RESUMO
Background: Health care providers (HCPs) have always been a common target of stigmatization during widespread infections and COVID-19 is not an exception. Aim: This study aims to investigate the prevalence of stigmatization during the COVID-19 pandemic among HCPs in seven different countries using the Stigma COVID-19 Healthcare Providers tool (S19-HCPs). Design: Cross-sectional. Methods: The S19-HCPs is a self-administered online survey (16-item) developed and validated by the research team. The participants were invited to complete an online survey. Data collection started from June-July 2020 using a convenience sample of HCPs from Iraq, Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Philippines, and Kuwait. Results: A total number of 1726 participants were included in the final analysis. The majority of the study participants were Jordanians (22%), followed by Kuwaitis (19%), Filipinos (18%) and the lowest participants were Indonesians (6%). Other nationalities were Iraqis, Saudis, and Egyptians with 15%, 11% and 9% respectively. Among the respondents, 57% have worked either in a COVID-19 designated facility or in a quarantine center and 78% claimed that they had received training for COVID-19. Statistical significance between COVID-19 stigma and demographic variables were found in all aspect of the S19-HCPs. Conclusion: The findings of this study demonstrated high levels of stigmatization against HCPs in all the included seven countries. On the other hand, they are still perceived positively by their communities and in their utmost, highly motivated to care for COVID-19 patients. Educational and awareness programs could have a crucial role in the solution of stigmatization problems over the world.
RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: To determine the significance of transient ischemic dilatation (TID) in patients with normal perfusion on adenosine stress/rest. METHODS: We analyzed 430 consecutive patients with normal perfusion on 2-day adenosine stress/rest 99mTc-sestamibi. A group of 70 patients with Framingham 10-year coronary heart disease risk < 10% was used to derive abnormal TID thresholds (derivation group). The significance of TID at these thresholds was validated in the remaining 360 patients (validation group) followed for cardiac events for 31.2 ± 9.7 (mean ± SD) months. RESULTS: Transient ischemic dilatation in the derivation group was 1.05 ± 0.13. Three definitions of an abnormal TID were used: > mean + 2SD (TID ≥ 1.32), > mean + 1SD (TID ≥ 1.19) and a TID in the group's highest quartile (TID ≥ 1.15). Of the 360 validation group patients, 12 (3.3%), 48 (13.3%) and 70 (19.4%) had TID ≥ 1.32, 1.19 and 1.15, respectively. Age, gender, family history of coronary artery disease (CAD), known CAD, smoking, hypertension, diabetes, dyslipidemia, rest LVEF, post-stress LVEF, ΔLVEF, ≥ 5% or 10% decrease in LVEF did not predict TID ≥ 1.32. However, TID ≥ 1.19 was predicted by rest LVEF and ≥ 5% decrease in LVEF (P = 0.04 and 0.02, respectively) and TID ≥ 1.15 was predicted by ≥ 5% decrease in LVEF (P = 0.02). Cardiac event-free survivals were similar in patients with a TID ≥ and < 1.32 (P = 0.68), ≥ and < 1.19 (P = 0.40) and ≥ and < 1.15 (P = 0.79). CONCLUSIONS: Transient ischemic dilatation does not confer adverse prognosis in patients with normal perfusion on adenosine stress/rest 99mTc-sestamibi irrespective of the threshold used for its definition.
