Background This study aimed to determine the factors that were related to the psychological health status of healthcare workers aid for Hubei after the COVID-19 outbreak. Methods A total of 1260 participants completed the Self-Rating Scale of Sleep (SRSS), the Generalized Anxiety Scale (GAD-7), and the 9-item patient health questionnaire (PHQ-9) via the online questionnaires, and their related experiences with COVID-19 were collected. Results The average SRSS score of all participants (25.13 ± 6.41) indicated a mild sleep problem, and the factors that influenced their sleep were the respondent’s gender, whether they had patients who died under their care, their history of psychosis and whether their family members were infected with COVID-19. The average GAD-7 score of all participants (12.37 ± 4.89) indicated a moderate anxiety level. The main factors that influenced anxiety were the respondent’s gender, years of work, history of psychosis, self-perceived health status, and whether their family members were infected with COVID-19. The average PHQ-9 score of all participants (8.90 ± 5.42) indicated a mild depression level. The primary factors that influenced depression were whether the respondent had nursed/treated severely ill patients in Hubei and whether they had a history of psychosis. Conclusions During the outbreak of COVID-19, the symptoms of anxiety were prominent among healthcare workers in Hubei. Moreover, male workers, those whose patients died during treatment, those with a history of anxiety disorders and those whose family members were infected with COVID-19 reported more serious problems. Therefore, this particular group of healthcare workers needs to be monitored and provided with tailored psychological support.
Background: The intensive care unit has a much higher pressure ulcers incidence than general wards. Predicting and eliminating the risk of pressure ulcer development is thus of utmost importance in health care, including clinical nursing practice. Aim:The meta-analysis aimed to examine the predictive validity of the Jackson-Cubbin Scale.Methods: This study is a systematic literature review and meta-analysis. Research articles published in periodicals indexed targeted the critical care patients and offered sufficient data(true-positive, false-positive, true-negative and false-negative results) in the EBSCO, PubMed, Ovid, Web of Science and Cochrane databases, as well as those from two journals indexed in a Chinese database (Wangfang Data and China National Knowledge Infrastructure) were reviewed. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses were used; the internal validity of the diagnostic studies was analysed using Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratios were counted by STATA 15.0.Results: Nine diagnostic studies with high methodological quality, involving a total of 7684 patients, were retrieved and assessed. This meta-analysis showed that the pooled sensitivity, specificity and area under the symmetric summary receiver operating characteristic curve of the Jackson-Cubbin Scale were 0.81 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.58-0.88), 0.76 (95% CI, 0.51-0.95) and 0.84 (95% CI, 0.81-0.87), respectively. Conclusions:The study suggests that the Jackson-Cubbin Scale has a moderate level of predictive validity. Moreover, Jackson-Cubbin's predictive validity could be increased if it was implemented differently based on the attributes of the research participants.Relevance to Clinical Practice: The Jackson-Cubbin Scale has a moderate level of predictive validity with good sensitivity and specificity for the determination of the risk of PUs in adult ICU patients. Bedside nurses could use the Jackson-Cubbin scale for dailly assesment for ICU patients.
IntroductionEssential hypertension is a major preventable risk factor for early cardiovascular disease, premature death and disability. It has been reported that telemedicine interventions can provide an innovative solution to essential hypertension to overcome the barriers that exist in traditional treatment or control. Nevertheless, this subject has not been thoroughly investigated. The goal of this study is to systematically evaluate and describe the impact of telemedicine interventions on essential hypertension.Methods and analysisTo find relevant research, we will conduct a systematic literature search of three databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library), with no language limitations, in addition to researching grey literature. Two reviewers will extract the data individually, and any disagreements will be resolved by discussion or by a third reviewer. The randomised controlled trials will be chosen based on predetermined inclusion criteria. Primary outcomes will include systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure after the telemedicine intervention. Secondary outcomes will include medication adherence (eg, the Morisky Medication Adherence Questionnaire), quality of life (eg, the MOS item scale of the Health Survey Short Form 36 questionnaire), blood pressure control rate and adverse events (eg, stroke, chronic renal failure, aortic dissection, myocardial infarction and heart failure). The quality of the included studies will be assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias method. The data will be analysed using RevMan V.5.3.5 software and STATA V.16.0 software. If heterogeneity testing reveals little or no statistical heterogeneity, a fixed effect model will be used for data synthesis; otherwise, a random effect model would be employed. We will synthesise the available evidence to perform a high-quality meta-analysis.Ethics and disseminationThis project does not require ethical approval because it will be conducted using publicly available documents. The review’s findings will be published in peer-reviewed journals and publications.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42021293539.
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.