Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 15 de 15
Filter
1.
JAMA Psychiatry ; 2022 Oct 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2059233

ABSTRACT

Importance: Adolescents and young people have been historically understudied populations, and previous studies indicate that during epidemics, these populations, especially in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), are at high risk of developing mental disturbances. Objective: To identify the existing evidence regarding the association of mental health with outbreaks of the influenza A (H1N1), Zika, Ebola, and SARS-CoV-2 virus in exposed youth and adolescents in LMICs. Evidence Review: Across 6 databases (Embase, Cochrane Library, PubMed, PsycINFO, Scopus, and Web of Science), the mental health outcomes of adolescents and youth (aged 10-24 years) associated with 4 major pandemic outbreaks from January 2009 to January 2021 in LMICs were reviewed. A group of 3 authors at each stage carried out the screening, selection, and quality assessment using Joanna Briggs Institute checklists. The social determinants of adolescent well-being framework was used as a guide to organizing the review. Findings: A total of 57 studies fulfilled the search criteria, 55 related to the SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) pandemic and 2 covered the H1N1 influenza epidemics. There were no studies associated with Zika or Ebola outbreaks that met screening criteria. The studies reported high rates of anxiety and depressive symptoms among adolescents, including posttraumatic stress disorder, general stress, and health-related anxiety. Potential risk factors associated with poor mental health outcomes included female sex; home residence in areas with strict lockdown limitations on social and physical movement; reduced physical activity; poor parental, family, or social support; previous exposure to COVID-19 infection; or being part of an already vulnerable group (eg, previous psychiatric conditions, childhood trauma, or HIV infection). Conclusions and Relevance: Results of this systematic scoping review suggest that the COVID-19 pandemic and H1N1 epidemic were associated with adverse mental health among adolescents and youth from LMICs. Vulnerable youth and adolescents may be at higher risk of developing mental health-related complications, requiring more responsive interventions and further research. Geographically localized disease outbreaks such as Ebola, Zika, and H1N1 influenza are highly understudied and warrant future investigation.

2.
Glob Health Promot ; : 17579759221113276, 2022 Aug 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1993298

ABSTRACT

Since the pandemic began in December 2019, SARS-Cov2 has accentuated the wide gap and disparities in socioeconomic and healthcare access at individual, community, country, and regional levels. More than two years into the current pandemic, up to three-fourths of the patients are reporting continued signs and symptoms beyond the acute phase of COVID-19, and Long COVID portends to be a major challenge in the future ahead. With a comprehensive overview of the literature, we found that most studies concerning long COVID came from high and upper-middle income countries, and people of low-income and lower-and-middle income regions and vulnerable groups with comorbid conditions have been neglected. Apart from the level of income, there is a significant geographical heterogeneity in investigating the Post-Acute Sequelae of COVID-19 (PASC) or what we call now, long COVID. We believe that these recognizing health disparities is crucial from equity perspective and is the first step toward global health promotion.

3.
Iran J Public Health ; 50(2): 232-244, 2021 Feb.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1761415

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The necessity of easing pandemic restrictions is explicit. Due to the harsh consequences of lockdowns, governments are willing to find reasonable pathways to reopen their activities. METHODS: To find out the basics of developing a reopening roadmap, on 6th-10th July 2020, we conducted a systematic search on PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science to review the databases; and Google by manual to review the grey literature. Two independent authors extracted the data, and the senior author solved the discrepancies. RESULTS: Sixteen documents were included. Data categorized into four sections: principals, general recommendations for individuals, health key metrics, and in-phases strategy. The number of phases or stages differed from three to six, with a minimum of two weeks considered for each one. Health key metrics were categorized into four subsets: sufficient preventive capacities, appropriate diagnostic capacity, appropriate epidemiological monitoring, and sufficient health system capacity. These metrics were used as the criteria for progressing or returning over the roadmap, which guarantees a roadmap's dynamicity. Noticeably, few roadmaps did not mention the criteria that may alter the dynamicity of their roadmap. When some areas face new surges, the roadmap's dynamicity is essential, and it is vital to describe the criteria to stop the reopening process and implement the restrictions again. CONCLUSION: Providing evidence for policymaking about lifting the COVID-19 restrictions seems to be missed in the literature should be addressed more, and further studies are recommended.

4.
BMJ Open ; 12(3): e051216, 2022 03 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1741624

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights (SRHR) of young people continue to present a high burden and remain underinvested. This is more so in low and middle-income countries (LMICs), where empirical evidence reveals disruption of SRHR maintenance, need for enhancement of programmes, resources and services during pandemics. Despite the importance of the subject, there is no published review yet combining recent disease outbreaks such as (H1N1/09, Zika, Ebola and SARS-COV-2) to assess their impact on adolescents and youth SRHR in LMICs. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will adopt a four-step search to reach the maximum possible number of studies. In the first step, we will carry out a limitedpreliminary search in databases for getting relevant keywords (appendix 1). Second, we will search in four databases: Pubmed, Cochrane Library, Embase and PsycINFO. The search would begin from the inception of the first major outbreak in 2009 (H1N1/09) up to the date of publication of the protocol in early 2022. We will search databases using related keywords, screen title & abstract and review full texts of the selected titles to arrive at the list of eligible studies. In the third stage, we will check their eligibility to the included article's reference list. In the fourth stage, we will check the citations of included papers in phase 2 to complete our study selection. We will include all types of original studies and without any language restriction in our final synthesis. Our review results will be charted for each pandemic separately and include details pertaining to authors, year, country, region of the study, study design, participants (disaggregated by age and gender), purpose and report associated SRHR outcomes. The review will adhere to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews guideline (PRISMA-ScR). PATIENT AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT: Patients or public were not involved in this study. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical assessment is not required for this study. The results of the study will be presented in peer-reviewed publications and conferences on adolescent SRHR.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Influenza A Virus, H1N1 Subtype , Zika Virus Infection , Zika Virus , Adolescent , COVID-19/epidemiology , Developing Countries , Disease Outbreaks , Humans , Reproductive Health , SARS-CoV-2 , Systematic Reviews as Topic , Zika Virus Infection/epidemiology
5.
EuropePMC; 2020.
Preprint in English | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-305877

ABSTRACT

Background: The necessity of easing pandemic restrictions is explicit. Due to the harsh consequences of lockdowns, governments are willing to find reasonable pathways to reopen their activities. Methods: : To find out the basics of developing a reopening roadmap, on 6 th -10 th August 2020, we conducted a systematic search on Pubmed, Scopus, Embase, and Web of Science, but no roadmap was found. Then, we manually searched Google to review the grey literature. Two independent authors extracted the data, and the senior author solved the discrepancies. Results: : According to the search strategy, finally, sixteen roadmaps were included. Data categorized into four sections: principals, general recommendations for individuals, health key metrics, and in-phases strategy. The number of phases or stages differed from three to six, with a minimum of two weeks considered for each one. Health key metrics were categorized into four subsets: sufficient preventive capacities, appropriate diagnosis capacity, appropriate epidemiological monitoring capacity, and sufficient health system capacity. These metrics were used as the criteria for progressing or returning over the roadmap, which guarantees a roadmap's dynamicity. Noticeably, few roadmaps didn’t mention these criteria that may alter the dynamicity of their roadmap. When some areas face new surges, the roadmap's dynamicity is essential, and it is vital to describe the criteria to stop the reopening process and implement the restrictions again. Conclusions: : Providing evidence for policymaking about lifting the COVID-19 restrictions seems to be missed in the literature, should be addressed more, and further studies are recommended.

6.
EuropePMC; 2021.
Preprint in English | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-305060

ABSTRACT

Introduction: Despite more than one year passed since the first cases of SARS-CoV-2 were reported, there is still no consensus on the definition and clinical management of post-acute-COVID-19. The condition has heterogeneously been named as Chronic COVID syndrome, Post COVID-19 Syndrome, post-acute sequela of SARS-CoV-2 (PASC), and the more familiar long COVID. Method: In order to capture all relevant published studies, we undertook a multi-step search with no language restriction. The following four-step search strategy was utilized: First, a preliminary (limited) search was conducted on January 20, 2021, in Google Scholar and PubMed to identify the appropriate keywords. Then, on January 30, 2021, we adopted a search strategy of electronic databases from Cochrane Library, PsycINFO, PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Web of sciences, using those keywords. Then, after duplicate removal, we screened all titles, abstracts, and full texts. This resulted in 66 eligible studies. Subsequently, after a forward and backward search of their references and citations an additional 54 publications were found, resulting in a total of 120 publications that formed the basis of the present analysis. The titles, abstracts, and full-texts of non-English articles were translated using Google Translate for further evaluation. We conducted our scoping review based on the PRISMA-ScR Checklist. Results: We found only one randomized clinical trial in our search. Of the 67 original studies, 22 were cohort and 28 were cross-sectional studies totaling 74.6% of the original studies. Of the total of 120 publications, 59 (49.1%) focused on signs and symptoms, 28 (23.3%) were focused on management, and 13 (10.8%) focused on pathophysiology. Ten (9%) publications focused on imaging studies. Ninety-one percent of the original investigations came from high and upper-middle-income countries, highlighting the scarcity of reports originating from low-income and lower-middle-income countries. Conclusion: The predominant symptoms among those with the so-called “Long COVID”were: fatigue, breathlessness, arthralgia, sleep difficulties, and chest pain. Recent reports also point to the risk of long-term sequela with cutaneous, respiratory, cardiovascular, musculoskeletal, mental health, neurologic, and renal involvement in those who survive the acute phase of the illness. The ambiguity and controversies in its definition have impaired proper recognition and management of those requiring additional support following the resolution of the acute phase of this infection. This has resulted in long-standing distress for the patients and their families. Our findings highlight the need for a multidisciplinary approach, support, and rehabilitation for these patients in terms of long-term mental and physical health.

7.
EXCLI J ; 21: 93-103, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1667813

ABSTRACT

The aim of this study was to investigate the COVID-19 vaccination acceptance rate and its determinants among healthcare workers in a multicenter study. This was a cross-sectional multi-center survey conducted from February 5 to April 29, 2021. The questionnaire consisted of 26 items in 6 subscales. The English version of the questionnaire was translated into seven languages and distributed through Google Forms using snowball sampling; a colleague in each country was responsible for the forward and backward translation, and also the distribution of the questionnaire. A forward stepwise logistic regression was utilized to explore the variables and questionnaire factors tied to the intention to COVID-19 vaccination. 4630 participants from 91 countries completed the questionnaire. According to the United Nations Development Program 2020, 43.6 % of participants were from low Human Development Index (HDI) regions, 48.3 % high and very high, and 8.1 % from medium. The overall vaccination hesitancy rate was 37 %. Three out of six factors of the questionnaire were significantly related to intention to the vaccination. While 'Perceived benefits of the COVID-19 vaccination' (OR: 3.82, p-value<0.001) and 'Prosocial norms' (OR: 5.18, p-value<0.001) were associated with vaccination acceptance, 'The vaccine safety/cost concerns' with OR: 3.52, p-value<0.001 was tied to vaccination hesitancy. Medical doctors and pharmacists were more willing to take the vaccine in comparison to others. Importantly, HDI with OR: 12.28, 95 % CI: 6.10-24.72 was a strong positive determinant of COVID-19 vaccination acceptance. This study highlighted the vaccination hesitancy rate of 37 % in our sample among HCWs. Increasing awareness regarding vaccination benefits, confronting the misinformation, and strengthening the prosocial norms would be the primary domains for maximizing the vaccination coverage. The study also showed that the HDI is strongly associated with the vaccination acceptance/hesitancy, in a way that those living in low HDI contexts are more hesitant to receive the vaccine.

9.
Front Psychiatry ; 12: 713987, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1448816

ABSTRACT

The new era of digitalized knowledge and information technology (IT) has improved efficiency in all medical fields, and digital health solutions are becoming the norm. There has also been an upsurge in utilizing digital solutions during the COVID-19 pandemic to address the unmet mental healthcare needs, especially for those unable to afford in-person office-based therapy sessions or those living in remote rural areas with limited access to mental healthcare providers. Despite these benefits, there are significant concerns regarding the widespread use of such technologies in the healthcare system. A few of those concerns are a potential breach in the patients' privacy, confidentiality, and the agency of patients being at risk of getting used for marketing or data harnessing purposes. Digital phenotyping aims to detect and categorize an individual's behavior, activities, interests, and psychological features to properly customize future communications or mental care for that individual. Neuromarketing seeks to investigate an individual's neuronal response(s) (cortical and subcortical autonomic) characteristics and uses this data to direct the person into purchasing merchandise of interest, or shaping individual's opinion in consumer, social or political decision making, etc. This commentary's primary concern is the intersection of these two concepts that would be an inevitable threat, more so, in the post-COVID era when disparities would be exaggerated globally. We also addressed the potential "dark web" applications in this intersection, worsening the crisis. We intend to raise attention toward this new threat, as the impacts might be more damming in low-income settings or/with vulnerable populations. Legal, health ethics, and government regulatory processes looking at broader impacts of digital marketing need to be in place.

10.
Infection ; 49(6): 1163-1186, 2021 Dec.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1328676

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: To find out what is known from literature about Long COVID until January 30, 2021. METHODS: We undertook a four-step search with no language restriction. A preliminary search was made to identify the keywords. A search strategy of all electronic databases resulted in 66 eligible studies. A forward and backward search of the references and citations resulted in additional 54 publications. Non-English language articles were translated using Google Translate. We conducted our scoping review based on the PRISMA-ScR Checklist. RESULTS: Of 120 papers, we found only one randomized clinical trial. Of the 67 original studies, 22 were cohort, and 28 were cross-sectional studies. Of the total 120 publications, 49.1% focused on signs and symptoms, 23.3% on management, and 10.8% on pathophysiology. Ten publications focused on imaging studies. The results are also presented extensively in a narrative synthesis in separated sections (nomenclature, diagnosis, pathophysiology, risk factors, signs/symptoms, management). CONCLUSIONS: The controversies in its definition have impaired proper recognition and management. The predominant symptoms were: fatigue, breathlessness, arthralgia, sleep difficulties, and chest pain. Recent reports also point to the risk of long-term sequela with cutaneous, respiratory, cardiovascular, musculoskeletal, mental health, neurologic, and renal involvement in those who survive the acute phase of the illness.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , COVID-19/complications , Fatigue , Humans , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , SARS-CoV-2
14.
Arch Iran Med ; 23(4): 265-267, 2020 04 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-49210

ABSTRACT

On January 23, 2020, the Chinese government announced the city lockdown of Wuhan. Since then, there have been controversial debates among experts about the efficacy of mass quarantine, the oldest and probably one of the most effective methods for controlling infectious disease outbreaks. The impact of health policymaking section of health system governance becomes visible to all stakeholders and the public in such emergency contexts. The success and failure of such policies should be evaluated in order to find the proper course of action for the local and international communities. In this review, we aim to investigate the efficacy of mass quarantine in China during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. We found good quality evidence for the effectiveness of mass quarantine during the current stage of COVID-19 pandemic, and these strategies seem to have been highly effective in controlling the spread of the disease.


Subject(s)
Betacoronavirus , Clinical Governance , Coronavirus Infections , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral , Public Health , Quarantine , COVID-19 , China/epidemiology , Community Health Planning , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Coronavirus Infections/prevention & control , Coronavirus Infections/transmission , Disease Outbreaks , Evidence-Based Medicine , Humans , Pandemics/prevention & control , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Pneumonia, Viral/prevention & control , Pneumonia, Viral/transmission , SARS-CoV-2
15.
Arch Iran Med ; 23(4): 249-254, 2020 Apr 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-49209

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Since December 2019, a novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) began its journey around the world. Medical students, as frontline healthcare workers, are more susceptible to be infected by the virus. The aim of this study was to assess COVID-19 related knowledge, self-reported preventive behaviors and risk perception among Iranian medical students within the first week after the onset of the outbreak in Iran. METHODS: This cross-sectional study was conducted from 26th to 28th of February, 2020. Participants were Iranian medical students (5th-7th year) whose knowledge, preventive behaviors and risk perceptions of COVID-19 were assessed using an online questionnaire. The questionnaire consisted of 26 questions including 15 items about COVID-19 related knowledge, 9 items regarding preventive measures and 2 items about COVID-19 risk perception. The validity and reliability of the questionnaire were shown to be satisfactory. RESULTS: A total of 240 medical students completed the questionnaire. The mean age of participants was 23.67 years. The average of correct answers of knowledge was 86.96%; and 79.60% had high level of related knowledge. The average rate of practicing preventive behaviors was 94.47%; and 94.2% had high level of performance in preventive behaviors. The cumulative score of risk perception was 4.08 out of 8 which was in moderate range. Risk perception was significantly different between stagers and interns and between those being trained in emergency room (ER) and non-ER wards. There was a significant negative correlation between preventive behaviors and risk perception. CONCLUSION: We found a high level of COVID-19 related knowledge and self-reported preventive behaviors and moderate risk perception among Iranian medical students.


Subject(s)
Coronavirus Infections , Health Behavior , Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral , Risk , Students, Medical , Adult , Betacoronavirus , COVID-19 , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Coronavirus Infections/transmission , Cross-Sectional Studies , Disease Outbreaks , Female , Humans , Iran/epidemiology , Male , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Pneumonia, Viral/transmission , SARS-CoV-2 , Surveys and Questionnaires , Young Adult
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL