Video-based teach-to-goal intervention on inhaler technique on adults with asthma and COPD: A randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Incorrect use of inhalers is a problem associated with poor patient outcomes. Despite improvement in the technique after verbal educations, this deteriorates over-time requiring re-enforcement through different educative strategies. This study aimed to assess the impact of a novel video-based teach-to-goal (TTG) educational intervention on: mastery of inhaler technique, disease control, medication adherence and disease-related quality of life (QoL) over-time among asthma and COPD patients. METHODS: This prospective, open-label, randomized controlled trial was registered in ClinicalTrials.gov: Identifier NCT05664347. After baseline assessment participants received either a verbal (control group) or a video-based (intervention group) TTG strategy. After 3-month the intervention was assessed for impact on the intended outcomes. Inhaler technique was assessed using standardized checklists, disease control using the Asthma control test and COPD assessment test respectively for asthma and COPD patients while adherence using the Morisky Green Levine scale. For QoL, the mini asthma quality of life questionnaire and the St. George respiratory questionnaire were used for asthmatic and COPD patients, respectively. Differences in outcomes between intervention-control groups were analyzed using either Chi-Square (X2)/Fisher Exact or Mann Whitney test. The impact of intervention on outcomes over-time was examined using either McNemar or Wilcoxon test. RESULTS: At baseline, intervention (n = 51) and control (n = 52) groups had comparable demographic/clinical characteristics. At follow-up, inhaler technique improved among intervention group compared to control group (93.4% vs 67%) and to baseline (93.4% to 49.5%), (P<0.05). Similarly, medication adherence ameliorated among the intervention group in comparison to control group (88.2% to 61.5%) and to baseline (88.2% to 66.7%), (P<0.05). In regards to disease control, results showed an amelioration among the intervention group compared to baseline (35.3% to 54.9%) (P<0.05). QoL scores improved significantly among asthma patients (intervention group) at follow-up vs baseline. Better scores were also observed for COPD patients compared to controls, (P<0.05). CONCLUSION: Video-based (TTG) was effective in enhancing inhaler technique over time as well as improving disease control, medication adherence, and QoL. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT05664347. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05664347.

Real-World Effectiveness of Four Types of COVID-19 Vaccines.

BACKGROUND: There is a scarcity of evidence regarding the real-world effectiveness of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines. This was the first study to evaluate the effectiveness of four types of vaccines against asymptomatic and symptomatic infection, and COVID-19 outcomes among the general population. METHODS: This was a matched comparison group quasi-experimental study conducted in Jordan between 1 January and 29 August 2021. In the first part of the study, 1200 fully vaccinated individuals were matched with 1200 unvaccinated control participants. In order to measure vaccine effectiveness, the infection rates of both vaccinated and unvaccinated groups were calculated. The second part of the study included measuring specific anti-SARS CoV-2 immune cells and antibodies. RESULTS: BNT162b2 (Pfizer, New York, NY, USA) showed a significantly higher effectiveness against asymptomatic COVID-19 infection (91.7%) and hospitalization (99.5%) than BBIBP-CorV (Sinopharm, Beijing, China) (88.4% and 98.7%, respectively) and ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AstraZeneca, Cambridge, UK) (84.3%, and 98.9%, respectively). The effectiveness rates of the Sputnik V (Gamaleya Research Institute, Moscow, Russia) vaccine against asymptomatic, symptomatic, and hospitalization were 100%, 100%, and 66.7%, respectively. The highest median anti-spike (S) IgG values were seen in individuals who received BNT162b2 (2.9 AU/mL) and ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (2.8 AU/mL) vaccines. The levels of anti-S IgG were significantly decreased after 7 months of vaccination with BNT162b2 and BBIBP-CorV. There were significant decreases in the median number of neutralizing antibodies one month and seven months after receiving BNT162b2 (from 88.5 to 75.2 4 Bioequivalent Allergen Unit per milliliter/mL), BBIBP-CorV (from 69.5 to 51.5 BAU/mL), and ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (from 69.2 to 58.BAU/mL) vaccines. The highest percentage of T cells specific to COVID-19 vaccine was found in individuals who received BNT162b2 (88.5%). CONCLUSION: All four vaccines evaluated in this study showed effectiveness against asymptomatic COVID-19 infection, symptomatic infection, hospitalization, and death. Furthermore, BNT162b2, BBIBP-CorV, and ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 induced high levels of immunology markers within one month of vaccination.

Assessing Anxiety and Depression Among Students Post-COVID-19: Exploring Associating Factors.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has had a large impact on global mental health including anxiety and depression rates, many factors affected the vulnerability to these psychological conditions amongst university students. Aim: To explore the level of anxiety and depression of university students living in Jordan. Methods: A cross-sectional study design was conducted in which an electronic survey was created and distributed, university students residing in Jordan participated in the study. Results: A total of 1241 students were enrolled in the study. The mean anxiety score among males and females was (9.68 (SD = 4.10)) and (10.46 (SD = 4.14)), respectively. 42.1% of males had "abnormal" anxiety score compared to 48.4% females. The mean depression score among males (7.77 (SD = 4.31)) was similar to that for the females (7.64 (SD = 4.14)), and 26.0% of the males had "abnormal" depression score compared to 22.6% of the females. Factors affecting anxiety scores included younger age, being a female, taking medication/s, or drinking two cups of coffee or more a day. Conclusion: With 46% and 24% of students suffering from abnormal anxiety and depression respectively, it is important for education policy makers to take immediate measures to allocate students in need of psychological assessment and help to deliver suitable interventions.

Assessing Learning Preferences of Tertiary Education Students in Jordan Post COVID-19 Pandemic and the Associated Perceived Stress

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic was associated with extensive lockdown strategies which included universities, forcing educational administrations to implement online learning and acknowledging the countless consequences it would have on the educational process. Those prompt changes highlighted the importance of online learning effects on educational outcomes. Aim: To assess students' learning preferences and the stress associated with online and face-to-face learning. Methods: This is a multi-center cross-sectional study, employing a web-based Google Forms, which was used among four universities in Jordan. The survey assessed students' demographic characteristics, educational methods received, assessment of factors that may have influenced students' stress, and assessment of 'stress' using the Perceived Stress Scale (PSS). Results: Among 1241 participating students, most of the students preferred face-to-face learning (43.3%), although the majority believed that online learning is less stressful (42.2%). The majority believed that face-to-face learning is efficient (42.7%), and that online learning is moderately efficient (38.4%), while many (35.3%) reported that the future of learning will be blended 50/50 between online and face-to-face learning. The mean score of PSS was 20.88, with 62.9% reported to have experienced moderate perceived stress, and 22.4% experienced high perceived stress. Conclusion: Although Jordanian university students prefer face-to-face learning over online learning, they believe that online learning can be less stressful. In addition to that, Jordanian students experienced a high mean of the PSS score, with more than 20% of students reporting high perceived stress.

Active Safety Surveillance of Four Types of COVID-19 Vaccines: A National Study from Jordan.

BACKGROUND: Although the Pfizer-BioNTech (BNT162b2), Oxford-AstraZeneca (ChAdOx1 nCoV-19), Sinopharm (BBIBP-CorV), and Sputnik V coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines have been granted emergency approval in many nations, their safety has never been studied and compared in one community-based study. This study aimed to investigate and compare the incidence, nature, severity, and predictors of adverse events following immunization (AEFIs) with COVID-19 vaccines. METHOD: This was a prospective observational study conducted in Jordan between 1 January and 21 September 2021. A team of pharmacists and nurses (n = 407) collected the local and systemic AEFIs of four COVID-19 vaccines by prospectively contacting participants registered in the national vaccination program platform. A red-flag technology was inserted to classify and track rare and serious AEFIs. RESULTS: This study included 658,428 participants who were vaccinated with 1,032,430 doses; 610,591, 279,606, 140,843, and 1390 participants received the first and second doses of the BNT162b2, BBIBP-CorV, ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, and Sputnik V vaccines, respectively. The overall incidence of AEFIs was 28.8%, and the overall rates of systemic, local, and immediate hypersensitivity AEFIs were 22.2%, 18.8%, and 0.5%, respectively. The highest proportions of immediate hypersensitivity AEFIs and systemic AEFIs were reported after administration of the Sputnik V vaccine and ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 first dose, respectively. The most severe AEFIs were reported after ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 first dose and BNT162b2 second dose. The hospitalization and mortality rates after vaccination were 20 in 10,000 and 1 in 10,000, respectively. Based on red-flag tracking, the top three outcome events were lymphadenopathy (157.9/100,000), anxiety disorders (136.6/100,000), and lower respiratory tract infection (100.9/100,000), with Guillain-Barré syndrome (1.8/100,000), vasculitis (3.0/100,000), and myopericarditis (4.8/100,000) being the least common. CONCLUSION: The incidence rates of local, systemic, and immediate hypersensitivity AEFIs of four COVID-19 vaccines occur frequently. High incidence rates of rare and serious AEFIs were reported in this study. Younger participants, females, those who had previously had COVID-19, and smokers were more likely to encounter AEFIs.

Pharmacists-physicians collaborative intervention to reduce vaccine hesitancy and resistance: A randomized controlled trial.

PURPOSE: Given their negative influence on community health, vaccine hesitancy and resistance are emerging challenges that require healthcare intervention. Therefore, this study aimed to assess the impact of physician-pharmacist collaborative health coaching on rates of hesitancy and resistance for a COVID-19 vaccine. METHODS: After an initial assessment of rates of hesitancy and resistance for a COVID-19 vaccine was conducted, hesitant and resistant participants were approached, recruited, and randomized into an active and control group. Pharmacists-physicians collaborative coaching intervention was delivered to active group subjects over two months through Facebook live sessions. The outcome measures were assessed in both groups before coaching, directly after coaching, and a month after coaching. RESULTS: The proportions of hesitancy and resistance for a COVID-19 vaccine among subjects in the active group were significantly reduced from 64.3% and 35.7% before coaching to 20.1% and 7.8% directly after coaching, respectively. These proportions were further reduced to 11.1% and 3.3% a month after coaching, respectively. Furthermore, the mean scores for knowledge on, and attitude towards COVID-19 vaccine were significantly increased from 4.6 ± 1.8 and 4.1 ± 1.7 before coaching to 7.5 ± 3.1 and 8.9 ± 3.8 directly after coaching, respectively. However, the change in mean score of beliefs about COVID-19 vaccines among active group subjects was not significant. CONCLUSION: High rates of hesitancy and resistance for a COVID-19 vaccine were found in Jordan. These rates can be significantly reduced through online pharmacists-physicians collaborative coaching, which can also improve knowledge of and attitude towards COVID-19 vaccines.

A three-phase population based sero-epidemiological study: Assessing the trend in prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 during COVID-19 pandemic in Jordan.

The evolution of the COVID-19 pandemic in Jordan during the first 10 months of the epidemic was peculiar and can be easily categorized in three different phases: a first period featuring a very low number of reported cases, a second period with exponential growth from August with up to 8000 cases on the 18th November 2020, and a third phase with steady and progressive decline of the epidemiological curve. With the aim of better determine the entity of the population exposed to SARS-CoV-2, the Jordan Ministry of Health with the support of the WHO launched three rounds of the nationwide sero-prevalence survey. Using population proportionate to size (PPS) methodology, around 5000 individuals were selected from all Jordan governorates. Blood samples were collected from all participants and ELISA assays for total IgM, IgG antibodies to COVID-19 were used for testing at the National Public Health Laboratory. Results revealed that seroprevalence dramatically increased over time, with only a tiny fraction of seropositive individuals in August (0.3%), to increase up to more than 20-fold in October (7.0%) and to reach one-third of the overall population exposed by the end of 2020 (34.2%). While non age-specific trends were detected in infection rates across different age categories, in all three rounds of the seroprevalence study two out of three positive participants did not report any sign and/or symptom compatible with COVID-19. The serial cross-sectional surveys experience in Jordan allowed to gain additional insights of the epidemic over time in combination with context-specific aspects like adherence to public health and social measures (PHSM). On the other hand, such findings would be helpful for planning of public health mitigation measures like vaccinations and tailored restriction policies.