Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 434
Filter
Add filters

Document Type
Year range
1.
Ann Lab Med ; 42(3): 321-330, 2022 May 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1613542

ABSTRACT

Background: A bibliometric analysis of the Annals of Laboratory Medicine (ALM) was performed to understand its position in the medical laboratory technology category and to suggest a developmental strategy. Methods: Journal metrics, including the number of articles by publication type, country of authors, total citations, 2-year impact factor, country of cited authors, journals citing ALM, and Hirsch-index, were obtained from the Journal Citation Report and Web of Science Core Collection. Target data included ALM content in the Web of Science from January 1, 2012, to October 5, 2021. Bibliometric analysis was performed using Biblioshiny. Results: The impact factor increased from 1.481 in 2013 to 3.464 in 2020. Authors belonging to the USA, China, and Korea cited ALM articles the most. Plos One, Scientific Reports, and Frontiers in Microbiology most frequently cited ALM, besides ALM itself. The Hirsch-index was 34. The co-occurrence network of Keyword Plus indicated four clusters: diagnosis, identification, prevalence, and risk. The conceptual structure map of Keyword Plus based on multiple correspondence analysis showed two clusters: bacterial susceptibility at the bench and clinical courses. The co-citation network showed that ALM was in the cluster of the New England Journal of Medicine, The Lancet, JAMA, and the Annals of Internal Medicine. The collaboration network showed that Korean authors collaborated mainly with authors from the USA, Germany, and Italy. Conclusions: The journal's promotion to an international top-tier journal has been successful. "Principles of transparency and best practice in scholarly publishing" and a preprint policy are yet to be added.


Subject(s)
Leadership , Medical Laboratory Science , Bibliometrics , Humans , Italy , Laboratories
2.
Stud Health Technol Inform ; 284: 153-157, 2021 Dec 15.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1606233

ABSTRACT

During COVID-19 pandemic public health measures, face-to-face simulation laboratories were cancelled. A rapid transition to online teaching environments required staff and students to rapid upskilling in digital literacy. The purpose of this article is to describe a model of virtual nursing simulation laboratory implemented in graduate entry to practice Master's nursing program to teach clinical skills. The model used cloud-based communication app Zoom and real time feedback data to improve content delivery, student engagement and confidence in skill development. This model was co-designed with the student cohort to ensure students, as stakeholders, had a voice in having their education needs met during these challenging times.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Laboratories , Clinical Competence , Humans , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2
3.
Inquiry ; 58: 469580211067479, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1598486

ABSTRACT

To assess the prevalence and factors associated with psychological distress (PD) and Medical Laboratory Professionals (MLPs) involvement in COVID-19-related duties. This study adopted an online cross-sectional, nationally stratified survey among 473 MLPs using Google Form with a designated link; Depression, anxiety, and stress scale-21 (DASS-21) was used to measure depression, anxiety, and stress (secondary outcome). We employed generalized Negative Binomial (NBR) and Poisson regression analytical approach to our study outcomes. All analyses were performed using Stata 16, and P-value≤.05 deemed significant. The overall DASS-21 score ranged from asymptomatic psychological distress to severe symptomatic PD. The prevalence of depression, anxiety, and stress were 9.1 [95%CI=6.8-12.0], 17.8 [95%CI=14.6-21.5], and 7.5 [95%CI=5.4-10.1], respectively. The result evinced a high and significant association; the univariate NBR predicted a significant increase of PD score by 12% and 18% among participants who were involved in one and two or more COVID-19-related duties, respectively, (ß[95%CI] = .12 [.05-.18] and .18 [.10-.26], respectively). A binary outcome predicted approximately 2-folds of overall psychological distress among participants involved in two or more COVID-19-related duties compared with non-involvement (adjusted Prevalence Ratio [95%CI]= 2.34 [1.12-4.85]). For depression, anxiety, and stress symptoms, both univariate and multivariate data analyses evinced a higher disadvantage among MLP involved in COVID-19-related duties. We observed a high tendency of experiencing significant psychological distress amongst MLP involved in COVID-19-related duties. Experience of psychological distress increased with deeper involvement in COVID-19-related activities. Psychological support should be extended to MLPs to limit the effect of these negative emotions on their cognitive and social behavior as well as job performance.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Psychological Distress , Cross-Sectional Studies , Depression/epidemiology , Ghana/epidemiology , Humans , Laboratories , SARS-CoV-2 , Surveys and Questionnaires
4.
Int J Environ Res Public Health ; 18(24)2021 12 16.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1580736

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: The recent COVID-19 pandemic has compromised socio-health care, with consequences for the diagnosis and follow-up of other pathologies. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of COVID-19 on cancer diagnosis in Girona, Spain. METHODOLOGY: Observational study of samples received in two pathology laboratories during 2019-2020 (tertiary hospital in Girona and county hospital in Figueres). Date, sample type, and location and morphology were available. Samples were recoded to determine malignancy and grouped by location. Comparisons were made by calendar year and period of exposure to COVID-19. RESULTS: 102,360 samples were included: 80,517 from Girona and 21,843 from Figueres. The reduction in activity in the pathology laboratories in 2020 compared to the previous year was 25.4% in Girona and 27.5% in Figueres. The reduction in cancer diagnoses in 2020 compared to 2019 was 6.8% in Girona and 21% in Figueres. In both laboratories, a decrease was observed in the diagnoses of neoplasms of the lip, oral cavity and pharynx, larynx, colon, rectum and anus, kidney and urinary system, melanoma, and central nervous system. A statistically significant higher probability of a sample received in the pathology laboratory displaying malignancy during COVID-19 was found (Girona: OR = 1.28, 95% CI: 1.23-1.34; Figueres: OR = 1.10, 95% CI: 1.01-1.20) with respect to the COVID-19-free period. CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in a reduction in cancer diagnoses by pathology departments that varies according to tumor location and type of hospital. Despite this, the optimization of care resources and the recovery effort have partially reduced the impact of the pandemic in certain neoplasms.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Melanoma , Humans , Laboratories , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2
5.
J Med Internet Res ; 23(2): e23390, 2021 02 22.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1574113

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The initial symptoms of patients with COVID-19 are very much like those of patients with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP); it is difficult to distinguish COVID-19 from CAP with clinical symptoms and imaging examination. OBJECTIVE: The objective of our study was to construct an effective model for the early identification of COVID-19 that would also distinguish it from CAP. METHODS: The clinical laboratory indicators (CLIs) of 61 COVID-19 patients and 60 CAP patients were analyzed retrospectively. Random combinations of various CLIs (ie, CLI combinations) were utilized to establish COVID-19 versus CAP classifiers with machine learning algorithms, including random forest classifier (RFC), logistic regression classifier, and gradient boosting classifier (GBC). The performance of the classifiers was assessed by calculating the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) and recall rate in COVID-19 prediction using the test data set. RESULTS: The classifiers that were constructed with three algorithms from 43 CLI combinations showed high performance (recall rate >0.9 and AUROC >0.85) in COVID-19 prediction for the test data set. Among the high-performance classifiers, several CLIs showed a high usage rate; these included procalcitonin (PCT), mean corpuscular hemoglobin concentration (MCHC), uric acid, albumin, albumin to globulin ratio (AGR), neutrophil count, red blood cell (RBC) count, monocyte count, basophil count, and white blood cell (WBC) count. They also had high feature importance except for basophil count. The feature combination (FC) of PCT, AGR, uric acid, WBC count, neutrophil count, basophil count, RBC count, and MCHC was the representative one among the nine FCs used to construct the classifiers with an AUROC equal to 1.0 when using the RFC or GBC algorithms. Replacing any CLI in these FCs would lead to a significant reduction in the performance of the classifiers that were built with them. CONCLUSIONS: The classifiers constructed with only a few specific CLIs could efficiently distinguish COVID-19 from CAP, which could help clinicians perform early isolation and centralized management of COVID-19 patients.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/diagnosis , Community-Acquired Infections/diagnosis , Machine Learning , Pneumonia/diagnosis , SARS-CoV-2/pathogenicity , Area Under Curve , COVID-19/blood , COVID-19/virology , Community-Acquired Infections/blood , Female , Humans , Laboratories , Leukocyte Count , Logistic Models , Male , Middle Aged , Pneumonia/blood , Procalcitonin/blood , ROC Curve , Retrospective Studies
7.
Clin Lab ; 67(12)2021 Dec 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1551833

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Urgent clinical and public health have the challenge of massive testing for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 to provide the information about individual infection status and patient management. All these efforts are significant for government officials to evaluate the spread of a new disease and trace the contacts of infected persons. METHODS: The emergence of SARS-CoV-2 has heightened the need for healthcare systems to set up new clinical laboratories for the rapid and effective diagnosis of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) to prevent further transmission. RESULTS: With regard to the antibody testing, the molecular assay for COVID-19 in proper respiratory specimens becomes an especially important tool in the setting of an acute illness [1,2]. Because of the strong demand for improving molecular testing capability in urgent clinical and public health within a short time, the molecular laboratories (including the mobile cabin PCR laboratories) have sprung up across the world. CONCLUSIONS: Though a long way from curbing the pandemic, the appearance of experienced PCR laboratories armed with most sensitive and specific molecular assays will reduce SARS-CoV-2 spread in human population. We believe the article will provide some reference opinions on the forthcoming new PCR laboratories.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Humans , Laboratories , Polymerase Chain Reaction , Sensitivity and Specificity
9.
J Clin Microbiol ; 59(12): e0138121, 2021 11 18.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1522904

ABSTRACT

Commercially available SARS-CoV-2-directed antibody assays may assist in diagnosing past exposure to SARS-CoV-2 antigens. We cross-compared the following eight immunoassays detecting antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid (N) or spike (S) antigens in three cohorts consisting of 859 samples from 622 patients: (#1) EDI novel coronavirus COVID-19 (Epitope), (#2) RecomWell SARS-CoV-2 (Mikrogen), (#3) COVID-19 ELISA (VirCell), (#4) Elecsys anti-SARS-CoV-2 N (Roche), (#5) Liaison SARS-CoV-2 S1/S2 (DiaSorin), (#6) anti-SARS-CoV-2 ELISA (EuroImmun), (#7) Elecsys anti-SARS-CoV-2 S (Roche), and (#8) Liaison SARS-CoV-2 TrimericS (DiaSorin). In cross-sectional cohort 1 (68 sera from 38 patients with documented SARS-CoV-2 infection), agreement between assays #1 to #6 ranged from 75% to 93%, whereby discordance mostly resulted from N-based assays #1 to #4. In cross-sectional cohort 2 (510 sera from 510 patients; 56 documented, 454 unknown SARS-CoV-2 infection), assays #4 to #6 were analyzed further together with assays #7 and #8, revealing 94% concordance (44 [9%] positives and 485 [85%] negatives). Discordance was highest within 2 weeks after SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 diagnosis and confirmed in the longitudinal cohort 3 (281 sera from 74 COVID-19 patients), using assays #4, #6, #7, and #8. Subanalysis of 20 (27%) initially seronegative cohort 3 patients revealed assay-dependent 50% and 90% seroconversion rates after 8 to 11 days and 14 to 18 days, respectively. Increasing SARS-CoV-2 antibodies were significantly associated with declining levels of viral loads, lactate dehydrogenase, interleukin-6, and C-reactive protein and preceded clearance of SARS-CoV-2 detection in the upper respiratory tract by approximately 1 week. SARS-CoV-2-specific antibody assays show substantial agreement, but interpretation of qualitative and semiquantitative results depends on the time elapsed postdiagnosis and the choice of viral antigen. Mounting of systemic SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies may predict recovery from viral injury and clearance of mucosal replication.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Antibodies, Viral , COVID-19 Testing , Cross-Sectional Studies , Humans , Immunoassay , Immunoglobulin G , Laboratories , Sensitivity and Specificity , Spike Glycoprotein, Coronavirus
12.
Clin Lab ; 67(11)2021 Nov 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1513108

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to compare the validity of two different assays for the detection of SARS-CoV-2. METHODS: We collected 50 nasopharyngeal swabs in universal transport medium from the emergency department of Asia University Hospital for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 using reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). The samples for the Liat SARS-CoV-2 influenza A/B test were stored at -70℃ after SARS-CoV-2 testing using the RT-PCR in order to assess method comparison. RESULTS: In this study, the Limit of detection (LOD) of the cobas Liat SARS-CoV-2 and influenza A/B nucleic acid test is 12 copies/µL and the assay obtained 100% positive agreement and negative percent agreement with RT-PCR. CONCLUSIONS: In summary, a prefect agreement exists between the detection of SARS-CoV-2 conducted with the cobas Liat SARS-CoV-2 and influenza A/B nucleic acid test and the RT-PCR. The cobas Liat SARS-CoV-2 and influenza A/B nucleic acid test is a reliable method for the detection of SARS-CoV-2, and it only requires 20 minutes to obtain the results. On the other hand, the cobas Liat SARS-CoV-2 and influenza A/B nucleic acid test is accurate, easy to use, and provides a faster turnaround time than testing performed in the high-throughput platform.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , COVID-19 Testing , Humans , Laboratories , Nasopharynx , Reverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain Reaction , Sensitivity and Specificity
13.
Talanta ; 237: 122916, 2022 Jan 15.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1506048

ABSTRACT

Herein, we show differences in blood serum of asymptomatic and symptomatic pregnant women infected with COVID-19 and correlate them with laboratory indexes, ATR FTIR and multivariate machine learning methods. We collected the sera of COVID-19 diagnosed pregnant women, in the second trimester (n = 12), third-trimester (n = 7), and second-trimester with severe symptoms (n = 7) compared to the healthy pregnant (n = 11) women, which makes a total of 37 participants. To assign the accuracy of FTIR spectra regions where peak shifts occurred, the Random Forest algorithm, traditional C5.0 single decision tree algorithm and deep neural network approach were used. We verified the correspondence between the FTIR results and the laboratory indexes such as: the count of peripheral blood cells, biochemical parameters, and coagulation indicators of pregnant women. CH2 scissoring, amide II, amide I vibrations could be used to differentiate the groups. The accuracy calculated by machine learning methods was higher than 90%. We also developed a method based on the dynamics of the absorbance spectra allowing to determine the differences between the spectra of healthy and COVID-19 patients. Laboratory indexes of biochemical parameters associated with COVID-19 validate changes in the total amount of proteins, albumin and lipase.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Female , Humans , Laboratories , Machine Learning , Pregnancy , Pregnant Women , SARS-CoV-2 , Serum , Spectrum Analysis , Vibration
14.
Sci Rep ; 11(1): 21658, 2021 11 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1503936

ABSTRACT

More than one year since Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic outbreak, the gold standard technique for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) detection is still the RT-qPCR. This is a limitation to increase testing capacities, particularly at developing countries, as expensive reagents and equipment are required. We developed a two steps end point RT-PCR reaction with SARS-CoV-2 Nucleocapsid (N) gene and Ribonuclease P (RNase P) specific primers where viral amplicons were verified by agarose gel electrophoresis. We carried out a clinical performance and analytical sensitivity evaluation for this two-steps end point RT-PCR method with 242 nasopharyngeal samples using the CDC RT-qPCR protocol as a gold standard technique. With a specificity of 95.8%, a sensitivity of 95.1%, and a limit of detection of 20 viral RNA copies/uL, this two steps end point RT-PCR assay is an affordable and reliable method for SARS-CoV-2 detection. This protocol would allow to extend COVID-19 diagnosis to basic molecular biology laboratories with a potential positive impact in surveillance programs at developing countries.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Nucleic Acid Testing/methods , COVID-19/diagnosis , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , COVID-19/genetics , COVID-19 Nucleic Acid Testing/economics , COVID-19 Testing/methods , Coronavirus Nucleocapsid Proteins/genetics , DNA Primers , Electrophoresis, Agar Gel/methods , Humans , Laboratories , Nasopharynx/virology , RNA, Viral/genetics , Ribonuclease P/genetics , Ribonuclease P/metabolism , SARS-CoV-2/pathogenicity , Sensitivity and Specificity
15.
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep ; 70(44): 1553-1559, 2021 Nov 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1502903

ABSTRACT

Immunocompromised persons, defined as those with suppressed humoral or cellular immunity resulting from health conditions or medications, account for approximately 3% of the U.S. adult population (1). Immunocompromised adults are at increased risk for severe COVID-19 outcomes (2) and might not acquire the same level of protection from COVID-19 mRNA vaccines as do immunocompetent adults (3,4). To evaluate vaccine effectiveness (VE) among immunocompromised adults, data from the VISION Network* on hospitalizations among persons aged ≥18 years with COVID-19-like illness from 187 hospitals in nine states during January 17-September 5, 2021 were analyzed. Using selected discharge diagnoses,† VE against COVID-19-associated hospitalization conferred by completing a 2-dose series of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine ≥14 days before the index hospitalization date§ (i.e., being fully vaccinated) was evaluated using a test-negative design comparing 20,101 immunocompromised adults (10,564 [53%] of whom were fully vaccinated) and 69,116 immunocompetent adults (29,456 [43%] of whom were fully vaccinated). VE of 2 doses of mRNA COVID-19 vaccine against COVID-19-associated hospitalization was lower among immunocompromised patients (77%; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 74%-80%) than among immunocompetent patients (90%; 95% CI = 89%-91%). This difference persisted irrespective of mRNA vaccine product, age group, and timing of hospitalization relative to SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID-19) B.1.617.2 (Delta) variant predominance in the state of hospitalization. VE varied across immunocompromising condition subgroups, ranging from 59% (organ or stem cell transplant recipients) to 81% (persons with a rheumatologic or inflammatory disorder). Immunocompromised persons benefit from mRNA COVID-19 vaccination but are less protected from severe COVID-19 outcomes than are immunocompetent persons, and VE varies among immunocompromised subgroups. Immunocompromised persons receiving mRNA COVID-19 vaccines should receive 3 doses and a booster, consistent with CDC recommendations (5), practice nonpharmaceutical interventions, and, if infected, be monitored closely and considered early for proven therapies that can prevent severe outcomes.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines/administration & dosage , COVID-19/prevention & control , Hospitalization/statistics & numerical data , Immunocompromised Host/immunology , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/immunology , COVID-19/therapy , COVID-19 Vaccines/immunology , Female , Humans , Immunization Schedule , Laboratories , Male , Middle Aged , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , United States/epidemiology , Vaccines, Synthetic/administration & dosage , Young Adult
16.
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep ; 70(44): 1539-1544, 2021 Nov 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1502901

ABSTRACT

Previous infection with SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID-19) or COVID-19 vaccination can provide immunity and protection from subsequent SARS-CoV-2 infection and illness. CDC used data from the VISION Network* to examine hospitalizations in adults with COVID-19-like illness and compared the odds of receiving a positive SARS-CoV-2 test result, and thus having laboratory-confirmed COVID-19, between unvaccinated patients with a previous SARS-CoV-2 infection occurring 90-179 days before COVID-19-like illness hospitalization, and patients who were fully vaccinated with an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine 90-179 days before hospitalization with no previous documented SARS-CoV-2 infection. Hospitalized adults aged ≥18 years with COVID-19-like illness were included if they had received testing at least twice: once associated with a COVID-19-like illness hospitalization during January-September 2021 and at least once earlier (since February 1, 2020, and ≥14 days before that hospitalization). Among COVID-19-like illness hospitalizations in persons whose previous infection or vaccination occurred 90-179 days earlier, the odds of laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 (adjusted for sociodemographic and health characteristics) among unvaccinated, previously infected adults were higher than the odds among fully vaccinated recipients of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine with no previous documented infection (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 5.49; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.75-10.99). These findings suggest that among hospitalized adults with COVID-19-like illness whose previous infection or vaccination occurred 90-179 days earlier, vaccine-induced immunity was more protective than infection-induced immunity against laboratory-confirmed COVID-19. All eligible persons should be vaccinated against COVID-19 as soon as possible, including unvaccinated persons previously infected with SARS-CoV-2.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/immunology , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , COVID-19/therapy , COVID-19 Vaccines/administration & dosage , COVID-19 Vaccines/immunology , Female , Hospitalization/statistics & numerical data , Humans , Laboratories , Male , Middle Aged , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , Vaccines, Synthetic/administration & dosage , Vaccines, Synthetic/immunology , Young Adult
17.
Saudi Med J ; 42(11): 1165-1172, 2021 Nov.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1502887

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: To validate C-reactive protein (CRP), red cell distribution width (RDW), and neutrophil lymphocyte ratio (NLR) for both serious outcomes and length of hospital stay (LOS) among hospitalized coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) patients. METHODS: Laboratory data of adult COVID-19 patients (n=74) was collected in this retrospective cohort. Logistic regression was employed for risk factor evaluation and receiver operating curve was used for comparison of these risk factors for the prediction of serious outcome. Multiple regression was applied to determine the association between routine analytes and LOS. RESULTS: Higher levels of CRP (3 times), white blood cells (20%), and neutrophil counts (40%) were seen in the serious category. Odds ratio for CRP for the serious outcome was 1.052 (p=0.007) and RDW for the serious outcome was 1.218 (p=0.040) in unadjusted model and odds ratio for CRP for the serious outcome was 1.048 (p=0.024) and for RDW 1.286 (p=0.023) in adjusted model. In a multivariate regression analysis for the LOS of the unadjusted models consisting of NLR, monocyte lymphocyte ratio (MLR) and platelet lymphocyte ratio (PLR), the beta coefficients (BC) for the CRP were 0.006 (NLR), 0.005 (MLR) and 0.006 (PLR), whereas -0.029 (NLR), -0.034 (MLR) and -0.027 (PLR) were BCs for mean corpuscular hemoglobin concentration (MCHC). Additionally, in adjusted models, the BCs for MCHC were -0.044 (NLR), -0.047 (MLR) and -0.043 (PLR). However, the CRP was consistent with 0.004 (BC) in all models. CONCLUSION: We observed that CRP is a better predictor than RDW and NLR for serious outcome among COVID-19 patients. Besides, CRP was positively, whereas MCHC was negatively associated with LOS.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Laboratories , Blood Platelets , Humans , Length of Stay , Lymphocytes , Neutrophils , Prognosis , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2
18.
BMC Psychiatry ; 21(1): 543, 2021 11 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1501993

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has increased the physical and psychological stress of medical workers. This study was designed to investigate the prevalence and risk factors of job burnout and its impact on work ability among Biosafety Laboratory (BSL) staffs during the COVID-19 epidemic in Xinjiang. METHODS: A total of 7911 qualified BSL staffs in Xinjiang were investigated by electronic questionnaires. The Maslach Burnout Inventory-General Survey (MBI-GS) was used for job burnout survey. Work Ability Index (WAI) was used for work ability survey. The prevalence and risk factors of job burnout in BSL staffs were analyzed through chi square test, t-test and one-way ANOVA. And then, the influence of demographic and job-related variables, i.e., confounding factors, were eliminated to the greatest extent by the propensity score analysis (PSA) method, to investigate the impact of job burnout on work ability in BSL staffs. RESULTS: A total of 67.6% BSL staffs experienced job burnout. There were significant differences in the detection rate of job burnout among demographic and job-related variables, including gender, age, ethnicity, education, working years, professional title, marital status, number of night shift per month and overall sleep condition (all P < 0.05). The detection rate of job burnout in female was higher than that in male. The detection rates of job burnout in 45-50 years old, Han ethnicity, education of postgraduate or above, 11-20 years of working, intermediate professional title, married, staff with many night shifts per month and poor overall sleep condition were higher than that of other groups. The average burnout scores of the Emotional Exhaustion (EE), Cynicism (CY), Reduced Personal Accomplishment (PA) scale were 10.00 ± 5.99, 4.64 ± 4.59 and 15.25 ± 8.16, respectively. Multiple logistic regression analysis showed that the three dimensions of job burnout, i.e., EE, CY, PE, were negatively correlated with work ability and significantly affected the work ability of BSL staffs (all P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that the prevalence of job burnout is extremely common among BSL staffs. In addition, the work ability decreases with the increase of job burnout and the improvement of job burnout can enhance work ability among BSL staffs.


Subject(s)
Burnout, Professional , COVID-19 , Epidemics , Burnout, Professional/epidemiology , Containment of Biohazards , Female , Humans , Job Satisfaction , Laboratories , Male , Middle Aged , SARS-CoV-2 , Surveys and Questionnaires , Work Capacity Evaluation
19.
J Clin Microbiol ; 59(9): e0076721, 2021 08 18.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1501529

ABSTRACT

In response to the worldwide pandemic of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and the subsequent antibody tests that flooded the market, a nationwide collaborative approach in the Netherlands was employed. Forty-one Dutch laboratories joined forces and shared their evaluation data to allow for the evaluation of a quantity of serological assays for SARS-CoV-2 that exceeds the capacity of each individual laboratory. As of April 2020, these performance data had been aggregated and shared in regularly updated reports with other laboratories, Dutch government, public health organizations, and the public. This frequently updated overview of assay performance increased the efficiency of our national laboratory response, supporting laboratories in their choice and implementation of assays. Aggregated performance data for 47 immunoassays for SARS-CoV-2 showed that none of the evaluated immunoassays that detect only IgM or IgA met the diagnostic criteria, indicating that they are not suitable for diagnosing acute infections. For the detection of IgG, only the Biozek Corona virus COVID rapid test, Euroimmun SARS-CoV-2 IgG, and Wantai SARS-CoV-2 antibody (Ab) ELISA met predefined performance criteria in hospitalized patients where samples were collected 14 days post-onset of symptoms (DPO), while for patients with mild or asymptomatic infections, only the Wantai SARS-CoV-2 Ab ELISA met the predefined performance criteria if samples were collected 14 days postonset. Here, we describe this unique nationwide collaboration during the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic; the collected data and their results are an example of what can be accomplished when forces are joined during a public health crisis.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Antibodies, Viral , COVID-19 Testing , Humans , Immunoassay , Immunoglobulin M , Laboratories , Multicenter Studies as Topic , Pandemics , Sensitivity and Specificity
20.
Clin Microbiol Rev ; 34(3)2021 06 16.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1501522

ABSTRACT

Public health laboratories (PHLs) continue to face internal and external challenges to their abilities to provide successful, timely responses to public health crises and emerging threats. These laboratories are mandated to maintain the health of their communities by identifying, diagnosing, and warning constituents of potential and real health emergencies. Due to the changing characteristics of public health threats and their cross-jurisdictional nature, laboratories are facing increased pressure to ensure that they respond in a consistent and coordinated manner. Here, the Association of Public Health Laboratories (APHL) Emerging Leader Program Cohort 11 members have compiled stories from subject matter experts (SMEs) at PHLs with direct involvement in crises to determine the characteristics of a successful response. Experts examined a diverse selection of emerging threats from across PHLs, including infectious diseases, opioids, natural disasters, and government shutdowns. While no public health crisis will be identical to another, overarching themes were consistent across subjects. Experiences from SMEs that could improve future responses to emerging threats are highlighted.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Testing/methods , COVID-19/diagnosis , Hemorrhagic Fever, Ebola/diagnosis , Measles/diagnosis , Opioid-Related Disorders/diagnosis , Public Health/methods , COVID-19/epidemiology , Clinical Laboratory Techniques , Hemorrhagic Fever, Ebola/epidemiology , Humans , Laboratories , Measles/epidemiology , Opioid-Related Disorders/epidemiology
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...