Background The current pandemic of COVID-19 impacted the psychological wellbeing of populations globally. Objectives We aimed to examine the extent and identify factors associated with psychological distress, fear of COVID-19 and coping. Methods We conducted a cross-sectional study across 17 countries during Jun-2020 to Jan-2021. Levels of psychological distress (Kessler Psychological Distress Scale), fear of COVID-19 (Fear of COVID-19 Scale), and coping (Brief Resilient Coping Scale) were assessed. Results A total of 8,559 people participated; mean age (±SD) was 33(±13) years, 64% were females and 40% self-identified as frontline workers. More than two-thirds (69%) experienced moderate-to-very high levels of psychological distress, which was 46% in Thailand and 91% in Egypt. A quarter (24%) had high levels of fear of COVID-19, which was as low as 9% in Libya and as high as 38% in Bangladesh. More than half (57%) exhibited medium to high resilient coping; the lowest prevalence (3%) was reported in Australia and the highest (72%) in Syria. Being female (AOR 1.31 [95% CIs 1.09-1.57]), perceived distress due to change of employment status (1.56 [1.29-1.90]), comorbidity with mental health conditions (3.02 [1.20-7.60]) were associated with higher levels of psychological distress and fear. Doctors had higher psychological distress (1.43 [1.04-1.97]), but low levels of fear of COVID-19 (0.55 [0.41-0.76]); nurses had medium to high resilient coping (1.30 [1.03-1.65]). Conclusions The extent of psychological distress, fear of COVID-19 and coping varied by country; however, we identified few higher risk groups who were more vulnerable than others. There is an urgent need to prioritise health and well-being of those people through well-designed intervention that may need to be tailored to meet country specific requirements.

Introduction The COVID-19 pandemic has enormously affected the psychological well-being, social and working life of millions of people across the world. This study aimed to investigate the psychological distress, fear and coping strategies as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic and its associated factors among Malaysian residents. Methods Participants were invited to an online cross-sectional survey from Aug-Sep 2020. The study assessed psychological distress using the Kessler Psychological Distress Scale, level of fear using the Fear of COVID-19 Scale, and coping strategies using the Brief Resilient Coping Scale. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were conducted to adjust for potential confounders. Results The mean age (±SD) of the participants (N = 720) was 31.7 (±11.5) years, and most of them were females (67.1%). Half of the participants had an income source, while 216 (30%) identified themselves as frontline health or essential service workers. People whose financial situation was impacted due to COVID-19 (AOR 2.16, 95% CIs 1.54–3.03), people who drank alcohol in the last four weeks (3.43, 1.45–8.10), people who were a patient (2.02, 1.39–2.93), and had higher levels of fear of COVID-19 (2.55, 1.70–3.80) were more likely to have higher levels of psychological distress. Participants who self-isolated due to exposure to COVID-19 (3.12, 1.04–9.32) and who had moderate to very high levels of psychological distress (2.56, 1.71–3.83) had higher levels of fear. Participants who provided care to a family member/patient with a suspected case of COVID-19 were more likely to be moderately to highly resilient compared to those who did not. Conclusion Vulnerable groups of individuals such as patients and those impacted financially during COVID-19 should be supported for their mental wellbeing. Behavioural interventions should be targeted to reduce the impact of alcohol drinking during such crisis period.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has imposed psychological distress and fear across the globe; however, factors associated with those issues or the ways people cope may vary by country or context. This study aimed to investigate the factors associated with psychological distress, fear, and coping strategies for people living in Bangladesh during the COVID-19 pandemic.Methods: A cross-sectional study conducted in August-September 2020 using online platforms in Bangladesh. People residing in Bangladesh, aged ≥18 years, who were proficient in English and able to respond to online questionnaire. The Kessler Psychological Distress Scale was used to assess the psychological stress. Level of fear was assessed using the Fear of COVID-19 Scale, and strategies to cope were assessed using the Brief Resilient Coping Scale.Results: Of the 962 participants, half of them were aged between 30 and 59 years. Being born in Bangladesh, having graduate education, perceived distress due to employment change, effect of COVID-19 on financial situation, having multiple comorbidities, and visiting a healthcare provider in the last 4 weeks were associated with higher levels of both psychological distress and fear of COVID-19. Furthermore, higher psychological distress was associated with being a female (AOR 1.81, 95% CI 1.33–2.47, p < 0.001), being a frontline worker (AOR 1.50, 95% CI 1.04–2.15, p < 0.05), having pre-existing psychiatric problems (AOR 4.03, 95% CI 1.19–13.7, p < 0.05), being a smoker (AOR 2.02, 95% CI 1.32–3.09, p < 0.01), providing care to a known/suspected COVID-19 patient (AOR 1.96, 95% CI 1.40–2.72, p < 0.001), having a recent overseas travel history and being in self-quarantine (AOR 4.59, 95% CI 1.23–17.2, p < 0.05), self-isolation without COVID-19 (AOR 2.63, 95% CI 1.68–4.13, p < 0.001) or being COVID-19 positive (AOR 2.53, 95% CI 1.19–5.34, p < 0.05), and having high levels of fear of COVID-19 (AOR 3.27, 95% CI 2.29–4.66, p < 0.001). A higher level of fear was associated with moderate to high levels of psychological distress (AOR 3.29, 95% CI 2.31–4.69, p < 0.001). People with pre-existing mental health problems were less likely to be resilient (AOR 0.25, 95% CI 0.11–0.54, p < 0.01), whereas those with having an income were more likely to be resilient (AOR 1.46, 95% CI 1.02–2.11, p < 0.05).Conclusion: Effective interventions to support the vulnerable groups including improved access to mental health services are of utmost importance during the pandemic.

Background: Hand infection in diabetics is an often ignored but challenging condition. If not addressed effectively, it may result in long term disability, contracture, amputation and even death. Methods: From August 2014 to December 2015, a study was done in our centre, where 49 diabetic hand infection cases were analyzed in two groups, superficial and deep hand infection. Results: Mean age of the patients was 51.63 years. There were 21 superficial infections and 28 deep infections. Cause of infection was unknown or spontaneous in 16 cases, traumatic laceration or crush in 14 patients, following minor prick in 10 cases. Most of the cases were the results of neglected minor wound. Forty-one patients were insulin dependent. Five cases were diagnosed as diabetic at the time of treatment. Four patients were treated conservatively and 45 (92%) cases required operation in the form of incision, drainage and debridement. In 16 (35%) cases, wound was left open and was healed by secondary intention following regular dressing. In five patients, wound was closed secondarily. Partial thickness skin graft was applied in 15 cases. Seven patients were treated with flap coverage. Partial digital or ray amputation were done in 16 cases. All fingers except thumb were amputated in one case and amputation from wrist was done in another patient. Wound swabs were taken, and antibiotics were changed or continued accordingly. But reports of 26 cases were available. No growth was found in four cases, monomicrobial infection was found in 15 patients and polymicrobial in seven cases. Infection resolved with healing in 47 cases. Two patients died during treatment from sepsis, both were insulin dependent, had associated renal failure and from deep infection group. One patient developed severe mental disorder. Conclusions: For diabetic hand infection, early diagnosis and prompt treatment with appropriate antibiotics and emergency surgery with extensile incision is crucial. Primary amputation of the part could be life and limb saving.

Matrix metalloproteinases (MMPs) play a crucial role in enzymatically digesting cartilage extracellular matrix (ECM) components, resulting in degraded cartilage with altered mechanical loading capacity. Overexpression of MMPs is often caused by trauma, physiologic conditions and by disease. To understand the synergistic impact MMPs have on cartilage biomechanical properties, MMPs from two subfamilies: collagenase (MMP-1) and gelatinase (MMP-9) were investigated in this study. Three different ratios of MMP-1 (c) and MMP-9 (g), c1:g1, c3:g1 and c1:g3 were considered to develop a degradation model. Thirty samples, harvested from bovine femoral condyles, were treated in groups of 10 with one concentration of enzyme mixture. Each sample was tested in a healthy state prior to introducing degradative enzymes to establish a baseline. Samples were subjected to indentation loading up to 20% bulk strain. Both control and treated samples were mechanically and histologically assessed to determine the impact of degradation. Young’s modulus and peak load of the tissue under indentation were compared between the control and degraded cartilage explants. Cartilage degraded with the c3:g1 enzyme concentration resulted in maximum 33% reduction in stiffness and peak load compared to the other two concentrations. The abundance of collagenase is more responsible for cartilage degradation and reduced mechanical integrity.