Assessment of Physicians' Willingness to Work with Patients Not Yet Diagnosed with COVID-19 in a Romanian Sample

BACKGROUND

The risk to physicians who worked with patients without confirmed COVID-19 testing during the pandemic has been little studied. However, they were at high risk.

METHODS

In the summer of 2020, 1285 Romanian physicians participated in a single-center study. Participants (mean age = 48.21 years; 302 males and 982 females, all specialties) completed a series of single-item measures adapted from previous studies on work ethics and responsibility. This study used Mann-Whitney comparisons between physicians who reported that they knowingly had direct contact with COVID patients and those who did not regarding their willingness to work.

RESULTS

Compared with their colleagues, physicians who reported not knowingly having direct contact with COVID patients reported less access to protective equipment, less overall willingness to respond when asked to work with infected patients, more likely to work out of fear of losing their jobs, and fear of legal repercussions. They received less training in the use of protective equipment.

CONCLUSIONS

Physicians who worked with patients not yet diagnosed with COVID-19 were significantly less willing to work. The perception of invisible risk may explain the observed differences.

Physicians' Trust in Relevant Institutions during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Binary Logistic Model

Little research has been done on professionals' perceptions of institutions and governments during epidemics. We aim to create a profile of physicians who feel they can raise public health issues with relevant institutions during a pandemic. A total of 1285 Romanian physicians completed an online survey as part of a larger study. We used binary logistic regression to profile physicians who felt they were able to raise public health issues with relevant institutions. Five predictors could differentiate between respondents who tended to agree with the trust statement and those who tended to disagree: feeling safe at work during the pandemic, considering the financial incentive worth the risk, receiving training on the use of protective equipment, having the same values as colleagues, and enjoying work as much as before the pandemic. Physicians who trusted the system to raise public health issues with the appropriate institutions were more likely to feel that they shared the same values as their colleagues, to say they were trained to use protective equipment during the pandemic, to feel that they were safe at work during the pandemic, to enjoy their work as much as before the pandemic, and to feel that the financial bonus justified the risk.

The impact of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions on physical health outcomes in people with mood disorders across the lifespan: An umbrella review of the evidence from randomised controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

People with mood disorders have increased risk of comorbid medical diseases versus the general population. It is paramount to identify interventions to improve physical health in this population.

METHODS

Umbrella review of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on pharmacological/non-pharmacological interventions for physical health outcomes/intolerability-related discontinuation in mood disorders (any age).

RESULTS

Ninety-seven meta-analyses were included. Among youths, against placebo, in depression, antidepressants/antipsychotics had higher discontinuation rates; in bipolar depression, olanzapine+fluoxetine worsened total cholesterol (TC)/triglycerides/weight gain (WG) (large ES). In adults with bipolar disorder, olanzapine worsened HbA1c/TC/WG (moderate/large ES); asenapine increased fasting glucose (small ES); quetiapine/cariprazine/risperidone induced WG (small/moderate ES). In bipolar depression, lurasidone was metabolically neutral. In depression, psychological interventions improved physical health-related quality of life (PHQoL) (small ES), fasting glucose/HbA1c (medium/large ES); SSRIs improved fasting glucose/HbA1c, readmission for coronary disease, pain (small ES); quetiapine/aripiprazole/olanzapine induced WG (small to large ES). Exercise improved cardiorespiratory fitness (moderate ES). In the elderly, fluoxetine yielded more detrimental cardiovascular effects than sertraline/escitalopram (large ES); antidepressants were neutral on exercise tolerance and PHQoL. In mixed age groups, in bipolar disorder aripiprazole was metabolically neutral; in depression, SSRIs lowered blood pressure versus placebo and serotonin-noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors (small ES); brexpiprazole augmentation caused WG and was less tolerated (small ES); exercise improved PHQoL (moderate ES).

CONCLUSIONS

Some interventions (psychological therapies, exercise and SSRIs) improve certain physical health outcomes in mood disorders, few are neutral, but various pharmacological interventions are associated with negative effects. Evidence from this umbrella review has limitations, should consider evidence from other disorders and should be integrated with recent evidence from individual RCTs, and observational evidence. Effective treatments with either beneficial or physically neutral profiles should be prioritized.

Physical and mental health impact of COVID-19 on children, adolescents, and their families: The Collaborative Outcomes study on Health and Functioning during Infection Times - Children and Adolescents (COH-FIT-C&A)

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic has altered daily routines and family functioning, led to closing schools, and dramatically limited social interactions worldwide. Measuring its impact on mental health of vulnerable children and adolescents is crucial.

METHODS

The Collaborative Outcomes study on Health and Functioning during Infection Times (COH-FIT - www.coh-fit.com) is an on-line anonymous survey, available in 30 languages, involving >230 investigators from 49 countries supported by national/international professional associations. COH-FIT has thee waves (until the pandemic is declared over by the WHO, and 6-18 months plus 24-36 months after its end). In addition to adults, COH-FIT also includes adolescents (age 14-17 years), and children (age 6-13 years), recruited via non-probability/snowball and representative sampling and assessed via self-rating and parental rating. Non-modifiable/modifiable risk factors/treatment targets to inform prevention/intervention programs to promote health and prevent mental and physical illness in children and adolescents will be generated by COH-FIT. Co-primary outcomes are changes in well-being (WHO-5) and a composite psychopathology P-Score. Multiple behavioral, family, coping strategy and service utilization factors are also assessed, including functioning and quality of life.

RESULTS

Up to June 2021, over 13,000 children and adolescents from 59 countries have participated in the COH-FIT project, with representative samples from eleven countries.

LIMITATIONS

Cross-sectional and anonymous design.

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence generated by COH-FIT will provide an international estimate of the COVID-19 effect on children's, adolescents' and families', mental and physical health, well-being, functioning and quality of life, informing the formulation of present and future evidence-based interventions and policies to minimize adverse effects of the present and future pandemics on youth.

The collaborative outcomes study on health and functioning during infection times in adults (COH-FIT-Adults): Design and methods of an international online survey targeting physical and mental health effects of the COVID-19 pandemic

BACKGROUND

. High-quality comprehensive data on short-/long-term physical/mental health effects of the COVID-19 pandemic are needed.

METHODS

. The Collaborative Outcomes study on Health and Functioning during Infection Times (COH-FIT) is an international, multi-language (n=30) project involving >230 investigators from 49 countries/territories/regions, endorsed by national/international professional associations. COH-FIT is a multi-wave, on-line anonymous, cross-sectional survey [wave 1: 04/2020 until the end of the pandemic, 12 months waves 2/3 starting 6/24 months threreafter] for adults, adolescents (14-17), and children (6-13), utilizing non-probability/snowball and representative sampling. COH-FIT aims to identify non-modifiable/modifiable risk factors/treatment targets to inform prevention/intervention programs to improve social/health outcomes in the general population/vulnerable subgrous during/after COVID-19. In adults, co-primary outcomes are change from pre-COVID-19 to intra-COVID-19 in well-being (WHO-5) and a composite psychopathology P-Score. Key secondary outcomes are a P-extended score, global mental and physical health. Secondary outcomes include health-service utilization/functioning, treatment adherence, functioning, symptoms/behaviors/emotions, substance use, violence, among others.

RESULTS

. Starting 04/26/2020, up to 14/07/2021 >151,000 people from 155 countries/territories/regions and six continents have participated. Representative samples of ≥1,000 adults have been collected in 15 countries. Overall, 43.0% had prior physical disorders, 16.3% had prior mental disorders, 26.5% were health care workers, 8.2% were aged ≥65 years, 19.3% were exposed to someone infected with COVID-19, 76.1% had been in quarantine, and 2.1% had been COVID 19-positive.

LIMITATIONS

. Cross-sectional survey, preponderance of non-representative participants.

CONCLUSIONS

. Results from COH-FIT will comprehensively quantify the impact of COVID-19, seeking to identify high-risk groups in need for acute and long-term intervention, and inform evidence-based health policies/strategies during this/future pandemics.

Assessing the quality of studies in meta-research: Review/guidelines on the most important quality assessment tools

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses pool data from individual studies to generate a higher level of evidence to be evaluated by guidelines. These reviews ultimately guide clinicians and stakeholders in health-related decisions. However, the informativeness and quality of evidence synthesis inherently depend on the quality of what has been pooled into meta-research projects. Moreover, beyond the quality of included individual studies, only a methodologically correct process, in relation to systematic reviews and meta-analyses themselves, can produce a reliable and valid evidence synthesis. Hence, quality of meta-research projects also affects evidence synthesis reliability. In this overview, the authors provide a synthesis of advantages and disadvantages and main characteristics of some of the most frequently used tools to assess quality of individual studies, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses. Specifically, the tools considered in this work are the Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS) and the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) for observational studies, the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT), the Jadad scale, the Cochrane risk of bias tool 2 (RoB2) for randomized controlled trials, the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) and the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR2), and AMSTAR-PLUS for meta-analyses. WHAT IS ALREADY KNOWN?: The informativeness and quality of evidence synthesis inherently depend on the quality of what has been pooled into meta-research projects. Beyond the quality of included individual studies, only a methodologically correct process, in relation to systematic reviews and meta-analyses themselves, can produce a reliable and valid evidence synthesis. WHAT IS NEW?: In this overview, the authors provide a synthesis of advantages and disadvantages and main characteristics of some of the most frequently used tools to assess quality of individual studies, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses. POTENTIAL IMPACT: This overview serves as a starting point and a brief guide to identify and understand the main and most frequently used tools for assessing the quality of studies included in meta-research. The authors here share their experience in publishing several meta-research-related articles covering different areas of medical sciences.

ADDITIONAL DEMOGRAPHIC AND CLINICAL EVIDENCES ON THE RELEVANCE OF THE SYSTEMIC THERAPY IN ALCOHOL DEPENDENCE

The modern treatment for alcohol dependence is still problematic, in many cases with the costs exceeding benefits. In these conditions a new management approach was developed lately, known as the systemic therapy. In this way, the crystallization and practical transposition of this new treatment approach is represented by the Clubs of Alcoholics in Treatment. These clubs are in fact a form of psycho-social intervention consisting of multi-family communities in order to maintain long-term abstinence from alcohol and to change their lifestyle and behavior. Thus, in the present paper we were interested in understanding the demographics of this systemic theory and how these aspects are influencing the final results of the therapy, as well as studying/confirming how relevant is this systemic approach on the management of alcohol dependence. Our results presented in this report bring additional evidences for the superiority of the systemic, multi-family approach of alcohol-related problems, as complemented to the standard medicinal therapy. Moreover, the data collected from patients in this study might suggest that patients with a higher educational level and therefore better capacity of understanding the information, with family support, and also with a better occupational insertion, have accepted to follow The Clubs of Alcoholics in Treatment program, with a subsequently better evolution.