ABSTRACT
Background: Since the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic began, several studies were published on the possible prevention and treatment of the disease caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARSCoV-2), and its complications. However, one aspect that was overlooked is the impact on the mental health of the caregivers of COVID-19 patients. The current study endeavors to investigate sleep quality disturbances in the caregivers of COVID-19 patients in different countries. Material and Methods: This cross-sectional multi-center study was performed between August 1, 2021, and August 30, 2022, across 11 countries. A total of 2411 responses meeting the inclusion criteria (being a family member or caregiver involved in patient care) were collected. The sleep quality was assessed using the self-reported Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) 12. Total scores ranged from 0 to 21. A ≥5 indicated poor sleep quality with 89.6% sensitivity and 86.5% specificity. Results: A total of 2411 responses meeting the inclusion criteria showed that mean PSQI scores (P = 0.3604) were higher in caregivers of hospitalized patients than in patients isolated at home. Approximately 62.4% of caregivers reported sleep quality problems while caring for their patients. Conclusion: The results showed that the majority of caregivers of patients with COVID-19 reported disturbances in sleep quality and impaired sleep was more common among caregivers of hospitalized patients, perhaps because hospitalization is associated with a more severe course of the disease. There is a pressing need to take measures to improve the mental health of these caregivers. There should be treatment programs set up to reverse sleep disturbances in this population sufficiently.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Global surgery has recently gained prominence as an academic discipline within global health. Authorship inequity has been a consistent feature of global health publications, with over-representation of authors from high-income countries (HICs), and disenfranchisement of researchers from low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). In this study, we investigated authorship demographics within recently published global surgery literature. METHODS: We performed a systematic analysis of author characteristics, including gender, seniority and institutional affiliation, for global surgery studies published between 2016 and 2020 and indexed in the PubMed database. We compared the distribution of author gender and seniority across studies related to different topics; between authors affiliated with HICs and LMICs; and across studies with different authorship networks. RESULTS: 1240 articles were included for analysis. Most authors were male (60%), affiliated only with HICs (51%) and of high seniority (55% were fully qualified specialist or generalist clinicians, Principal Investigators, or in senior leadership or management roles). The proportion of male authors increased with increasing seniority for last and middle authors. Studies related to Obstetrics and Gynaecology had similar numbers of male and female authors, whereas there were more male authors in studies related to surgery (69% male) and Anaesthesia and Critical care (65% male). Compared with HIC authors, LMIC authors had a lower proportion of female authors at every seniority grade. This gender gap among LMIC middle authors was reduced in studies where all authors were affiliated only with LMICs. CONCLUSION: Authorship disparities are evident within global surgery academia. Remedial actions to address the lack of authorship opportunities for LMIC authors and female authors are required.
