Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 2 de 2
Filtrar
Añadir filtros

Base de datos
Tipo del documento
Intervalo de año
1.
Endocr Metab Immune Disord Drug Targets ; 21(10): 1775-1780, 2021.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1562450

RESUMEN

In late 2019, SARS-COV-2 disease was firstly discovered in Wuhan, China and then it infected millions of people worldwide. Later, the World Health Organization (WHO) described COVID-19 as the first pandemic invading the world in the 21st century. The WHO has declared that the emerging infection will last long enough to force adjustments not only in people's lifestyles but also in the health care system. This amendment is expected to spread through many medical practices and specialties. A lot of diagnostic and therapeutic modalities have been proposed for COVID-19 management. The best strategy for the management of patients requires a multi-disciplinary team approach with correct decisions regarding the right timing of each modality of treatment. The participating multidisciplinary team for COVID-19 management includes six infectious diseases experts in Tanta University; one critical care management expert, an emergency medicine expert and two pharmacists in Tanta University. In this review, we reported our multi-disciplinary team experience with up to date literature guidance to propose a valid protocol for the management of COVID-19 patients in a limited resources setting.


Asunto(s)
Centros Médicos Académicos/métodos , COVID-19/prevención & control , Países en Desarrollo , Manejo de la Enfermedad , Recursos en Salud , Grupo de Atención al Paciente , Centros Médicos Académicos/economía , COVID-19/economía , COVID-19/epidemiología , Países en Desarrollo/economía , Egipto/epidemiología , Recursos en Salud/economía , Humanos , Grupo de Atención al Paciente/economía
2.
Int J Clin Health Psychol ; 22(1): 100256, 2022.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1309239

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: This study examined the role of different psychological coping mechanisms in mental and physical health during the initial phases of the COVID-19 crisis with an emphasis on meaning-centered coping. METHOD: A total of 11,227 people from 30 countries across all continents participated in the study and completed measures of psychological distress (depression, stress, and anxiety), loneliness, well-being, and physical health, together with measures of problem-focused and emotion-focused coping, and a measure called the Meaning-centered Coping Scale (MCCS) that was developed in the present study. Validation analyses of the MCCS were performed in all countries, and data were assessed by multilevel modeling (MLM). RESULTS: The MCCS showed a robust one-factor structure in 30 countries with good test-retest, concurrent and divergent validity results. MLM analyses showed mixed results regarding emotion and problem-focused coping strategies. However, the MCCS was the strongest positive predictor of physical and mental health among all coping strategies, independently of demographic characteristics and country-level variables. CONCLUSIONS: The findings suggest that the MCCS is a valid measure to assess meaning-centered coping. The results also call for policies promoting effective coping to mitigate collective suffering during the pandemic.


ANTECEDENTES/OBJETIVO: Este estudio examinó el papel de diferentes estrategias de afrontamiento psicológico en la salud mental y física durante las fases iniciales de la crisis de COVID-19. MÉTODO: 11,227 personas de 30 países representando todos los continentes participaron en el estudio y completaron medidas de malestar psicológico (depresión, estrés y ansiedad), soledad, bienestar, salud física, medidas de afrontamiento centrado en el problema y en la emoción, y una medida denominada Escala del Afrontamiento Centrado en el Sentido (MCCS) que fue desarrollada en este estudio. El análisis de validación de la MCCS se realizó en todos los países, y los datos se evaluaron mediante un modelo multinivel. RESULTADOS: La MCCS mostró una estructura unifactorial en 30 países con buenos resultados de validez test-retest, concurrente y divergente. Los análisis mostraron resultados mixtos en cuanto a las estrategias de afrontamiento centradas en la emoción y en el problema. La MCCS fue el predictor positivo más fuerte de salud física y mental, independientemente de las características demográficas y las variables a nivel de país. CONCLUSIONES: Los resultados sugieren que la MCCS es un insrumento fiable para medir afrontamiento centrado en el sentido. Estos resultados pueden servir para dirigir políticas que promuevan un afrontamiento eficaz con el fin de mitigar el sufrimiento colectivo durante la pandemia.

SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA