Anxiety, Knowledge and Lived Experiences of Families with COVID-19 Patients: A Mixed-Method Multi-Center Study in Iran.

Background: During community-wide outbreaks, patients and their families may suffer from anxiety after making behavioral changes. This study aimed to investigate the anxiety, knowledge, and lived experiences of families with COVID-19 patients admitted to medical centers. Methods: The present multi-center study was conducted by a mixed method using convenient sampling in hospitalized COVID-19 patients in Firoozgar and Rajaie Hospitals between May and July 2020. Anxiety was measured using a short form of the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory. The participants' level of knowledge was assessed by an online questionnaire. The lived experiences of the families were explained through semi-structured interviews. Data were analyzed by Chi square, ANOVA, independent-samples t test, Kruskal Wallis, and Mann-Whitney tests in SPSS 16. P values≤0.05 were considered statistically significant. Results: The mean age of the 324 family members, who participated in the study was 45.1±13.3 years. The mean anxiety score of the subjects was 13.5±4.1, and 63.6% of the participants had moderate to severe anxiety. The subjects' mean score for knowledge on COVID-19 was 7.15±1.32. The highest mean percentage of data received by the subjects on COVID-19 (42.7%) was obtained through radio and television broadcasting. A total of 251 important phrases were obtained from interview analysis and code extraction, out of which five main themes and 17 sub-themes were extracted. Conclusion: Our findings showed that anxiety was relatively high in families with COVID patients during the pandemic, and it was associated with age, sex, income, and familial relationships. The level of knowledge on the COVID-19 disease in families was moderate. Therefore, relevant interventions and raising people's awareness are recommended.

Reliability and validity of a satisfaction questionnaire on virtual education in the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic era aimed at cardiology faculty members.

BACKGROUND: In the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic era, clinical programs and mandatory hands-on activities have been supplanted by remote teaching to maintain the fundamental capabilities of medical training and to furnish medical students with quality education. Nonetheless, the satisfaction of faculty members with this training method in the current pandemic has yet to be assessed. The aim of this study was to design a Persian questionnaire with appropriate validity and reliability on cardiology professors' satisfaction level with virtual education. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, a questionnaire was devised drawing upon scientific sources and Iranian medical educators' expertise. Seventeen faculty members in various specialties evaluated the questionnaire concerning face and content validity. Content validity was assessed through the calculation of the content validity ratio (CVR) (values >0.62 were considered acceptable) and the content validity index (CVI) (values >0.79 were considered acceptable), construct validity was evaluated through principal component factor analysis by the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) statistic and Bartlett's sphericity test, internal reliability was measured through the calculation of Cronbach's alpha coefficient, and consistency was appraised through the use of test-retest reliability at two different time points. RESULTS: The questionnaire had a reliability rate of 95%, indicating high internal validity. Concerning test-retest reliability, the intraclass correlation coefficient was 0.96 (P < 0.001), demonstrating relatively good stability. The CVI was 0.81, and the CVR was 0.85. The KMO measure of sampling adequacy was 0.954, indicating the acceptability of the degree of common variance among the all items. CONCLUSIONS: This Persian questionnaire on virtual education aimed at cardiology faculty members in the current pandemic with its low question count and appropriate domains had high reliability and validity. By knowing the level of professors' satisfaction with the new method of education, it is possible to take steps to better provide specialized medical education to cardiology residents.

Validity and reliability of a virtual education satisfaction questionnaire from the perspective of cardiology residents during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has prompted the further virtualization of medical education. The satisfaction level of specific users such as cardiology residents with virtual education can augment its quality; hence, the significance of a valid and reliable questionnaire to obtain feedback is needed. This study aimed to design and measure validity and reliability of a satisfaction questionnaire for virtual education of cardiology residents during COVID-19 pandemic. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, a self-administered questionnaire was developed by the faculty members of Rajaie Cardiovascular Medical and Research Center. Reliability was tested utilizing Cronbach's alpha and intercorrelation which was tested using Pearson's correlation coefficient test (ICC). Factor analysis was done by the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy and Bartlett's sphericity test. The statistical analyses were performed with the SPSS software version 22. RESULTS: The face validity index was determined via an assessment of the relevance, clarity, and simplicity of each item, and values >0.79 were accepted. The total Cronbach's alpha coefficient was calculated 0.93. Concerning test-retest reliability, the correlation between two rounds of evaluation was >80 (P > 0.001) and ICC was 0.99 (P = 0.001). The content validity evaluation yielded an index of 0.95 and a ratio of 0.91. The principal component factor analysis, conducted to investigate construct validity, generated four domains. CONCLUSIONS: The study results confirmed the validity and reliability of the designed questionnaire to evaluate the level of satisfaction of cardiology residents with virtual learning in COVID-19 pandemic.

Economic evaluation of programs against COVID-19: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has become a public health emergency and raised global concerns in about 213 countries without vaccines and with limited medical capacity to treat the disease. The COVID-19 has prompted an urgent search for effective interventions, and there is little information about the money value of treatments. The present study aimed to summarize economic evaluation evidence of preventing strategies, programs, and treatments of COVID-19. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We searched Medline/PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science Core Collection, Embase, Scopus, Google Scholar, and specialized databases of economic evaluation from December 2019 to July 2020 to identify relevant literature to economic evaluation of programs against COVID-19. Two researchers screened titles and abstracts, extracted data from full-text articles, and did their quality assessment by the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist. Then, quality synthesis of results was done. RESULTS: Twenty-six studies of economic evaluations met our inclusion criteria. The CHEERS scores for most studies (n = 9) were 85 or higher (excellent quality). Eight studies scored 70 to 85 (good quality), eight studies scored 55 to 70 (average quality), and one study < %55 (poor quality). The decision-analytic modeling was applied to twenty-three studies (88%) to evaluate their services. Most studies utilized the SIR model for outcomes. In studies with long-time horizons, social distancing was more cost-effective than quarantine, non-intervention, and herd immunity. Personal protective equipment was more cost-effective in the short-term than non-intervention. Screening tests were cost-effective in all studies. CONCLUSION: The results suggested screening tests and social distancing to be cost-effective alternatives in preventing and controlling COVID-19 on a long-time horizon. However, evidence is still insufficient and too heterogeneous to allow any definite conclusions regarding costs of interventions. Further research as are required in the future.