Prevalence of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody in hemodialysis facilities: a cross-sectional multicenter study from Madinah.

BACKGROUND: Since the occurrence of coronavirus disease in 2019 (COVID-19), the global community has witnessed its exponential spread with devastating outcomes within the general population and specifically within hemodialysis patients. OBJECTIVES: Compare the state of immunity to SARS-CoV-2 among hemodialysis patients and staff. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study with a prospective follow-up period. SETTING: Hemodialysis centers in Madinah region. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We prospectively tested for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in dialysis patients using dialysis centers staff as controls. The participants were tested on four occasions when feasible for the presence of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. We also analyzed factors that might be associated with seropositivity. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: SARS-CoV-2 positivity using immunoglobulin G (IgG) levels SAMPLE SIZE: 830 participants, 677 patients and 153 dialysis centers staff as controls. RESULTS: Of the total participants, 325 (257 patients and 68 staff) were positive for SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies, for a prevalence of 38.0% and 44.4% among patients and staff, respectively (P=.1379). Participants with a history of COVID-19 or related symptoms were more likely to have positive IgG (P<.0001). Surprisingly, positivity was also center-dependent. In a multivariable logistic regression, a history of infection and related symptoms contributed significantly to developing immunity. CONCLUSION: The high prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibody among hemodialysis patients and previously asymptomatic staff suggested past asymptomatic infection. Some centers showed more immunity effects than others. LIMITATIONS: Unable to collect four samples for each participant; limited to one urban center. CONFLICT OF INTEREST: None.

What Do We Know About Teamwork in Chinese Hospitals? A Systematic Review.

Background and Objective: Improving quality of care is one of the primary goals in current Chinese hospital reforms. Teamwork can play an essential role. Characteristics of teamwork and interventions for improving teamwork in hospitals have been widely studied. However, most of these studies are from a Western context; evidence from China is scarce. Because of the contextual differences between China and Western countries, empirical evidence on teamwork from Western hospitals may have limited validity in China. This systematic review aims to advance the evidence base and understanding of teamwork in Chinese hospitals. Methods: Both English (i.e., Embase, Medline, and Web of Science) and Chinese databases (i.e., CNKI, CQVIP, and Wanfang) were searched for relevant articles until February 6, 2020. We included the studies that empirically researched teamwork in Chinese hospitals. Studies were excluded if they (1) were not conducted in hospitals in Mainland China, (2) did not research teamwork on team interventions, (3) were not empirical, (4) were not written in English or Chinese, (5) were not published in peer-reviewed journals, and (6) were not conducted in teams that provide direct patient care. Both deductive and inductive approaches were used to analyze data. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) was used to assess their methodological quality. Results: A total of 70 articles (i.e., 39 English articles and 31 Chinese articles) were included. The results are presented in two main categories: Teamwork components and Team interventions. The evidence regarding the relationships among inputs, processes, and outcomes is scarce and mostly inconclusive. The only conclusive evidence shows that females perceive better team processes than males. Similar types of training and tools were introduced as can be found in Western literature, all showing positive effects. In line with the Chinese health reforms, many of the intervention studies regard the introduction of multidisciplinary teams (MDTs). The evidence on the implementation of MDTs reveals that they have led to lower complication rates, shorter hospital stays, higher diagnosis accuracy, efficiency improvement, and a variety of better disease-specific clinical outcomes. Evidence on the effect on patient survival is inconclusive. Conclusion: The Chinese studies on teamwork components mainly focus on the input-process relationship. The evidence provided on this relationship is, however, mostly inconclusive. The intervention studies in Chinese hospitals predominantly focus on patient outcomes rather than organizational and employee outcomes. The introduction of training, tools, and MDTs generally shows promising results. The evidence from primary hospitals and rural areas, which are prioritized in the health reforms, is especially scarce. Advancing the evidence base on teamwork, especially in primary hospitals and rural areas, is needed and can inform policy and management to promote the health reform implementation. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42020175069, identifier CRD42020175069.

Relationship Between Perceived Risks of Using mHealth Applications and the Intention to Use Them Among Older Adults in the Netherlands: Cross-sectional Study.

BACKGROUND: Considering the increasing demand for health services by older people and the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, digital health is commonly viewed to offer a pathway to provide safe and affordable health services for older adults, thus enabling self-management of their health while health care systems are struggling. However, several factors cause older people to be particularly reluctant to adopt digital health technologies such as mobile health (mHealth) tools. In addition to previously studied technology acceptance factors, those related to perceived risks of mHealth use (eg, leakage of sensitive information or receiving incorrect health recommendations) may further diminish mHealth adoption by older adults. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to explore the relationship between perceived risks of using mHealth applications and the intention to use these applications among older adults. METHODS: We designed a cross-sectional study wherein a questionnaire was used to collect data from participants aged 65 years and older in the Netherlands. Perceived risk was divided into four constructs: privacy risk, performance risk, legal concern, and trust. Linear regression analyses were performed to determine the associations between these perceived risk constructs and the intention to use mHealth applications. RESULTS: Linear regression per perceived risk factor showed that each of the four constructs is significantly associated with the intention to use mobile medical applications among older adults (adjusted for age, sex, education, and health status). Performance risk (ß=-.266; P=<.001), legal concern (ß=-.125; P=.007), and privacy risk (ß=-.100; P=.03) were found to be negatively correlated to intention to use mHealth applications, whereas trust (ß=.352; P=<.001) was found to be positively correlated to the intention to use mHealth applications. CONCLUSIONS: Performance risk, legal concern, and privacy risk as perceived by older adults may substantially and significantly decrease their intention to use mHealth applications. Trust may significantly and positively affect this intention. Health care professionals, designers of mHealth applications, and policy makers can use these findings to diminish performance risks, and tailor campaigns and applications to address legal and privacy concerns and promote mHealth uptake and health care access for older adults, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic.