investigators of a research project (volunteer group) would present better mental health than their colleagues, not involved in that research (control group). A Web-based survey, via the Google Forms platform, including details on demographic data, life habits, previous health conditions, worries with the COVID-19 pandemic, sleep pattern modifications and depression, anxiety and mental stress, using the DASS-21 (Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scale) was implemented from 20 July to 31 August 2020. Statistical analysis was performed using the SPSS version 20.0. A p-value <0.05 was significant. A total of 684 UMS were included, 228 as a volunteer group and 456 as a control group. Mean age was 23.15 (3.16) years. The groups were paired for age, gender, ethnicity, life habits and previous health conditions. Older age, male gender, participation in the research project, unchanged sleep pattern during the pandemic, lack of fear from getting the COVID-19 and lack of previous health conditions were associated with lower DASS21 scores (better mental health). Participating as investigators of a research project foreseeing frequent interaction with patients, colleagues and professors (other investigators) lead to better mental health during the COVID-19 quarantine in Brazil.

2.
BMC Med Educ ; 23(1): 361, 2023 May 22.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2326317

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic put healthcare professionals, including residents (postgraduate trainees of health professions), under intense physical and psychological stress, hence at risk for mental disorders. We evaluated the prevalence of mental disorders among healthcare residents during the pandemic. METHODS: From July to September 2020, residents in medicine and other healthcare specialties in Brazil were recruited. The participants completed electronic forms with validated questionnaires (DASS-21, PHQ-9, BRCS) to screen for depression, anxiety, and stress, and to evaluate resilience. Data on potential predisposing factors for mental disorders were also collected. Descriptive statistics, chi-squared, students t, correlation and logistic regression models were applied. The study received ethical approval, and all participants provided informed consent. RESULTS: We included 1313 participants (51.3% medical; 48.7% nonmedical) from 135 Brazilian hospitals; mean (SD) age: 27.8 (4.4) years; 78.2% females; 59.3% white race. Of all participants, 51.3%, 53.4% and 52.6% presented symptoms consistent with depression, anxiety, and stress, respectively; 61.9% showed low resilience. Nonmedical residents exhibited higher anxiety compared to medical residents (DASS-21 anxiety score, mean difference: 2.26; 95% CI: 1.15-3.37; p < 0.001). In multivariate analyses, having any pre-existent, nonpsychiatric chronic disease was associated with higher prevalence of symptoms indicative of depression (odds ratio, OR: 2.05; 95% CI: 1.47-2.85, on DASS-21 | OR: 2.26; 95% CI: 1.59-3.20, on PHQ-9), anxiety (OR: 2.07; 95% CI: 1.51-2.83, on DASS-21), and stress (OR: 1.53; 95% CI: 1.12-2.09, on DASS-21); other predisposing factors were identified; by contrast, high resilience (BRCS score) was protective against symptoms of depression (OR 0.82; 95% CI: 0.79-0.85, on DASS-21 | OR 0.85; 95% CI: 0.82-0.88, on PHQ-9), anxiety (OR 0.90; 95% CI: 0.87-0.93, on DASS-21), and stress (OR 0.88; 95% CI: 0.85-0.91, on DASS-21); p < 0.05 for all outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: We found a high prevalence of mental disorder symptoms among healthcare residents during COVID-19 pandemic in Brazil. Nonmedical residents exhibited higher levels of anxiety than medical ones. Some predisposing factors for depression, anxiety and stress among residents were identified.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Mental Disorders , Female , Humans , Adult , Male , COVID-19/epidemiology , Pandemics , Prevalence , SARS-CoV-2 , Depression/diagnosis , Mental Health , Anxiety/psychology
3.
PLoS One ; 17(11): e0267530, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2256014

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, health professionals have been working under extreme conditions, increasing the risk of physical and mental illness. We evaluated the prevalence of burnout and its associated factors among postgraduate student residents in health professions during the global health crisis. METHODS: Healthcare residents were recruited from all across Brazil between July and September 2020 through digital forms containing instruments for assessing burnout (Oldenburg Burnout Inventory (OLBI)), resilience (brief resilient coping scale (BRCS)) and anxiety, stress and depression (depression, anxiety and stress scale (DASS-21) and Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9)). Additionally, the relationships between burnout and chronic diseases, autonomy and educational adequacy in the residency programme, personal protective equipment (PPE), workload and care for patients with COVID-19 were evaluated. The chi-square test, Student's t test, Pearson's correlation test and logistic regression were performed. RESULTS: A total of 1,313 participants were included: mean (standard deviation) age, 27.8 (4.4) years; female gender, 78.1%; white race, 59.3%; and physicians, 51.3%. The overall prevalence of burnout was 33.4%. The odds (odds ratio [95% confidence interval]) of burnout were higher in the presence of pre-existing diseases (1.76 [1.26-2.47]) and weekly work > 60 h (1.36 [1.03-1.79]) and were lower in the presence of high resilience (0.84 [0.81-0.88]), autonomy (0.87 [0.81-0.93]), and educational structure (0.77 [0.73-0.82]), adequate availability of PPE (0.72 [0.63-0.83]) and non-white race (0.63 [0.47-0.83]). Burnout was correlated with anxiety (r = 0.47; p < 0.05), stress (r: 0.58; p < 0.05) and depression (r: 0.65; p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: We observed a high prevalence of burnout among residents during the COVID-19 pandemic. Individual characteristics and conditions related to the work environment were associated with a higher or lower occurrence of the syndrome.


Subject(s)
Burnout, Professional , COVID-19 , Humans , Female , Adult , COVID-19/epidemiology , Prevalence , Pandemics , Cross-Sectional Studies , Burnout, Professional/epidemiology
4.
Adv Rheumatol ; 62(1): 13, 2022 05 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1892238

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Patients using immunosuppressive drugs may have unfavorable results after infections. However, there is a lack of information regarding COVID-19 in these patients, especially in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Therefore, the aim of this study was to evaluate the risk factors associated with COVID-19 hospitalizations in patients with RA. METHODS: This multicenter, prospective cohort study is within the ReumaCoV Brazil registry and included 489 patients with RA. In this context, 269 patients who tested positive for COVID-19 were compared to 220 patients who tested negative for COVID-19 (control group). All patient data were collected from the Research Electronic Data Capture database. RESULTS: The participants were predominantly female (90.6%) with a mean age of 53 ± 12 years. Of the patients with COVID-19, 54 (20.1%) required hospitalization. After multiple adjustments, the final regression model showed that heart disease (OR = 4.61, 95% CI 1.06-20.02. P < 0.001) and current use of glucocorticoids (OR = 20.66, 95% CI 3.09-138. P < 0.002) were the risk factors associated with hospitalization. In addition, anosmia was associated with a lower chance of hospitalization (OR = 0.26; 95% CI 0.10-0.67, P < 0.005). CONCLUSION: Our results demonstrated that heart disease and the use of glucocorticoids were associated with a higher number of hospital admissions for COVID-19 in patients with RA. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Brazilian Registry of Clinical Trials - RBR-33YTQC.


Subject(s)
Arthritis, Rheumatoid , COVID-19 , Heart Diseases , Adult , Aged , Arthritis, Rheumatoid/complications , Arthritis, Rheumatoid/drug therapy , Arthritis, Rheumatoid/epidemiology , Brazil/epidemiology , Female , Glucocorticoids , Hospitalization , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Prospective Studies , Registries
5.
Ann Rheum Dis ; 80(9): 1137-1146, 2021 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1247325

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To investigate baseline use of biologic or targeted synthetic (b/ts) disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) and COVID-19 outcomes in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: We analysed the COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance physician registry (from 24 March 2020 to 12 April 2021). We investigated b/tsDMARD use for RA at the clinical onset of COVID-19 (baseline): abatacept (ABA), rituximab (RTX), Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKi), interleukin 6 inhibitors (IL-6i) or tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi, reference group). The ordinal COVID-19 severity outcome was (1) no hospitalisation, (2) hospitalisation without oxygen, (3) hospitalisation with oxygen/ventilation or (4) death. We used ordinal logistic regression to estimate the OR (odds of being one level higher on the ordinal outcome) for each drug class compared with TNFi, adjusting for potential baseline confounders. RESULTS: Of 2869 people with RA (mean age 56.7 years, 80.8% female) on b/tsDMARD at the onset of COVID-19, there were 237 on ABA, 364 on RTX, 317 on IL-6i, 563 on JAKi and 1388 on TNFi. Overall, 613 (21%) were hospitalised and 157 (5.5%) died. RTX (OR 4.15, 95% CI 3.16 to 5.44) and JAKi (OR 2.06, 95% CI 1.60 to 2.65) were each associated with worse COVID-19 severity compared with TNFi. There were no associations between ABA or IL6i and COVID-19 severity. CONCLUSIONS: People with RA treated with RTX or JAKi had worse COVID-19 severity than those on TNFi. The strong association of RTX and JAKi use with poor COVID-19 outcomes highlights prioritisation of risk mitigation strategies for these people.


Subject(s)
Antirheumatic Agents/therapeutic use , Arthritis, Rheumatoid/complications , Arthritis, Rheumatoid/drug therapy , COVID-19/complications , Aged , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Registries , SARS-CoV-2 , Severity of Illness Index
6.
JMIR Res Protoc ; 10(4): e26477, 2021 Apr 20.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1197476

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: A growing body of evidence suggests that SARS-COV-2 infection during pregnancy may affect maternal-fetal outcomes and possibly result in implications for the long-term development of SARS-CoV-2-exposed children. OBJECTIVE: The PROUDEST (Pregnancy Outcomes and Child Development Effects of SARS-CoV-2 Infection Study) is a multicenter, prospective cohort study designed to elucidate the repercussions of COVID-19 for the global health of mothers and their children. METHODS: The PROUDEST trial comprises 2 prospective, sequential substudies. The PREGNANT substudy will clinically assess the effects of SARS-CoV-2 infection on pregnancy, childbirth, and puerperium from a mechanistic standpoint to elucidate the pregnancy-related inflammatory and immunological phenomena underlying COVID-19. Pregnant women aged 18-40 years who have been exposed (proven with laboratory tests) to SARS-CoV-2 (group A; n=300) will be compared to control subjects with no laboratory evidence of in-pregnancy exposure to the virus (group B; n=300). Subjects exposed to other infections during pregnancy will be excluded. The BORN substudy is a long-term follow-up study that will assess the offspring of women who enrolled in the prior substudy. It will describe the effects of SARS-CoV-2 exposure during pregnancy on children's growth, neurodevelopment, and metabolism from birth up to 5 years of age. It includes two comparison groups; group A (exposed; n=300) comprises children born from SARS-CoV-2-exposed pregnancies, and group B (controls; n=300) comprises children born from nonexposed mothers. RESULTS: Recruitment began in July 2020, and as of January 2021, 260 pregnant women who were infected with SARS-CoV-2 during pregnancy and 160 newborns have been included in the study. Data analysis is scheduled to start after all data are collected. CONCLUSIONS: Upon completion of the study, we expect to have comprehensive data that will provide a better understanding of the effects of SARS-CoV-2 infection and related inflammatory and immunological processes on pregnancy, puerperium, and infancy. Our findings will inform clinical decisions regarding the care of SARS-CoV-2-exposed mothers and children and support the development of evidence-based public health policies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Brazilian Register of Clinical Trials RBR65QXS2; https://ensaiosclinicos.gov.br/rg/RBR-65qxs2. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/26477.

7.
JMIR Res Protoc ; 9(12): e24357, 2020 Dec 15.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-977722

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Patients with immune-mediated rheumatic diseases (IMRD) are at increased risk of infections, including significant morbidity and high mortality. Considering the potential for unfavorable outcomes of SARS-CoV-2 infection in patients with IMRD, several questions were raised regarding the impact of COVID-19 at the start of the pandemic. OBJECTIVE: This paper presents the protocol of a study that aims to prospectively evaluate patients with IMRD and a confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis (using criteria provided by the Brazilian Ministry of Health). METHODS: The study comprised a prospective, observational cohort (patients with IMRD and COVID-19) and a comparison group (patients with only IMRD), with a follow-up time of 6 months to evaluate differences in health outcomes. The primary outcomes will be changes in IMRD disease activity after SARS-CoV-2 infection at 4 time points: (1) at baseline, (2) within 4-6 weeks after infection, (3) at 3 months after the second assessment (±15 days), and (4) at 6 months (±15 days). The secondary outcomes will be the progression rate to moderate or severe forms of COVID-19, need for intensive care unit admission and mechanical ventilation, death, and therapeutic changes related to IMRD. Two outcomes-pulmonary and thromboembolic events in patients with both IMRD and SARS-CoV-2 infection-are of particular interest and will be monitored with close attention (clinical, laboratory, and function tests as well as imaging). RESULTS: Recruitment opened in May 2020, with 1300 participants recruited from 43 sites as of November 2020. Patient recruitment will conclude by the end of December 2020, with follow-up occurring until April 2021. Data analysis is scheduled to start after all inclusion data have been collected, with an aim to publish a peer-reviewed paper in December 2020. CONCLUSIONS: We believe this study will provide clinically relevant data on the general impact of COVID-19 on patients with IMRD. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Brazilian Registry of Clinical Trials RBR-33YTQC; http://www.ensaiosclinicos.gov.br/rg/RBR-33ytqc/. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/24357.

SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL