Cross-sectional study: mindset towards Coronavirus in developing countries and lessons learned: the case of Sudan.

Introduction: People's mindset towards COVID-19 in developing countries has an impact on how they perceive and react to the preventative measures taken by the governments to contain the virus. Understanding the factors influencing the mindset and identifying lessons learned amidst COVID-19 are critical to inform any future intervention strategy. Methods: This was a cross-sectional, community-based study conducted to assess the mindset changes and lessons learned post-COVID-19 in developing countries, focusing on Sudan. The study adopted a sequential mixed approach (SMA), combining qualitative and quantitative methods. The study used a structured questionnaire with 300 respondents and in-depth interviews with two experts. To identify the factors influencing the mindset of the people towards COVID-19, the study employed logistic regression. The data was analyzed using SPSS software. Results: Of the total (N = 300) respondents, 59.0% are female, 59.3% are between the ages of 20 and 39, 79.7% have a university education, 25.3% have the Coronavirus, and 42.3% has their family or relative contracted the virus. Further, only 22.7% had taken the vaccine. Reasons for vaccine hesitancy include lack of trust (29.5%), fear of side effects (24.1%), and absence of the need to travel outside the country (25.5%). When the virus first appeared, 77.3% thought it posed a health risk, while 22.7% perceived it as a hoax or conspiracy. After 3 years, 73% still regarded it as a health threat, while 27% believed it was a hoax or conspiracy. The mindset was found to be influenced by age, history of the disease, the extent of trust in foreign media coverage, and the belief in the effectiveness of the vaccination. Conclusion: Assessing the mindset towards the virus and identifying the lessons learned from the pandemic could be of vital importance to control the spread of the virus in developing countries. Making use of such lessons and influencing the mindset of the people towards positive attitudes and behaviours are required to enhance the effectiveness of the health precaution measures adopted. Further research is required on the public's mistrust of foreign media coverage and the contribution of local media to educate the public about the virus, particularly among the elderly.

Disparities in Acute Coronary Syndrome Outcomes in Individuals With Intellectual Disabilities: A Propensity-Matched Analysis of National Inpatient Sample.

BACKGROUND: Individuals with intellectual disabilities (IDs) are at similar risk of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) as compared to general population. However, there is a paucity of real-world data evaluating outcomes of ACS in this population. We sought to study ACS outcomes in individuals with IDs using a large national database. METHODS: Adult admissions with a primary diagnosis of ACS were identified from the national inpatient sample of years 2016-2019. Cohort was stratified according to presence of IDs. A 1 to 1 nearest neighbor propensity score matching using 16 patient variables. Outcomes evaluated were in-hospital mortality, coronary angiography (CA), timing of CA (early [day 0] vs. late [>day0]), and revascularization. RESULTS: A total of 5110 admissions (2555 in each group) were included in our matched cohort. IDs admissions had higher rates of in-hospital mortality (9 % vs. 4 %, aOR: 2.84, 95 % CI [1.66-4.86], P < 0.001), and were less likely to receive CA (52 % vs. 71 %, aOR: 0.44, 95 % CI [0.34-0.58], P < 0.001) and revascularization (33 % vs. 52 %, aOR: 0.45, 95 % CI [0.35-0.58], P < 0.001). In-Hospital mortality was higher in the ID admissions whether invasive coronary treatment (CA or revascularization) was performed (6 % vs. 3 %, aOR: 2.34, 95 % CI [1.09-5.06], P = 0.03) or not (13 % vs. 5 %, aOR: 2.56, 95 % CI [1.14-5.78], P = 0.023). CONCLUSION: Significant disparities exist in ACS outcomes and management in individuals with IDs. More research is needed to understand the reasons for these disparities and develop interventions to improve quality of care in this population.

COVID-19 and Its Psychological Impacts on Healthcare Staff - A Multi-Centric Comparative Cross-Sectional Study.

Background Since the first case of coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) in Pakistan was reported in February 2020, the medical and paramedical staff has been working on the frontlines to deal with this disease. They have been facing significant strain and stress due to the pandemic, affecting their social, mental, and personal life. The purpose of this study is to investigate the psychological effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, etiology, personal coping mechanisms, and the strategies that are being adopted to reduce stress by the healthcare workers (HCWs) working in COVID-19 dedicated wards (group 2) and compare it with staff working in other departments but not in COVID-19 wards amid this pandemic (group 1) in various hospitals of Lahore, Pakistan. Methods The comparative cross-sectional study was designed which included doctors, nurses, and allied health professionals from various hospitals of Lahore, Pakistan. A questionnaire was designed which consisted of five sections, and 51 questions. A Chi-square test was used to compare the responses between these two groups. Results The study questionnaire was submitted by 200 participants, 100 responses for each group (see the Appendix). In group 1, HCWs not working in COVID-19 dedicated floors were afraid of getting infected, transmitting the infection to their families and concerned about using personal protective equipment (PPE) improperly. They reported a lack of concentration and tense muscles. The coping mechanisms of this group were exercise, strict precautions at work, and social distancing measures. While HCWs serving in COVID-19 dedicated wards were concerned and afraid of putting their families at risk by working in the high-risk environment; the major stresses in this group were: lack of knowledge about proper strategies for treatment, they faced insecurity due to physical and verbal violence by caretakers of COVID-19 patients, and lack of concentration. The coping mechanism was the support of their families and taking strict precautions, with self-isolation if required, to avoid any disease transmission to their families. The proposed strategies to be implemented included teaching skills for self-rescue as well as the implementation of policies at the administrative level to reduce working hours and frequent shift rotation. Conclusion The COVID-19 outbreak posed a great deal of mental stress among HCWs working on the COVID-19 floor as well as those serving in other departments of the hospital. The HCWs from group 1 were most afraid of getting infected and putting family members at risk, experienced tense muscles and lack of concentration, coped their stress by exercise and being more vigilant, and suggested the strategies of teaching skills for self-rescue and better community awareness. While the staff from the second group were most afraid of being the source of infection and violence from the caretakers of patients, experienced tense muscles, used family support, and strict isolation measures as coping mechanisms and suggested the strategies of self-rescue and increase in wages of directly exposed healthcare workers to deal with such pandemics in future in a better way.