Prevalence of grief symptoms and disorders in the time of COVID-19 pandemic: A meta-analysis.

Millions of people worldwide are mourning the loss of loved ones due to the COVID-19 epidemic, which may adversely impact their mental health. This meta-analysis aimed to investigate pandemic grief symptoms and disorders for developing policy, practice, and research priorities. The databases of Cochrane, Embase, Ovid-MEDLINE, WHO COVID-19, NCBI SARS-CoV-2, Scopus, Web of Science, CINAHL, and Science Direct were comprehensively searched until July 31, 2022. The Joanna Briggs Institute's and Hoy's criteria were used to evaluate the studies. A pooled prevalence was presented in a forest plot figure with a corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) and prediction interval. Between-study heterogeneity was measured using the I2 and Q statistics. Variations in the prevalence estimates in different subgroups were examined by moderator meta-analysis. The search identified 3677 citations, of which 15 studies involving 9289 participants were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled prevalence rate of grief symptoms was 45.1% (95%CI: 32.6%-57.5%), and grief disorder was 46.4% (95%CI: 37.4%-55.5%). Grief symptoms were significantly higher in <6 months (45.8%; 95%CI: 26.3%-65.3%) compared to the period of more than 6 months. Unfortunately, moderator analyses for grief disorders could not be performed due to limited studies. The prevalence of grief problems during the pandemic was substantially higher than in non-pandemic conditions; therefore, it is crucial to strengthen bereavement support to reduce psychological distress. The results provide a foundation for nurses and healthcare workers to anticipate a heightened need for support and provision of bereavement care in the post-pandemic era.

Effectiveness of respiratory rehabilitation in patients with COVID-19: A meta-analysis.

AIM: Examine effectiveness of respiratory rehabilitation and moderating factors on lung function and exercise capacity in post-COVID-19 patients. DESIGN: Meta-analysis. METHODS: R software 4.0.2 assessed the effectiveness of respiratory rehabilitation adopting the random-effects model and presenting standardised mean differences (SMDs). Heterogeneity was determined by Cochran's Q and I2 . The Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 and MINORS evaluated quality of the included studies. DATA SOURCES: A comprehensive search was undertaken in Cochrane, Embase, Ovid-MEDLINE, Scopus, NCBI SARS-CoV-2 Resources, ProQuest, Web of Science and CINAHL until March 2022. RESULTS: Of the 5703 identified studies, 12 articles with 596 post-COVID-19 patients were included. Eleven of our twelve studies had moderate to high quality and one study had high risk of bias assessed with MINORS and RoB 2 tool. Overall, respiratory rehabilitation was effective in improving forced expiratory volume in 1 s (1.14; 95%CI 0.39-1.18), forced vital capacity (0.98; 95%CI 0.39-1.56), total lung capacity (0.83; 95%CI 0.22-1.44), 6-minute walk distance (1.56; 95%CI 1.10-2.02) and quality of life (0.99; 95%CI 0.38-1.60). However, no significant differences were observed for ratio of the forced expiratory volume in 1 s to the forced vital capacity of the lungs, anxiety and depression. Respiratory rehabilitation for post-COVID-19 patients was effective in those without comorbidities, performed four types of exercise programs, frequency ≥3 times/week and rehabilitation time 6 weeks. CONCLUSIONS: Respiratory rehabilitation improved lung function, exercise capacity and quality of life in post-COVID-19 patients. The findings suggest rehabilitation programs for post-COVID-19 patients should use multiple respiratory exercise programs with frequency of ≥3 times per week for longer than 6 weeks. IMPACT: These findings will help improve the implementation of respiratory rehabilitation programs for post-COVID-19 patients. IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PROFESSION: Our findings can be used to develop patient-centred respiratory rehabilitation interventions by nurses and clinicians for post-COVID-19 patients. REPORTING METHOD: PRISMA guideline was followed. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: No patient or public contribution.

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.

Rapid Control of a SARS-CoV-2 B.1.617.2 (Delta) Variant COVID-19 Community Outbreak: The Successful Experience in Pingtung County of Taiwan.

The Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome-associated Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) was an outbreak in December, 2019 and rapidly spread to the world. All variants of SARS-CoV-2, including the globally and currently dominant Delta variant (Delta-SARS-CoV-2), caused severe disease and mortality. Among all variants, Delta-SARS-CoV-2 had the highest transmissibility, growth rate, and secondary attack rate than other variants except for the new variant of Omicron that still exists with many unknown effects. In Taiwan, the pandemic Delta-SARS-CoV-2 began in Pingtung from 14 June 2021 and ceased at 11 July 2021. Seventeen patients were infected by Delta-SARS-CoV-2 and 1 person died during the Pingtung outbreak. The Public Health Bureau of Pingtung County Government stopped the Delta-SARS-CoV-2 outbreak within 1 month through measures such as epidemic investigation, rapid gene sequencing, rapidly expanding isolation, expanded screening of the Delta-SARS-CoV-2 antigen for people who lived in regional villages, and indirect intervention, including rapid vaccination, short lockdown period, and travel restrictions. Indirect environmental factors, such as low levels of air pollution, tropic weather in the summer season, and rural areas might have accelerated the ability to control the Delta-SARS-CoV-2 spread. This successful experience might be recommended as a successful formula for the unvaccinated or insufficiently vaccinated regions.