ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic has become the greatest challenge of the new millennium. Most healthcare workers (HCWs) experienced unprecedented levels of workload since the pandemic. This study aims to identify the prevalence and factors of depression, anxiety and stress among HCWs in Malaysian healthcare facilities in the midst of the pandemic due to the SARs-CoV-2. METHODS: An emergency response programme on mental health was conducted from June to September 2020. A standardized data collection form was distributed among the HCWs in the government hospital in Klang Valley. The form contained basic demographic information and the self-reported Malay version of the Depression, Anxiety and Stress scale (BM DASS-21). RESULTS: Of the1,300 staff who attended the Mental Health and Psychosocial Support in Covid-19 (MHPSS COVID-19) programme, 996 staff (21.6% male, 78.4% female) completed the online survey (response rate: 76.6%). Result showed that staff aged above 40 years old were almost two times more likely to have anxiety (AOR = 1.632; 95% CI = 1.141-2.334, p:0.007) and depression (AOR = 1.637; 95% CI = 1.1.06-2.423, p:0.014) as compared to staff who were less than 40 years old. Those who had direct involvement with COVID-19 patients were likely to suffer stress (AOR = 0.596; 95% CI = 0.418-0.849, p:0.004), anxiety (AOR = 0.706; 95% Ci = 0.503-0.990, p:0.044) and depression (AOR = 0.630; 95% Ci = 0.427-0.928, p:0.019). HCWs with stress (AOR = 0.638; 95% CI of 0.476-0.856, p = 0.003), anxiety (AOR = 0.720; 95% CI 0.542-0.958, p = 0.024) and depression (AOR = 0.657; 95% CI 0.480-0.901, p = 0.009) showed less confidence to treat critically ill patients and need psychological help during outbreak. CONCLUSION: This study showed the importance of psychosocial support to reduce psychological distress among HCWs when working or coping during the COVID-19 pandemic or outbreak.
ABSTRACT
Background: Medications studied for therapeutic benefits in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have produced inconclusive efficacy results except for steroids. Objective: A prospective randomized open-label, parallel-arm Phase I/II clinical trial was planned to compare essential oil (EO) blend versus placebo nebulization in mild COVID-19. Methods: A Phase I safety evaluation was carried out in a single ascending and multiple ascending dose study designs. We assessed Phase II therapeutic efficacy on COVID-19 and general respiratory symptoms on days 0, 3, 5, 7, 10, and 14 on the predesigned case record form. Viremia was evaluated on day 0, day 5, and day 10. Results: Dose-limiting toxicities were not reached with the doses, frequencies, and duration studied, thus confirming the formulation's preliminary safety. General respiratory symptoms (p < 0.001), anosmia (p < 0.05), and dysgeusia (p < 0.001) benefited significantly with the use of EO blend nebulization compared to placebo. Symptomatic COVID-19 participants with mild disease did not show treatment benefits in terms of symptomatic relief (p = 1.0) and viremia clearance (p = 0.74) compared to the placebo. EO blend was found to be associated with the reduced evolution of symptoms in previously asymptomatic reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR)-positive study participants (p = 0.034). Conclusion: EO nebulization appears to be a safer add-on symptomatic relief approach for mild COVID-19. However, the direct antiviral action of the EO blend needs to be assessed with different concentrations of combinations of individual phytochemicals in the EO blend.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: During the initial months of the COVID-19 pandemic, rapidly rising disease prevalence in the United States created a demand for patient-facing information exchanges that addressed questions and concerns about the disease. One approach to managing increased patient volumes during a pandemic involves the implementation of telephone-based triage systems. During a pandemic, telephone triage hotlines can be employed in innovative ways to conserve medical resources and offer useful population-level data about disease symptomatology and risk factor profiles. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to describe and evaluate the COVID-19 telephone triage hotline used by a large academic medical center in the midwestern United States. METHODS: Michigan Medicine established a telephone hotline to triage inbound patient calls related to COVID-19. For calls received between March 24, 2020, and May 5, 2020, we described total call volume, data reported by callers including COVID-19 risk factors and symptomatology, and distribution of callers to triage algorithm endpoints. We also described symptomatology reported by callers who were directed to the institutional patient portal (online medical visit questionnaire). RESULTS: A total of 3929 calls (average 91 calls per day) were received by the call center during the study period. The maximum total number of daily calls peaked at 211 on March 24, 2020. Call volumes were the highest from 6 AM to 11 AM and during evening hours. Callers were most often directed to the online patient portal (1654/3929, 42%), nursing hotlines (1338/3929, 34%), or employee health services (709/3929, 18%). Cough (126/370 of callers, 34%), shortness of breath (101/370, 27%), upper respiratory infection (28/111, 25%), and fever (89/370, 24%) were the most commonly reported symptoms. Immunocompromised state (23/370, 6%) and age >65 years (18/370, 5%) were the most commonly reported risk factors. CONCLUSIONS: The triage algorithm successfully diverted low-risk patients to suitable algorithm endpoints, while directing high-risk patients onward for immediate assessment. Data collected from hotline calls also enhanced knowledge of symptoms and risk factors that typified community members, demonstrating that pandemic hotlines can aid in the clinical characterization of novel diseases.