ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: We aimed to investigate use of infection control behaviours, preventative and therapeutic interventions, and outcomes among respondents to an online survey during the COVID-19 pandemic in China. METHODS: The survey was designed by an international team, translated and adapted to simplified Chinese, including 132 kinds of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) preparation recommended by guidelines. It was distributed and collected from February to May 2021, with data analysed by WPS spreadsheet and wjx.cn. Descriptive statistics were used to describe demographics and clinical characteristics, diagnosis, treatments, preventative behaviours and interventions, and their associated outcomes. RESULTS: The survey was accessed 503 times with 341 (67.8%) completions covering 23 provinces and four municipalities in China. Most (282/341, 82.7%) respondents reported no symptoms during the pandemic and the majority (290/341, 85.0%) reported having a SARS-CoV-2 PCR test at some point. Forty-five (13.2%) reported having a respiratory infection, among which 19 (42.2%) took one or more categories of modern medicine, e.g. painkillers, antibiotics; 16 (35.6%) used TCM interventions(s); while seven respondents combined TCM with modern medicine. All respondents reported using at least one behavioural or medical approach to prevention, with 22.3% taking TCM and 5.3% taking modern medicines. No respondents reported having a critical condition related to COVID-19. CONCLUSION: We found evidence of widespread use of infection control behaviours, modern medicines and TCM for treatment and prevention of COVID-19 and other respiratory symptoms. Larger scale studies are warranted, including a more representative sample exploring TCM preparations recommended in clinical guidelines.
ABSTRACT
Objectives: The corona virus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic spread globally, and we aimed to investigate the psychosocial impact on healthcare workers (HWs) in China during the pandemic. Methods: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched seven electronic databases for cross-sectional studies on psychosocial impact on HWs in relation to COVID-19 from January 1, 2020 to October 7, 2020. We included primary studies involving Chinese HWs during the pandemic, and data were extracted from the published articles. Our primary outcome was prevalence of anxiety, depression, and stress disorders. We pooled prevalence value with their 95% confidence interval using random effect models and assessed study quality on the basis of an 11-item checklist recommended by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. The study protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42020195843). Results: We identified 25 articles comprising a total of 30,841 completed questionnaires and 22 studies for meta-analysis. The prevalence of anxiety, depression, and stress disorders was 34.4% (29.5-39.4%), 31.1% (24.5-37.7%), and 29.1% (24.3-33.8%) for HWs. The pooled prevalence of anxiety disorders for HWs from late January to early February was 46.4% (42.9-49.9%), significantly higher than those in mid-term February (28.0%, 23.9-32.1%) and after late February (27.6%, 16.0-39.2%). The pooled prevalence of depression disorders for HWs from late January to early February was 46.5% (38.8-54.2%), significantly higher than those in mid-term February (27.1%, 19.8-34.5%) and after late February (32.9%, 16.2-49.5%). HWs working in Hubei Province had a higher prevalence of anxiety (37.9 vs. 30.8%) and a lower prevalence of depression (27.5 vs. 34.7%) than those working in other regions. Nurses had a higher prevalence of anxiety (44.1 vs. 29.0%) and depression (34.1 vs. 29.2%) than other HWs. Conclusions: About one-third of HWs in China suffered anxiety, depression, and stress at the early epidemic of COVID-19. HWs in Hubei Province, especially nurses, had a higher prevalence of psychological disorders. During the pandemic, a negative psychological state may persist in a proportion of Chinese HWs, fluctuating with the control of the pandemic. The long-term impact should continue to be observed. Attention should be paid to HWs for their psychological impact due to the pandemic. Systematic Review Registration: The study protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020195843).
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization characterized the Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) as a pandemic on March 11th. Many clinical trials on COVID-19 have been registered, and we aim to review the study characteristics and provide guidance for future trials to avoid duplicated effort. METHODS: Studies on COVID-19 registered before March 3rd, 2020 on eight registry platforms worldwide were searched and the data of design, participants, interventions, and outcomes were extracted and analyzed. RESULTS: Three hundred and ninety-three studies were identified and 380 (96.7%) were from mainland China, while 3 in Japan, 3 in France, 2 in the US, and 3 were international collaborative studies. Two hundred and sixty-six (67.7%) aimed at therapeutic effect, others were for prevention, diagnosis, prognosis, etc. Two hundred and two studies (51.4%) were randomized controlled trials. Two third of therapeutic studies tested Western medicines including antiviral drugs (17.7%), stem cell and cord blood therapy (10.2%), chloroquine and derivatives (8.3%), 16 (6.0%) on Chinese medicines, and 73 (27.4%) on integrated therapy of Western and Chinese medicines. Thirty-one studies among 266 therapeutic studies (11.7%) used mortality as primary outcome, while the most designed secondary outcomes were symptoms and signs (47.0%). Half of the studies (45.5%) had not started recruiting till March 3rd. CONCLUSION: Inappropriate outcome setting, delayed recruitment and insufficient numbers of new cases in China implied many studies may fail to complete. Strategies and protocols of the studies with robust and rapid data sharing are warranted for emergency public health events, helping the timely evidence-based decision-making.