Harnessing Machine Learning in Early COVID-19 Detection and Prognosis: A Comprehensive Systematic Review.

During the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic, reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing faced limitations, prompting the exploration of machine learning (ML) alternatives for diagnosis and prognosis. Providing a comprehensive appraisal of such decision support systems and their use in COVID-19 management can aid the medical community in making informed decisions during the risk assessment of their patients, especially in low-resource settings. Therefore, the objective of this study was to systematically review the studies that predicted the diagnosis of COVID-19 or the severity of the disease using ML. Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA), we conducted a literature search of MEDLINE (OVID), Scopus, EMBASE, and IEEE Xplore from January 1 to June 31, 2020. The outcomes were COVID-19 diagnosis or prognostic measures such as death, need for mechanical ventilation, admission, and acute respiratory distress syndrome. We included peer-reviewed observational studies, clinical trials, research letters, case series, and reports. We extracted data about the study's country, setting, sample size, data source, dataset, diagnostic or prognostic outcomes, prediction measures, type of ML model, and measures of diagnostic accuracy. Bias was assessed using the Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool (PROBAST). This study was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO), with the number CRD42020197109. The final records included for data extraction were 66. Forty-three (64%) studies used secondary data. The majority of studies were from Chinese authors (30%). Most of the literature (79%) relied on chest imaging for prediction, while the remainder used various laboratory indicators, including hematological, biochemical, and immunological markers. Thirteen studies explored predicting COVID-19 severity, while the rest predicted diagnosis. Seventy percent of the articles used deep learning models, while 30% used traditional ML algorithms. Most studies reported high sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy for the ML models (exceeding 90%). The overall concern about the risk of bias was "unclear" in 56% of the studies. This was mainly due to concerns about selection bias. ML may help identify COVID-19 patients in the early phase of the pandemic, particularly in the context of chest imaging. Although these studies reflect that these ML models exhibit high accuracy, the novelty of these models and the biases in dataset selection make using them as a replacement for the clinicians' cognitive decision-making questionable. Continued research is needed to enhance the robustness and reliability of ML systems in COVID-19 diagnosis and prognosis.

Exploring Determinants of COVID-19 Vaccine Acceptance, Uptake, and Hesitancy in the Pediatric Population: A Study of Parents and Caregivers in Saudi Arabia during the Initial Vaccination Phase.

OBJECTIVES: This study aims to assess COVID-19 vaccine acceptance, uptake, and hesitancy among parents and caregivers of children in Saudi Arabia during the initial rollout of pediatric COVID-19 vaccination. METHODS: An electronic survey was used to collect data from participants who visited a COVID-19 vaccine center. The survey included demographic data, COVID-19 vaccine status among participants and their children, and reasons for vaccine acceptance or rejection. The Vaccine Hesitancy Scale (VHS) tool was also employed to assess vaccine hesitancy and attitudes toward the COVID-19 vaccine and routine childhood vaccination. Multivariate binary regression analysis was used to identify predictors of actual COVID-19 vaccine uptake among children. RESULTS: Of the 873 respondents included in the analysis, 61.5% were parents and 38.5% were other caregivers. Of the participants, 96.9% had received the COVID-19 vaccine. Six hundred and ninety-four participants accepted the vaccine for their children, with the main reasons being an endorsement by the Saudi Ministry of Health (60%) and the importance of going back to school (55%). One hundred and seventy-nine participants would not vaccinate their children, with the most common reasons being fear of adverse effects (49%) and inadequate data about vaccine safety (48%). Factors such as age, COVID-19 vaccination status, self-rated family commitment level, attitudes toward routine children's vaccines, and participants' generalized anxiety disorder (GAD7) score did not significantly correlate with children's COVID-19 vaccination status. Parents were less likely to vaccinate their children compared to other caregivers, and participants with a higher socioeconomic status were more likely to vaccinate their children. CONCLUSION: Vaccine acceptance and uptake were high during the initial pediatric COVID-19 vaccination rollout in Saudi Arabia. Still, the ongoing endorsement of the Ministry of Health and healthcare authorities should continue to advocate for better vaccine uptake in children.

Mitigating the Burden of Severe Pediatric Respiratory Viruses in the Post-COVID-19 Era: ChatGPT Insights and Recommendations.

In the current post-pandemic era, the rapid spread of respiratory viruses among children and infants resulted in hospitals and pediatric intensive care units (PICUs) becoming overwhelmed. Healthcare providers around the world faced a significant challenge from the outbreak of respiratory viruses like respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), metapneumovirus, and influenza viruses. The chatbot generative pre-trained transformer, ChatGPT, which was launched by OpenAI in November 2022, had both positive and negative aspects in medical writing. Still, it has the potential to generate mitigation suggestions that could be rapidly implemented. We describe the generated suggestion from ChatGPT on 27 Feb 2023 in response to the question "What's your advice for the pediatric intensivists?" We as human authors and healthcare providers, do agree with and supplement with references these suggestions of ChatGPT. We also advocate that artificial intelligence (AI)-enabled chatbots could be utilized in seeking a vigilant and robust healthcare system to rapidly adapt to changing respiratory viruses circulating around the seasons, but AI-generated suggestions need experts to validate them, and further research is warranted.

Mental health impact of the first wave of COVID-19 pandemic on healthcare workers in 12 Arab countries.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has had a significant impact on public health, including healthcare workers and healthcare systems, worldwide. Aims: To investigate COVID-19-related psychological impact on healthcare workers in 12 Arab countries. Methods: This was a cross-sectional, hospital-based online survey conducted between 4 May and 8 June 2020. We evaluated stress, depression, anxiety, and insomnia using the Depression Anxiety Stress Scale and Insomnia Severity Index. Results: A total of 2879 respondents from 12 Arab countries completed the survey. Anxiety, depression, stress, and insomnia were reported by 48.9%, 50.6%, 41.4% and 72.1% of respondents, respectively. Lower-middle- and lower-income countries had a significantly higher prevalence of all the psychological outcomes than high-income countries. The prevalence of mental health symptoms was higher among healthcare workers aged 30-39 years, those who worked > 44 hours per week, and those in contact with COVID-19 cases, as well as healthcare workers who were not satisfied with the preventive measures. The prevalence of mental health symptoms was lower among male healthcare workers. Conclusion: COVID-19 had a considerable impact on the mental and psychological health of healthcare workers in Arab countries. This was aggravated by the geopolitical location of some Arab countries and social norms usually observed during the month of Ramadan. Being a physician or a young healthcare worker, and long working hours were risk factors for greater psychological impact of the outbreak.

Healthcare Workers' Worries and Monkeypox Vaccine Advocacy during the First Month of the WHO Monkeypox Alert: Cross-Sectional Survey in Saudi Arabia.

Background: Monkeypox virus re-surged in May 2022 as a new potential global health threat, with outbreaks bursting in multiple countries across different continents. This study was conducted in Saudi Arabia during the first month following the WHO announcement of the Monkeypox outbreak, to assess healthcare workers (HCWs) perceptions of, worries concerning, and vaccine acceptance for, Monkeypox, in light of the resolving COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: A national cross-sectional survey was conducted between 27 May and 10 June 2022, in Saudi Arabia. Data were collected on: HCWs' sociodemographic and job-related characteristics; COVID-19 infection status; and worries concerning Monkeypox, compared to COVID-19 and its sources; as well as their perceptions and awareness of, and advocacy for, supporting Monkeypox vaccination. Results: A total of 1130 HCWs completed the survey, of which 41.6% have already developed COVID-19. However, 56.5% were more concerned about COVID-19 compared to Monkeypox, while the rest were more worried about Monkeypox disease. The main cause for concern among 68.8% of the participants was the development of another worldwide pandemic, post-COVID-19, followed by their concern of either themselves or their families contracting the infection (49.6%). Most HCWs (60%) rated their level of self-awareness of Monkeypox disease as moderate to high. Males, and those who had previously developed COVID-19, were significantly less likely to worry about Monkeypox. The worry about Monkeypox developing into a pandemic, and the perception of Monkeypox being a severe disease, correlated significantly positively with the odds of high worry concerning the disease. The major predictors of participants' advocacy for vaccination against Monkeypox disease were: those who had developed COVID-19 previously; and those who supported tighter infection control measures (than those currently used) to combat the disease. A total of 74.2% of the surveyed HCWs perceived that they needed to read more about Monkeypox disease. Conclusions: Approximately half of the HCWs in this study were more concerned about Monkeypox disease than COVID-19, particularly regarding its possible progression into a new pandemic, during the first month following the WHO's Monkeypox international alert. In addition, the majority of participants were in favor of applying tighter infection prevention measures to combat the disease. The current study highlights areas requiring attention for healthcare administrators regarding HCWs' perceptions and preparedness for Monkeypox, especially in the event of a local or international pandemic.

Monkeypox caused less worry than COVID-19 among the general population during the first month of the WHO Monkeypox alert: Experience from Saudi Arabia.

BACKGROUND: Monkeypox re-emerged in May 2022 as another global health threat. This study assessed the public's perception, worries, and vaccine acceptance for Monkeypox and COVID-19 during the first month of WHO announcement. METHODS: A large-scale, cross-sectional survey was conducted between May 27 and June 5, 2022, in Saudi Arabia. Data were collected on sociodemographic characteristics, previous infection with COVID-19, worry levels regarding Monkeypox compared to COVID-19, awareness, and perceptions of Monkeypox, and vaccine acceptance. RESULTS: Among the 1546 participants, most respondents (62%) were more worried about COVID-19 than Monkeypox. Respondents aged 45 years and above and those with a university degree or higher had lower odds of agreement with Monkeypox vaccination (OR 0.871, p-value 0.006, OR 0.719, p-value <0.001), respectively. Respondents with moderate to a high level of self and family commitment to infection control precautionary measures and those who expressed self and family worry of Monkeypox infection had significantly higher odds of vaccination agreement (OR 1.089 p-value = 0.047, OR1.395 p-value = 0.003) respectively. On the other hand, respondents who previously developed COVID-19 were significantly more worried about the Monkeypox disease (1.30 times more, p-value = 0.020). CONCLUSION: Worry levels amongst the public are higher from COVID-19 than Monkeypox. Perception of Monkeypox as a dangerous and virulent disease, worry from contracting the disease, and high commitment to infection precautionary measures were predictors of agreement with Monkeypox vaccination. While advanced age and high education level are predictors of low agreement with vaccination.

The Saudi Ministries Twitter communication strategies during the COVID-19 pandemic: A qualitative content analysis study.

Objectives: To understand government communication strategies during the COVID-19 pandemic by examining topics related to COVID-19 posted by Saudi governmental ministries on Twitter and situating our findings within existing health behavior theoretical frameworks. Study design: Retrospective content analysis of COVID-19 related tweets. Methods: On November 7th, 2020, we extracted relevant tweets posted by five Saudi governmental ministries. After we extracted the data, we developed and applied a coding schema. Results: A total of 3,950 tweets were included in our dataset. Topics fell into two groups: disease-related (49.2%) and non-disease related (50.8%). The disease-related group included seven categories: awareness (18.5%), symptom (0.6%), prevention (7.7%), disease transmission (1.9%), treatment (0.3%), testing (3.4%), and reports (16.7%). The non-disease related group included eight categories: lockdown (5.9%), online learning (12.8%), digital platforms (4.3%), empowerment (12.0%), accountability (1.1%), non-disease reports (2.1%), local and international news (10.8%), and general statements (1.9%). Based on the correlation analysis, we found that the top positively correlated categories were: "testing" and "digital platforms" (r = 0.4157), "awareness" and "prevention" (r = 0.3088), "prevention" and "disease transmission" (r = 0.3025), "awareness" and "disease transmission" (r = 0.1685), "symptom" and "testing" (r = 0.1081), "awareness" and "symptom" (r = 0.0812), "symptom" and "digital platforms" (r = 0.0645), and "disease transmission" and "digital platforms" (r = 0.0450), p-values < 0.01. Several health behavior theoretical constructs were linked to our findings. Conclusions: Integrating behavioral theories in the development of health risk communication should be taken seriously by government communication specialists who manage social media accounts, as these theories help underlining determinants of people's behaviors.

SARS-CoV-2 Omicron Variant: Exploring Healthcare Workers' Awareness and Perception of Vaccine Effectiveness: A National Survey During the First Week of WHO Variant Alert.

Background: As the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant spreads in several countries, healthcare workers' (HCWs) perceptions and worries regarding vaccine effectiveness and boosters warrant reassessment. Methods: An online questionnaire among HCWs in Saudi Arabia (KSA) was distributed from Dec 1st-6th 2021 to assess their perceptions, vaccine advocacy to the Omicron variant, and their perception of the effectiveness of infection prevention measures and vaccination to prevent its spread, their Omicron variant related worries in comparison to the other variants, and their agreement with mandatory vaccination in general for adults. Results: Among the 1,285 HCW participants, two-thirds were female, 49.8 % were nurses, 46.4% were physicians, and 50.0% worked in tertiary care hospitals. 66.9% considered vaccination to be the most effective way to prevent the spread of the Omicron variant and future variants. The respondents however perceived social distancing (78.0%), universal masking (77.8%), and avoiding unnecessary travel (71.4%) as slightly superior to vaccination to prevent the spread of SARS-CoV-2 variants. HCWs aging 55 or older agreed significantly with vaccine ineffectiveness to control Omicron spread, while those who believed in non-pharmacological infection prevention measures agreed significantly with vaccination for that purpose. Male HCWs had a significant agreement with mandatory vaccination of all eligible adult populations. On the other hand, unwilling HCWs to receive the vaccine had strong disagreements with mandatory vaccination. Conclusions: The current study in the first week of Omicron showed that only two-thirds of HCWs felt that vaccination was the best option to prevent the spread of the Omicron variant, indicating the need for further motivation campaigns for vaccination and booster dose. HCWs had a strong belief in infection prevention measures to contain the spread of SARS-CoV-2 variants that should be encouraged and augmented.

Healthcare Workers' SARS-CoV-2 Omicron Variant Uncertainty-Related Stress, Resilience, and Coping Strategies during the First Week of the World Health Organization's Alert.

BACKGROUND: As the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant emerged and spread globally at an alarming speed, healthcare workers' (HCWs) uncertainties, worries, resilience, and coping strategies warranted assessment. The COVID-19 pandemic had a severe psychological impact on HCWs, including the development of Post-Traumatic Stress symptoms. Specific subgroups of HCWs, such as front-line and female workers, were more prone to poor mental health outcomes and difficulties facing stress. METHODS: The responses to an online questionnaire among HCWs in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) were collected from 1 December 2021 to 6 December 2021, aiming to assess their uncertainties, worries, resilience, and coping strategies regarding the Omicron variant. Three validated instruments were used to achieve the study's goals: the Brief Resilient Coping Scale (BRCS), the Standard Stress Scale (SSS), and the Intolerance of Uncertainty Scale (IUS)-Short Form. RESULTS: The online survey was completed by 1285 HCWs. Females made up the majority of the participants (64%). A total of 1285 HCW's completed the online survey from all regions in KSA. Resilient coping scored by the BRCS was negatively and significantly correlated with stress as scored by the SSS (r = -0.313, p < 0.010). Moreover, intolerance of uncertainty scored by the IUS positively and significantly correlated with stress (r = 0.326, p < 0.010). Increased stress levels were linked to a considerable drop in resilient coping scores. Furthermore, being a Saudi HCW or a nurse was linked to a significant reduction in resilient coping ratings. Coping by following healthcare authorities' preventative instructions and using the WHO website as a source of information was linked to a considerable rise in resilient coping. CONCLUSIONS: The negative association between resilient coping and stress was clearly shown, as well as how underlying intolerance of uncertainty is linked to higher stress among HCWs quickly following the development of a new infectious threat. The study provides early insights into developing and promoting coping strategies for emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants.

Enhancing parental knowledge of childhood and adolescence safety : An interventional educational campaign

Background: Safeguarding children and adolescents from unintentional injuries is a significant concern for parents and caregivers. With them staying more at home during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, more educational tools and valid educational programs are warranted to improve parental knowledge and awareness about childhood and adolescences’ safety. This study aims to explore the effectiveness of childhood and adolescence safety campaigns on parents’ knowledge and attitude toward preventable injuries. Methods: This was a pre–post experimental study, in which the predesigned assessments were used as an evaluation tool before and after attending a childhood and adolescence safety campaign. The pre–post assessment question included questions to evaluate the socio-demographic status, followed by knowledge questions in line with the current childhood and adolescence safety campaign. The outcomes of interest were assessed before and after attending the campaign's stations. Results: Three hundred eight parents volunteered to participate in this study. Their knowledge score improved from 36.2 [standard deviation (SD) 17.7] to 79.3 (SD 15.6) after attending the Campaign (t value = 34.6, P < .001). Both, perceptions on the preventability of accidents and the parents’ perceived usefulness of educational campaigns showed improvements, with (t value = 6.3, P < .001) and (t value = 3.097, P < .001), respectively. Conclusion: The educational childhood and adolescence safety campaign for caregivers in Saudi Arabia resulted in a significant increase in the overall knowledge and attitudes toward childhood and adolescence's safety. As children and adolescents are currently staying at home more, additional educational tools and programs are warranted to promote safe practices among parents and caregivers.

Faculty Members' Perspective on Virtual Interviews for Medical Residency Matching during the COVID-19 Crisis: A National Survey.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, conducting face-to-face medical residency interviews was challenging due to infection prevention precautions, social distancing, and travel restrictions. Virtual interviews were implemented by the Saudi Commission for Health Specialties (SCFHS) as an alternative process for residency matching while striving to maintain the same quality standards. This national survey was conducted to assess the satisfaction and perceptions of faculty members' virtual interview performance in the assessment for the medical training residency programs. Among the participating 173 faculty members, 34.1% did not have previous experience with video-conferencing. The Zoom application was the most commonly used platform (65.9%). Most (89.6%) of the faculty perceived virtual interviews as "adequate" platforms on which the candidates could express themselves, while almost half of the faculty (53.8%) agreed that virtual interviews allowed them to accurately reach an impression about the candidates. Overall, 73.4% of faculty felt comfortable ranking the virtually interviewed candidates. We conclude that the acceptance of participating faculty members in the first Saudi medical residency training matching cycle virtual interviewing event was well-perceived. This study provides evidence for future application and research of virtual interviews in residency candidates' assessment, especially after the pandemic crisis resolves.

Public Perceptions around mHealth Applications during COVID-19 Pandemic: A Network and Sentiment Analysis of Tweets in Saudi Arabia.

A series of mitigation efforts were implemented in response to the COVID-19 pandemic in Saudi Arabia, including the development of mobile health applications (mHealth apps) for the public. Assessing the acceptability of mHealth apps among the public is crucial. This study aimed to use Twitter to understand public perceptions around the use of six Saudi mHealth apps used during COVID-19: "Sehha", "Mawid", "Sehhaty", "Tetamman", "Tawakkalna", and "Tabaud". We used two methodological approaches: network and sentiment analysis. We retrieved Twitter data using specific mHealth apps-related keywords. After including relevant tweets, our final mHealth app networks consisted of a total of 4995 Twitter users and 8666 conversational relationships. The largest networks in size (i.e., the number of users) and volume (i.e., the conversational relationships) among all were "Tawakkalna" followed by "Tabaud", and their conversations were led by diverse governmental accounts. In contrast, the four remaining mHealth networks were mainly led by the health sector and media. Our sentiment analysis approach included five classes and showed that most conversations were neutral, which included facts or information pieces and general inquires. For the automated sentiment classifier, we used Support Vector Machine with AraVec embeddings as it outperformed the other tested classifiers. The sentiment classifier showed an accuracy, precision, recall, and F1-score of 85%. Future studies can use social media and real-time analytics to improve mHealth apps' services and user experience, especially during health crises.

COVID-19 vaccine confidence and hesitancy among health care workers: A cross-sectional survey from a MERS-CoV experienced nation.

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.

Validation of an Arabic Version of the Self-Efficacy for Appropriate Medication Use Scale.

BACKGROUND: Medication adherence is essential for optimal treatment outcomes in patients with chronic diseases. Medication nonadherence compromises patient clinical outcomes and patient safety as well as leading to an increase in unnecessary direct and indirect medical costs. Therefore, early identification of non-adherence by healthcare professionals using medication adherence scales should help in preventing poor clinical outcomes among patients with chronic health conditions, such as diabetes and hypertension. Unfortunately, there are very few validated medication adherence assessment scales in Arabic. Thus, the aim of this study was to validate a newly translated Arabic version of the Self-Efficacy for Appropriate Medication Use Scale (SEAMS) among patients with chronic diseases. METHODS: In this single-center cross-sectional study that was conducted between March 2019 and March 2021 at the primary care clinics of King Saud University Medical City (KSUMC) in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, the English version of SEAMS was translated to Arabic using the forward-backward method and piloted among 22 adults (≥18 yrs.) with chronic diseases. The reliability of the newly translated scale was examined using the test-retest and Cronbach's alpha methods. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses were conducted to examine the construct validity of the Arabic version of SEAMS. RESULTS: The number of patients who consented to participate and filled out the questionnaire was 202. Most of the participants were males (69.9%), aged ≥50 years (65.2%), and had diabetes (96.53%). The 13-item Arabic-translated SEAMS mean score was 32.37 ± 5.31, and the scale showed acceptable internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha = 0.886) and reliability (Intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.98). Total variance of the 13-item Arabic-SEAMS could be explained by two factors as confirmed by the factor analysis. CONCLUSION: The Arabic version of SEAMS should help in detecting poor self-efficacy for medication adherence among Arabic-speaking patient populations with chronic diseases, such as diabetes and hypertension. Future studies should examine its validity among more diverse patient populations in different Arabic-speaking countries.

International alliance and AGREE-ment of 71 clinical practice guidelines on the management of critical care patients with COVID-19: a living systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to systematically identify and critically assess the clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for the management of critically ill patients with COVID-19 with the AGREE II instrument. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We searched Medline, CINAHL, EMBASE, CNKI, CBM, WanFang, and grey literature from November 2019 - November 2020. We did not apply language restrictions. One reviewer independently screened the retrieved titles and abstracts, and a second reviewer confirmed the decisions. Full texts were assessed independently and in duplicate. Disagreements were resolved by consensus. We included any guideline that provided recommendations on the management of critically ill patients with COVID-19. Data extraction was performed independently and in duplicate by two reviewers. We descriptively summarized CPGs characteristics. We assessed the quality with the AGREE II instrument and we summarized relevant therapeutic interventions. RESULTS: We retrieved 3,907 records and 71 CPGs were included. Means (Standard Deviations) of the scores for the 6 domains of the AGREE II instrument were 65%(SD19.56%), 39%(SD19.64%), 27%(SD19.48%), 70%(SD15.74%), 26%(SD18.49%), 42%(SD34.91) for the scope and purpose, stakeholder involvement, rigor of development, clarity of presentation, applicability, editorial independence domains, respectively. Most of the CPGs showed a low overall quality (less than 40%). CONCLUSION: Future CPGs for COVID-19 need to rely, for their development, on standard evidence-based methods and tools.

Parental Attitudes and Hesitancy About COVID-19 vs. Routine Childhood Vaccinations: A National Survey.

Objectives: To quantify parental acceptance of the COVID-19 vaccine and assess the vaccine hesitancy (VH) for COVID-19 vs. childhood vaccines. Methods: Eight vaccine hesitancy scale (VHS) items, adopted from WHO's Strategic Advisory Group of Immunization (SAGE), were used to assess VH for COVID-19 vaccine vs. routine childhood vaccines. We distributed the online survey to parents with the commence of the national childhood COVID-19 vaccination program in Saudi Arabia. Results: Among 3,167 parents, 47.6% are decided to vaccinate their children against COVID-19. The most common reasons for refusal were inadequate safety information (69%) and worry about side effects (60.6%). Parents have a significantly greater positive attitudes toward children's routine vaccines vs. the COVID-19 vaccine, with higher mean VHS (±SD) = 2.98 ± 0.58 vs. 2.63 ± 0.73, respectively (p-value < 0.001). Parents agreed more that routine childhood vaccines are more essential and effective as compared to the COVID-19 vaccine (Cohen's D: 0.946, and 0.826, consecutively; T-test p-value < 0.00). There is more parental anxiety about serious side effects of the COVID-19 vaccine vs. routine childhood vaccines (Cohen's D = 0.706, p-value < 0.001). Parents who relied on the Ministry of Health information were more predicted (OR = 1.28, p-value = 0.035) to intend to vaccinate as opposed to those who used the WHO website (OR = 0.47, -53%, p-value < 0.001). In a multivariate logistic regression analysis, the factors associated with intention to vaccinate children were parents who received COVID-19 vaccine, older parents, having children aged 12-18, and parents with lower education levels. Conclusions: Significant proportion of parents are hesitant about the COVID-19 vaccine because they are less confident in its effectiveness, safety, and whether it is essential for their children. Relying on the national official healthcare authority's website for the source of information was associated with increased acceptance of childhood COVID-19 vaccination. As parental intention to vaccinate children against COVID-19 is suboptimal, healthcare authorities could boost vaccine uptake by campaigns targeting hesitant parents.

Stress and Burnout Related to Electronic Health Record Use among Healthcare Providers during the COVID-19 Pandemic in Saudi Arabia: A Preliminary National Randomized Survey.

Healthcare providers' burnout may potentially have a negative impact on patient care. The use of the electronic health record (EHR) increases the burden for healthcare providers (HCPs), particularly during the coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. This study assessed the stress and burnout related to the use of EHRs and health information technology (HIT) tools among HCPs during COVID-19 in Saudi Arabia. We used a self-developed survey tool. It consisted of five sections; demographics and professional data, experience using EHR, effects of EHR use, use of EHR and technology tools during COVID-19, and health and wellbeing. The survey link was emailed to a random sample of HCPs registered with a national scientific regulatory body. Univariate, bivariate, and multivariate analyses were performed to measure the association between burnout and study variables. A total of 182 participants completed the survey. 50.5% of participants reported a presence of HIT-related stress, and 40.1% reported a presence of burnout. The variables independently associated with burnout were providing tertiary level of care, working with COVID-19 suspected cases, dissatisfaction with EHRs, and agreement with the statement that using EHRs added frustration to the workday. Further research that explores possible solutions is warranted to minimize burnout among HCPs, especially during infectious outbreaks.

COVID-19 Critical Care Simulations: An International Cross-Sectional Survey.

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.