Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 3 de 3
Filter
Add filters

Database
Language
Document Type
Year range
1.
Nurs Open ; 2023 Jun 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-20238998

ABSTRACT

AIM: The aim of this study was to identify the influencing factors of sleep disorders and sleep quality in healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis of observational research. METHODS: The databases of the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, PubMed, Embase, SinoMed database, CNKI, Wanfang Data, and VIP were systematically searched. The quality of studies was assessed using the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality evaluation criteria and the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. RESULTS: A total of 29 studies were included, of which 20 were cross-sectional studies, eight were cohort studies, and 1 was a case-control study; 17 influencing factors were finally identified. Greater risk of sleep disturbance was associated with female gender, single relationship status, chronic disease, insomnia history, less exercise, lack of social support, frontline work, days served in frontline work, department of service, night shift, years of work experience, anxiety, depression, stress, received psychological assistance, worried about being infected, and degree of fear with COVID-19. CONCLUSIONS: During the COVID-19 pandemic, healthcare workers did have worse sleep quality than the general population. The influencing factors of sleep disorders and sleep quality in healthcare workers are multifaceted. Identification and timely intervention of resolvable influencing factors are particularly important for preventing sleep disorders and improving sleep. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: This is a meta-analysis of previously published studies so there was no patient or public contribution.

2.
Nurs Open ; 10(5): 2746-2756, 2023 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2289971

ABSTRACT

AIM: This systematic review evaluated the quality of evidence for the prevention and management of facial pressure injuries in medical staff. DESIGN: This review was presented in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. METHODS: We retrieved the relevant studies from 19 databases. Using the literature evaluation standards and evidence grading system of the Australian Joanna Briggs Institute Evidence-Based Health Care Center, we evaluated the quality of the literature encompassing different types of research and assessed their levels of evidence. RESULTS: A total of 13 studies were included, including seven expert consensuses, two recommended practices, one clinical decision, one best practice information booklet, one systematic review and one randomized controlled trial. In the end, 31 best evidence were summarized, including skin cleaning and care, PPE placement and movement, reasonable use of dressings, treatment measures and education and training.


Subject(s)
Pressure Ulcer , Humans , Australia , Medical Staff , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
3.
Int J Nurs Pract ; 29(2): e13125, 2023 Apr.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2282750

ABSTRACT

AIM: To evaluate the incidence of facial pressure injuries in health-care professionals during the COVID-19 pandemic in a meta-analysis. METHODS: Related studies were obtained through electronic databases, including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) Chinese Scientific Journal (VIP) China Biomedical Literature service systems (CBM) and Wanfang Data (from inception to 27 November 2021). The pooled incidence and the 95% confidence interval of facial pressure injuries were calculated with Review Manager v5.4 software. RESULTS: Overall, 16 studies with 14 430 health-care professionals were included. Pooled results showed that the pooled incidence of facial pressure injury in health-care professionals was 58.8% (95% CI: 49.0%-68.7%; p < 0.01). The results of the subgroup analysis showed that the incidence of facial pressure injury in these staff was high, and predominantly stage I pressure injury, in the following cases: in health-care professionals who wore personal protective equipment for longer than 4 h, in those without any training experience, and on the nose. CONCLUSION: Administrators and researchers should pay attention to preventing facial pressure injury related to the wearing of personal protective equipment (PPE) by ensuring all health-care professionals receive training and by limiting prolonged periods of use.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Pressure Ulcer , Humans , COVID-19/epidemiology , Pressure Ulcer/epidemiology , Pressure Ulcer/etiology , Pressure Ulcer/prevention & control , Pandemics , Incidence , Health Personnel
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL