Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 5 de 5
Filter
1.
Brain & spine ; 2:101615-101615, 2022.
Article in English | EuropePMC | ID: covidwho-2073255
2.
PLoS Global Public Health ; 2(7), 2022.
Article in English | GIM | ID: covidwho-2021485

ABSTRACT

Therapeutic efficacy in COVID-19 is dependent upon disease severity (treatment effect heterogeneity). Unfortunately, definitions of severity vary widely. This compromises the meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and the therapeutic guidelines derived from them. The World Health Organisation 'living' guidelines for the treatment of COVID-19 are based on a network meta-analysis (NMA) of published RCTs. We reviewed the 81 studies included in the WHO COVID-19 living NMA and compared their severity classifications with the severity classifications employed by the international COVID-NMA initiative. The two were concordant in only 35% (24/68) of trials. Of the RCTs evaluated, 69% (55/77) were considered by the WHO group to include patients with a range of severities (12 mild-moderate;3 mild-severe;18 mild-critical;5 moderate-severe;8 moderate-critical;10 severe-critical), but the distribution of disease severities within these groups usually could not be determined, and data on the duration of illness and/or oxygen saturation values were often missing. Where severity classifications were clear there was substantial overlap in mortality across trials in different severity strata. This imprecision in severity assessment compromises the validity of some therapeutic recommendations;notably extrapolation of "lack of therapeutic benefit" shown in hospitalised severely ill patients on respiratory support to ambulant mildly ill patients is not warranted. Both harmonised unambiguous definitions of severity and individual patient data (IPD) meta-analyses are needed to guide and improve therapeutic recommendations in COVID-19. Achieving this goal will require improved coordination of the main stakeholders developing treatment guidelines and medicine regulatory agencies. Open science, including prompt data sharing, should become the standard to allow IPD meta-analyses.

3.
Journal of Emergency Management ; 20(9):61-64, 2022.
Article in English | Scopus | ID: covidwho-1954537

ABSTRACT

Introduction: The aim of this paper is to provide a case report and review potential emotional wellness benefit of multidisciplinary/multiagency membership within a statewide coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) advisory group. Methods: Members of a statewide COVID-19 advisory group were surveyed as to their level of participation and perceived emotional wellness benefit resulting from group membership. Results: A majority of members across all disciplines/agencies reported a benefit of emotional wellness from group membership. Discussion: We believe that it is important in disaster settings, regardless of the labeled group function, to be mindful of the potential benefits to group members from not only a task standpoint, but a process standpoint as well. In addition, it is important to recognize the multiple benefits of interdisciplinary interaction and inclusion. © 2022 Weston Medical Publishing. All rights reserved.

4.
42nd International Annual Conference of the American Society for Engineering Management: Engineering Management and The New Normal ; : 292-301, 2021.
Article in English | Scopus | ID: covidwho-1695261

ABSTRACT

With the hope of regaining their pre-pandemic level of operations and certainties, companies who employ knowledge workers wonder whether working from home will be the main modality of employment going forward. The managers should understand the problems and opportunities and need to develop successful management strategies. This study analyzed the feasibility of remote working and looked for ways to improve employees' productivity while working at home. A survey was conducted on R&D engineers of a software company. Most employees reported no change in their productivity and less change in their physical health, while most employees reported an improvement in their mental health. The top four benefits of remote working are stress reduction from commuting, more freedom, location independence, and better work-life balance. The top three challenges are face-to-face interactions, dealing with distraction, and bad health habits. The top four tools that employees found necessary were face-to-face meetings at least once per month, better hardware and equipment, training and learning, and opportunities for non-work-related remote social interactions. The study indicates that regular face-to-face meetings are essential for successful remote collaboration. Also, if possible, a hybrid schedule should be considered, with remote work two or three days per week. A framework model for successful remote working programs was developed to summarize the findings of this study and to serve as a reference for decision making and further analysis. Finally, a remote work program's success can be measured through four factors: safety and regulatory compliance, environmental impact, productivity and cost reduction, and worker satisfaction. © American Society for Engineering Management, 2021

SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL