ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Health conditions perceived as contagious, dangerous, or incurable are associated with some facets of social stigma. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was conducted from May 9, 2020 to June 9, 2020, among frontline healthcare workers (HCWs) in India to understand their perceived stigmatizing experiences (SE) and self-esteem during the COVID-19 pandemic. Google forms, an online forms tool, was used to create the survey, and samples were recruited through snowball sampling. Data comprised baseline characteristics of HCWs and their responses to the modified version of the Inventory of Stigmatizing Experiences and the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale. RESULTS: Of the 600 participants (mean age: 30.9 ± 6.7 years), 76% comprised of nurses. Most participants were residing in urban areas and working in government sectors in clinical areas. Approximately 66.3% HCWs had at least 1 SE, and 51.7% reported a high impact of stigma (SI) across their various life domains, viz. quality of life, social contacts, self-esteem, and family relations, but 73% had normal self-esteem. The SI was more at the family level than at the individual level. The prevalence of SE (69.5% vs. 56.6%) and psychosocial SI (54.5% vs. 44.1%) was higher among nurses than among doctors. Being a nurse and working in clinical areas were statistically significant (P < 0.05 and < 0.01, respectively) for predicting SE likelihood. CONCLUSION: Although HCWs have their own apprehensions, they do have high self-esteem and continue to deliver professional duties despite their SE. The government should frame guidelines to stop such discrimination and hail the saviors.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) barrier box is being used by health-care workers for protection against aerosol-transmitted infection. Usually, a Macintosh laryngoscope (MC) or a video laryngoscope (VL) is used for endotracheal intubation (ETI). We aimed to determine the most suitable laryngoscope blade in terms of time to ETI, ease of ETI, and the first-pass success rate. METHODS: American Society of Anesthesiologists Grade I and II patients undergoing surgery under general anesthesia were randomized into the MC and the King Vision VL groups in a 1:1 ratio. ETI was performed using either the MC (the MC group) or the King Vision VL (the VL group) with a COVID-19 barrier box. The first-pass intubation success rate, intubation time, and ease of ETI were analyzed. RESULTS: The first-pass success rate was higher in the MC group (P = 0.43). The mean duration of ETI was 33 s and 47 s in the MC group and VL group, respectively. The difference was statistically significant between the groups (P = 0.002). The ease of ETI was comparable between the groups (P = 0.57), and the Cormack-Lehane grade was significantly different between the groups (P = 0.0025). CONCLUSION: ETI duration was shorter in the MC group than in the VL group. Hence, a MC can be used along with a COVID-19 barrier box by experienced operators for the prevention of aerosol spread.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Publication of a scientific article in a reputed journal is an uphill task that demands a significant amount of time and effort from the author and editorial team. It is a matter of great enthusiasm for all prospective researchers to know whether this daily evolving publication load of articles during this pandemic had changed the journal's inherent peer review or publication process. We aimed to compare the peer review speed of anesthesiology journal articles published during pandemic (2020) to the previous year and to analyze various factors affecting peer review speed. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Overall, 16 anesthesiology journals indexed in MEDLINE database were retrospectively analyzed. A set of 24 articles published in 2019 of the included journals were selected from each journal for control and a set of 12 articles published between January to September 2020 was selected for comparison. Time taken for acceptance and publication from the time of submission was noted. Peer review timing was calculated and its relationship with h-index, continent of journal origin and article processing charges were evaluated. RESULTS: The median peer review time in 2019 and 2020 were 116 (108-125) days and 79 (65-105.5) days, respectively. There was a 31.8% decrease (P = 0.0021) in peer review time of all articles in 2020 compared to 2019. The median peer review timings of COVID-19 articles were 35 (22-42.5) days. A 55.6% decrease was noted in peer review time of COVID-19 articles compared to non-COVID-19 articles in 2020. There was a significant correlation between peer review time and h-index (r = 0.558, P = 0.024). There was no significant difference in peer review timing of journals with or without article processing charge (P = 0.75) and between journals from different continents (P = 0.56). CONCLUSION: Anesthesiology journals managed to curtail their turnaround time for peer review during the pandemic compared to previous year. Journal with higher h-index had longer peer review time. The option for articles processing charge and continent of publishing journal had no impact on peer review speed.