Interventions for healthcare professionals caring for COVID-19 patients (beyond vaccines): A systematic review.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Russo B
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7369340 | biostudies-literature | 2021 May
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Interventions for healthcare professionals caring for COVID-19 patients (beyond vaccines): A systematic review.
Russo Barbara B Iudici Michele M
Infection control and hospital epidemiology 20200703 5
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundDisasters like COVID-19 are oftentimes inevitable, which makes disaster preparedness indispensable to global health and social stability. However, there is a dearth of understanding of how well healthcare professionals, who often have to work at the epicenter of disasters as they evolve, are trained to be sufficiently prepared for these crises. To this end, this study aims to examine the characteristics and effectiveness of existing interventions that aim to improve healthcare professionals' disaster preparedness.MethodsWe searched RCTs that aim to improve healthcare professionals' disaster preparedness in databases including PubMed, PsycINFO, CINAHL and Scopus. Results were screened against the eligibility criteria. The review was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020192517) and conducted following the PRISMA guidelines.ResultsA total of 7382 articles were screened for eligibility, among which, 27 RCTs, incorporating 35,145, met the inclusion criteria. Review results show that most of the eligible RCTs were conducted in high-income countries. Only two RCTs were developed in disaster contexts that share similarities with COVID-19. Most of the interventions did not address critical disaster coping abilities, such as how can healthcare professionals protect or improve their personal or the general public's mental health amid pandemics. Furthermore, almost half of the disaster preparedness RCTs failed to generate statistically significant outcomes.ConclusionsAlbeit inevitable, disasters are preventable. Our study results underscore the imperative of designing and developing effective and comprehensive interventions that could boost healthcare professionals' disaster preparedness, so that these frontline workers can better protect personal and public health amid global crises like COVID-19.
| S-EPMC9968355 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Most healthcare institutions require employees to be vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2 and many also require at least one booster. We determine the impact of vaccine type, demographics, and health conditions on COVID-19 vaccine side effects in healthcare professionals. A COVID-19 immunity study was performed at the 2021 American Association for Clinical Chemistry Annual Scientific meeting. As part of this study, a REDCap survey with cascading questions was administered from September 9, 2021 to October 20, 2021. General questions included participant demographics, past and present health conditions, smoking, exercise, and medications. COVID-19 specific questions asked about SARS-CoV-2 vaccine status and type, vaccine-associated side effects after each dose including any boosters, previous infection with COVID-19, diagnostic testing performed, and type and severity symptoms of COVID-19. There were 975 participants (47.1% male, median age of 50 years) who completed the survey. Pfizer was the most commonly administered vaccine (56.4%) followed by Moderna (32.0%) and Johnson & Johnson (7.1%). There were no significant differences in vaccine type received by age, health conditions, smoking, exercise, or type or number of prescription medications. Side effects were reported more frequently after second dose (e.g., Moderna or Pfizer) (54.1%) or single/only dose of Johnson & Johnson (47.8%). Males were significantly more likely to report no side effects (p < 0.001), while females were significantly more likely to report injection site reactions (p < 0.001), fatigue (p < 0.001), headache (p < 0.001), muscle pain (p < 0.001), chills (p = 0.001), fever (p = 0.007), and nausea (p < 0.001). There was a significant upward trend in participants reporting no side effects with increasing age (p < 0.001). There were no significant trends in side effects among different races, ethnicities, health conditions, medications, smoking status or exercise. In multivariate logistic regressions analyses, the second dose of Moderna was associated with a significantly higher risk of side effects than both the second dose of Pfizer and the single dose of Johnson & Johnson. Younger people, females, and those receiving the second dose of Moderna had more COVID-19 vaccine side effects that per self-report led to moderate to severe limitations. As reported in other studies, the increase in side effects from Moderna may be explained by higher viral mRNA concentrations but be associated with additional protective immunity.
| S-EPMC9553122 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Objectives: To determine change in (a) perceived knowledge about COVID-19 vaccines; (b) level of confidence in transmitting information about vaccines; and (c) intention to get vaccinated; among healthcare professionals (HCP) working in a Swiss academic geriatric department who attended a 30-minute information session about COVID-19 vaccines. Measurements: At the session's end, a self-administered questionnaire collected information about socio-demographics, personnel, and/or relatives' experience with COVID-19. In addition, participants were asked to rate their: (a) perceived knowledge about COVID-19 vaccines; (b) level of confidence in transmitting information about COVID-19 vaccines to patients and relatives; and (c) intention to get vaccinated; before and after the session. Results: Overall, 97 (42.2% of all HCPs) participated to 14 sessions and completed the questionnaire. Improvements were observed in knowledge, confidence in providing information, and intention to be vaccinated after the session (all p < .001). Similar improvements were observed in subgroup analyses by gender, age groups, profession (involved in direct care or not), and previous experience with COVID-19 (all p < .010). However, HCP aged 20 to 29 years were less likely to feel completely confident in providing information than those aged 30 to 49 and 50+ years (17.1% vs. 43.2% vs. 44.0%, respectively, p = .031) and to report being very likely to be vaccinated (31.4% vs. 56.8% vs. 56.0%, respectively, p = .060). Conclusions: These information sessions positively influenced HCP knowledge, confidence in providing information, and, to a lesser extent, intention to be vaccinated. Younger HCP reported similar improvements but remained less likely to consider vaccination. Additional efforts are needed to convince these undecided HCP and enhance COVID-19 vaccines uptake.
| S-EPMC9326832 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundVaccine hesitancy is relevant for healthcare professionals (HCPs) who face challenges in building trusting relationships with patients. Accordingly, the VAX-TRUST project has been developed to improve experiences of HCPs and patients dealing with vaccinations. To support VAX-TRUST, this work aimed to identify latest interventions targeted at HCPs to address hesitancy and increase vaccine uptake.MethodsA systematic review was conducted according to PRISMA by searching PubMed, Scopus and Embase. The protocol was registered on PROSPERO. Articles were eligible if evaluated interventions directly targeted at HCPs/healthcare students. The search was run on 26 January 2022. Articles published in 2016 or after were included.ResultsA total of 17 492 records were identified; 139 articles were selected. Most articles were set in USA (n = 110). Over half had a pre-post design without a control group (n = 78). A total of 41 articles focused on single-component interventions, 60 on multi-component interventions involving only HCPs and/or students and 38 on multi-component interventions involving also other professionals. Main components were in-person education (n = 76), synchronous (n = 10) and asynchronous (n = 23) online learning, educational materials (n = 26), performance assessment and feedback (n = 33), electronic record changes (n = 30), role play/simulation (n = 21) and online games/apps (n = 5). Educational sessions were mainly about scientific update or communication. Outcomes of interventions were grouped in: vaccination rates (n = 69), knowledge (n = 32), attitudes (n = 26), confidence in counselling (n = 30) and acceptability (n = 16).ConclusionsApps, gaming, role play/simulations could represent innovative interventions. This review highlighted the need of delving into communication strategies and using more robust evaluations, longer follow-up and standardized measurements.
| S-EPMC10567238 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveThis study intended to assess the impact of COVID-19 pandemic on anxiety and stress among healthcare professionals in Ethiopia.DesignThis study applied a design of systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies.Data sourcesELIGIBILITY CRITERIA AND OUTCOMES: Observational studies examining anxiety and stress among healthcare professionals in Ethiopia following COVID-19 pandemic were considered. The primary outcomes were the prevalence of anxiety and stress and the secondary outcomes were factors associated to the prevalence of anxiety and stress.Data extraction and synthesisTwo authors extracted the data and performed quality assessment independently. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to evaluate the quality of eligible studies. Random-effect model with the inverse variance method was used to estimate the pooled effect size of the outcome variables with its 95% CI. Publication bias was checked by DOI plot and Luis Furuya Kanamori index. Stata V.14.0 (StataCorp) software was used for statistical analysis.ResultsThirteen studies were included. From eight studies the pooled prevalence of anxiety was 46% (95% CI 0.30% to 0.61%, τ2=0.0497, I2=99.07%, p<0.001). Nine studies reported about stress and the pooled prevalence was 51% (95% CI 0.41% to 0.62%, τ2=0.0253, I2=97.85%, p<0.001)). Age, sex, marital status, working department, history of contact with confirmed COVID-19 cases and profession were associated factors for high level of anxiety and stress.ConclusionsCOVID-19 pandemic highly affects mental health of healthcare professionals in Ethiopia. Anxiety and stress were among reported mental health problems among healthcare professionals during the pandemic. Timely psychological counselling programmes should be applied for healthcare professionals to improve the general mental health problems.Prospero registration numberCRD42022314865.
| S-EPMC9905785 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundCOVID-19 has caused a series of economic, social, personal, and occupational consequences that may affect the mental health of healthcare workers (HCWs), with the consequent risk of developing suicidal ideation and behaviors.ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to identify the main risk factors that may predispose HCWs to suicidal ideation and suicide attempts during the COVID-19 pandemic.MethodsA systematic review of studies published between January 2020 and August 2022 was conducted following the PRISMA guidelines in the following electronic databases: Pubmed, Scopus, Web of Science, CINAHL, and PsycINFO. Methodological quality was assessed using the critical appraisal tools for non-randomized studies of the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI). The followed protocol is listed in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) with code CRD42022340732.ResultsA total of 34 studies were included in this review. There are a number of underlying factors such as higher rates of depression, anxiety, pre-pandemic lifetime mental disorders or previous lifetime suicide attempt, living alone, having problems with alcohol and/or other drugs, etc. that favor the emergence of suicidal tendencies and ideation in times of COVID-19. Similarly, the pandemic may have precipitated a series of factors such as economic concerns, assessing one's working conditions as poor, having family members or friends infected, changes in services or functions, and feeling discriminated against or stigmatized by society. Other factors such as age, sex, or type of healthcare worker show differences between studies.ConclusionOrganizations should ensure the adoption of strategies and programmes for early detection of suicides as well as increased attention to the mental health of professions with a high workload.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO, identifier CRD42022340732.
| S-EPMC9767440 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-BSST563 | biostudies-other
Project description:ObjectiveThere are many systematic reviews of weight management interventions delivered by healthcare professionals (HCP), but it is not clear under what circumstances interventions are effective due to differences in review methodology. This review of systematic reviews synthesises the evidence about: (a) the effectiveness of HCP-delivered weight management interventions and (b) intervention and sample characteristics related to their effectiveness.DesignThe review of reviews involved searching six databases (inception - October 2020). Reviews were included if they were (a) systematic, (b) weight management interventions delivered, at least partially, by HCP, (c) of randomised controlled trials and (d) written in English. Data regarding weight management outcomes (e.g. weight) and moderating factors were extracted. Secondary analyses were conducted using study-level data reported in each of the reviews.SettingThe review included studies that were delivered by HCP in any clinical or non-clinical setting.ParticipantsNot applicable.ResultsSix systematic reviews were included (forty-six unique studies). First-level synthesis showed that weight management interventions delivered by HCP are effective. The second-level synthesis found that interventions are only successful for up to 6 months, are most effective for women, non-Caucasians and adults and are most effective if they have at least six sessions.ConclusionsAs interventions are only successful for up to 6 months, they are not sufficient for achieving and maintaining a healthy weight.
| S-EPMC9991715 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveThis meta-review aimed to provide a comprehensive overview of overall mental health of healthcare professionals during the COVID-19 pandemic.MethodWe conducted a comprehensive literature search on Academic Search Premier, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, and MEDLINE. A predefined eligibility criterion was used to screen the articles. The methodology quality of eligible studies was assessed using Joanna Briggs Institute checklist for systematic reviews. The data were narratively synthesised in line with the meta-review aim.ResultForty systematic reviews (represented as K = 40), which reported data from 1,828 primary studies (N) and 3,245,768 participants, met the inclusion criteria. The findings from a pooled prevalence indicate that anxiety (16-41%, K = 30, N = 701), depression (14-37%, K = 28, N = 584), and stress/post-traumatic stress disorder (18.6-56.5%, K = 24, N = 327) were the most prevailing COVID-19 pandemic-related mental health conditions affecting healthcare workers. Other reported concerns included insomnia, burnout, fear, obsessive-compulsive disorder, somatization symptoms, phobia, substance abuse, and suicidal thoughts. Considering regions/countries, the highest anxiety was reported in the United-Kingdom [22.3, 95% Confidence Interval (CI):7-38, N = 4] compared to other countries, while the highest depression was in the Middle-East, (41, 95% CI:16-60, N = 5) and stress in the Eastern Mediterranean region (61.6, 95% CI:56.4-66.8, N = 2) compared to other regions. The most significant risk factors include female gender, younger age, being a nurse, and frontline professional. The most-reported coping strategies include individual/group psychological support, family/relative support, training/orientation, and the adequacy of personal protective equipment.ConclusionIt was concluded that healthcare professionals (nurses, doctors, allied health) have experienced various mental health issues during COVID-19 pandemic. The meta-review, therefore, recommends targeted interventions and health policies that address specific mental health issues to support health professionals worldwide during the duration of the COVID-19 pandemic and similar future health crises.Systematic review registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD4202126200, identifier: CRD42021262001.
| S-EPMC8801501 | biostudies-literature
Project description:This study aimed to examine the psychosocial impact and identify risk factors for poor psychosocial outcomes in healthcare professionals during the Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic in Cyprus. Healthcare professionals are in the forefront of the COVID-19 pandemic facing an unprecedented global health crisis, which can have consequences on their psychosocial health. There is a need to identify risk factors for poor psychosocial outcomes to inform the design of tailored psychological interventions. Cross-sectional online study. A total of 1071 healthcare professionals completed self-report questionnaires. Measures included sociodemographic information, COVID-19-related characteristics, quality of life (Brief World Health Organization Quality of Life; WHOQOL-Bref), anxiety (Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7; GAD-7), depression (Patient Health Questionnaire-8; PHQ-8), occupational burnout (Copenhagen Burnout Inventory; CBI), and coping (Brief Coping Orientation to Problems Experienced; Brief COPE). This article follows the STROBE reporting guidelines. The prevalence of moderate to severe anxiety and clinically significant depression was 27.6% and 26.8%, respectively. Significant risk factors for poor psychological outcomes included being female, being a nurse or doctor (vs non-medical professional), working in frontline units (inpatient, intensive care), perceptions of inadequate workplace preparation to deal with the pandemic, and using avoidance coping. Depression and occupational burnout were significant risk factors for poor quality of life. The findings suggest several individual, psychosocial, and organisational risk factors for the adverse psychological outcomes observed in healthcare professionals during the COVID-19 pandemic. This study highlights the urgent need for screening for anxiety and depression and psychological interventions to combat an imminent mental health crisis in healthcare professionals during the COVID-19 pandemic. Pandemic response protocols and public health initiatives aiming to improve and prevent mental health problems in healthcare professionals during the current and future health crises, need to account for the various factors at play.
| S-EPMC8447326 | biostudies-literature