During the novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak, traditional face-to-face psychological interventions have been suspended due to high risks of rapid transmission. Developing an effective online model of psychological intervention is deemed necessary to deal with the mental health challenges brought up by this disease. An integrated psychological intervention model coined 'COVID-19 Psychological Resilience Model' was developed in Chengdu, China including live media, 24-hour hotline consultations, online video intervention and on-site crisis intervention sessions to provide services to those in need. A total of 45 episodes of live media programs on COVID-19 outbreak-related psychological problems were broadcasted with over 10 million views. A total of 4,236 hotline consultations were completed. More than 50% of the clients had positive feedback about the hotline consultations. A total of 223 cases received online video intervention, of which 84.97% were redirected from the hotline consultation and 15.03% from COVID-19-designated hospital and community-based observation spots. Seventy one-on-one psychological interventions were conducted with 39 COVID-19 patients, and one-third were treated with medication. Additionally, 5 training sessions were conducted to 98 frontline medical staff. This 'COVID-19 Psychological Resilience Model' is proven effective to the general population during the COVID-19 pandemic. We have greatly improved the overall mental health of our target population during the COVID-19 pandemic. This model could provide valuable experiences and serve as a reference guide for other countries to offer effective psychological intervention, and reduce detrimental negative mental health outcomes in public health emergency.
Background There has been a growing interest in using diagnosis-related groups (DRGs) payment to reimburse inpatient care worldwide. But its effects on healthcare and health outcomes are controversial, and the evidence from low- and middle- income countries (LMICs) is especially scarce. The objective of this study is to evaluate the effects of DRGs payment on healthcare and health outcomes in China. Method A systematic review was conducted. We searched literature databases of PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, Web of Science, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure and SinoMed for empirical studies examining the effects of DRGs payment on healthcare in mainland China. We performed a narrative synthesis of outcomes regarding expenditure, efficiency, quality and equity of healthcare, and assessed the quality of evidence. Results Twenty-three publications representing thirteen DRGs payment studies were included, including six controlled before after studies, two interrupted time series studies and five uncontrolled before-after studies. All studies compared DRGs payment to fee-for-service, with or without an overall budget, in settings of tertiary (7), secondary (7) and primary care (1). The involved participants varied from specific groups to all inpatients. DRGs payment mildly reduced the length of stay. Impairment of equity of healthcare was consistently reported, especially for patients exempted from DRGs payment, including: patient selection, cost-shifting and inferior quality of healthcare. However, findings on total expenditure, out of pocket payment (OOP) and quality of healthcare were inconsistent. The quality of the evidence was generally low or very low due to the study design and potential risk of bias of included studies. Conclusion DRGs payment may mildly improve the efficiency but impair the equity and quality of healthcare, especially for patients exempted from this payment scheme, and may cause up-coding of medical records. However, DRGs payment may or may not contain the total expenditure or OOP, depending on the components design of the payment. Policymakers should very carefully consider each component of DRGs payment design against policy goals. Well-designed randomised trials or comparative studies are warranted to consolidate the evidence of the effects of DRGs payment on healthcare and health outcomes in LMICs to inform policymaking.
Background As the outbreak of COVID-19, traditional face-to-face psychological intervention are difficult to achieve, so hotline becomes available and recommended strategies. The callers’ characteristic could help us to study their experiences of emotional distress, as well as the reasons for calling during the pandemic, which can be used to inform future service design and delivery. Methods The information of 1558 callers called our hospital’ s hotline for help from February 3, 2020, to March 16, 2020 were collected in the form of Tick-box and Free text, and the inductive content analysis was undertaken focusing on the reasons for caller engagement. Results It was indicated that more than half of the callers are female (59.7%), mostly between the age of 18–59 (76.5%). The average age was 37.13 ± 13.76 years old. The average duration of a call to the hotline was 10.03 ± 9.84 min. The most frequent description emotional state were anxious (45.1%) and calm (30.3%), with the sub-sequence of scared (18.2%), sad (11.9%), and angry (6.9%). All callers displayed a wide range of reasons for calling, with needing support around their emotion (64.6%), seeking practical help (44.0%), and sleep problems (20.3%) constituting the majority of calls. Among the subthemes, 314 callers thought the epidemic has made them upset, 198 asked questions about the epidemic, and 119 reported their life routines were disrupted. The prevalence of key reasons does not appear to differ over time. Through their feedback, 79.1% agreed that they felt emotionally better after calling, and 95.0% agreed that hotline had helped them. Conclusions During the epidemic, the most concern of the public is still related to epidemics and its adverse effects. Fortunately, the hotline can be an active and effective rescue measure after an emergency happened.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.