Background. Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is one of the most common psychiatric disorders among children. The aim of this study was to evaluate risk factors for ADHD in children. Method. In this case-control study, 404 children between 4 and 11 years old were selected by cluster sampling method from preschool children (208 patients as cases and 196 controls). All the participants were interviewed by a child and adolescent psychiatrist to survey risk factors of ADHD. Results. Among cases, 59.3% of children were boys and 38.4% were girls, which is different to that in control group with 40.7% boys and 61.6% girls. The chi-square showed statistically significance (P value < 0.0001). The other significant factors by chi-square were fathers' somatic or psychiatric disease (P value < 0.0001), history of trauma and accident during pregnancy (P value = 0.039), abortion proceeds (P value < 0.0001), unintended pregnancy (P value < 0.0001), and history of head trauma (P value < 0.0001). Conclusions. Findings of our study suggest that maternal and paternal adverse events were associated with ADHD symptoms, but breast feeding is a protective factor.

BACKGROUND: The high spread rate of coronaviruses, specifically severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), has raised concerns about the spread of the disease in crowded occupational environments. The risk of occupational exposure to coronavirus depends on the type of industry and the nature of work. Currently, most countries are working for reactivating their economies and need to improve working conditions for a safe situation during the COVID-19 pandemic. OBJECTIVE: The present work aimed to investigate the current engineering and administrative control measures, which are necessary to protect workers against COVID-19 in workplaces. METHODS: The current strategies, including engineering control, administrative control, personal protective equipment, and their efficiencies, were reviewed and discussed. RESULTS: Reviewing the literature indicated that a collection of control approaches should be implemented for an effective control of the virus. Control measures could be selected based on the risk of exposure to COVID-19. The results also revealed that relying solely on a specific control measure could not effectively control the outbreak. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, employers and health professionals must continually monitor international and local guidelines to identify changes in recommendations to make their workplaces safer. Establishment of an expert team in any workplace for the implementation of more effective control measures is warranted, as well.

Background: Nurses are involved in providing end-of-life care for end stage individuals and their self-efficacy is one of the key factors bearing on such care. The purpose of this study was to determine the effect of palliative care on perceived self-efficacy of the nurses. Methods: This is a quasi-experimental study with pretest-posttest design. Sampling was randomized and included 40 individuals. The intervention consisted of palliative care training for four sessions, each lasting 45 min. Data were collected using demographic and perceived self-efficacy questionnaires completed before and after the intervention. Data were then analyzed by SPSS 16 software using descriptive and inferential statistics. Results: The mean age of the participants was 38.6 and their work experience was 14.25 years. The majority of the participants were female (85%) and had a bachelor level of education (92.5%). The findings showed that "perceived self-efficacy", "psychosocial support" and "symptom management" improved significantly after intervention (p < 0.05). Conclusion: Based on the results, palliative care education has the potential to increase nurses' perceived self-efficacy. Since all members of the health care team Including nurses play an important role in providing palliative care, nursing managers can take an effective step to maximize the capacity of nurses by planning and supporting training in this regard.

Background:Musculoskeletal disorders are a major problem in all jobs. Several methods are available for assessing the exposure to risk factors associated with musculoskeletal disorders. This study is aimed at comparing three different ergonomic risk assessment methods—rapid upper limb assessment (RULA), loading on the upper body assessment (LUBA), and new ergonomic posture assessment (NERPA) method—to predict upper extremity musculoskeletal disorders.Materials and Methods:The study was conducted on 210 workers from three different industries including pharmaceutical, automotive, and assembly in the Isfahan province. A Nordic questionnaire was used for determining the levels of musculoskeletal disorders. Then, selected postures were evaluated with RULA, LUBA, and NERPA methods. Finally, data were analyzed with Kolmogorov–Smirnov test to check the normality distribution of data, Spearman's correlation test to investigate the correlation between the assessed levels with musculoskeletal disorders, and Wilcoxon test to identify significant differences between the values with SPSS version 16.Results:Wilcoxon test revealed a significant difference between the values related to NERPA and RULA (P < 0.001), whereas no significant relation between LUBA and RULA was shown by this test (P = 0.914). The correlation coefficients of the musculoskeletal disorders' level with RULA level, NERPA level, and LUBA level were 0.74, 0.73, and 0.69, respectively.Conclusion:Low-risk levels in NERPA, medium-risk levels in LUBA, and high-risk levels in RULA are evaluated better. The results showed that RULA was the best method for assessing musculoskeletal disorders among the three methods.

Background The combination of sofosbuvir and daclatasvir has shown preliminary efficacy for hospitalized patients with COVID-19 in four open-label studies with small sample sizes. This larger trial aimed to assess if the addition of sofosbuvir/daclatasvir to standard care improved clinical outcomes in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Methods This was a placebo-controlled, double-blind, randomized clinical trial in adults hospitalized with COVID-19 at 19 hospitals in Iran. Patients were randomized to oral sofosbuvir/daclatasvir 400/60 mg once-daily or placebo in addition to standard of care. Patients were included if they had positive PCR or diagnostic chest CT, O2 saturation &lt;95% and compatible symptoms. The primary outcome was hospital discharge within 10 days of randomization. Secondary outcomes included mortality and time to clinical events. The trial is registered on the Iran Registry of Clinical Trials under IRCT20200624047908N1. Results Between July and October 2020, 1083 patients were randomized to either the sofosbuvir/daclatasvir arm (n = 541) or the placebo arm (n = 542). No significant difference was observed in the primary outcome of hospital discharge within 10 days, which was achieved by 415/541 (77%) in the sofosbuvir/daclatasvir arm and 411/542 (76%) in the placebo arm [risk ratio (RR) 1.01, 95% CI 0.95–1.08, P = 0.734]. In-hospital mortality was 60/541 (11%) in the sofosbuvir/daclatasvir arm versus 55/542 (10%) in the placebo arm (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.77–1.54, P = 0.615). No differences were observed in time to hospital discharge or time to in-hospital mortality. Conclusions We observed no significant effect of sofosbuvir/daclatasvir versus placebo on hospital discharge or survival in hospitalized COVID-19 patients.