MERS-CoV can cause severe infection requiring intensive care and has a high mortality. Concomitant infections and low albumin were found to be predictors of severe infection, while age ≥65 years was the only predictor of increased mortality.
Background: Globally, workplace violence toward health care providers is an area of concern. The impact of workplace violence on health care providers is significant. Objectives: The study was conducted to evaluate the prevalence of workplace violence (physical and verbal) among emergency medical services (EMS) workers in Riyadh. Methods: The study used a cross-sectional design that employed a self-administered confidential questionnaire, which was distributed to all emergency medical personnel. A well-structured and validated questionnaire on workplace violence was adopted from the World Health Organization for use in the study. Results: A total of 370 EMS workers responded to the questionnaire. Workplace violence was experienced by 65% of the respondents. Verbal abuse (61%) was the most common type of violence reported. The majority of the attackers were patients' relatives (80%) followed by patients themselves (51%). Respondents younger than 30 reported a higher percentage of violent acts than did older respondents (p = .001, Odds ratio [OR] = 2.5, 95% Confidence Interval [CI] = (1.6, 3.9)). Similarly, those who had fewer years of work experience (≤ 10 years) reported a significantly higher percentage of violent incidents than those who had 10 or more years of experience (p = .001, OR = 3.5, 95% CI = 2.1, 5.6). Only 10% of the victims reported the incident to a higher authority. Common reasons for not reporting the violent acts included feeling that it was useless (56%) and that it was not important (52%). Discussion: The study demonstrates prevalent workplace violence among EMS workers, predominantly in the form of verbal abuse. The rate of workplace violence among EMS personnel is comparable with international figures. Less than half of EMS personnel exhibit knowledge regarding the process of violence reporting. However, workers tend not to report the incidents because they often believe that reporting is useless and/or not important. Recommendation: With a high reported rate of workplace violence among EMS personnel, we recommend national preventive measures and encouragement to professionals to report violent events. We also recommend awareness programs for the identified vulnerable group.
Background Huge efforts are being made to control the spread and impacts of the coronavirus pandemic using vaccines. However, willingness to be vaccinated depends on factors beyond the availability of vaccines. The aim of this study was three-folded: to assess children’s rates of COVID-19 Vaccination as reported by parents, to explore parents’ attitudes towards children’s COVID-19 vaccination, and to examine the factors associated with parents’ hesitancy towards children’s vaccination in several countries in the Eastern Mediterranean Region (EMR). Methods This study utilized a cross-sectional descriptive design. A sample of 3744 parents from eight countries, namely, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Palestine, Qatar, Saudi Arabia (KSA), and the United Arab Emirates (UAE), was conveniently approached and surveyed using Google forms from November to December 2021. The participants have responded to a 42-item questionnaire pertaining to socio-demographics, children vaccination status, knowledge about COVID-19 vaccines, and attitudes towards vaccinating children and the vaccine itself. The Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS- IBM, Chicago, IL, USA) was used to analyze the data. A cross-tabulation analysis using the chi-square test was employed to assess significant differences between categorical variables and a backward Wald stepwise binary logistic regression analysis was performed to assess the independent effect of each factor after controlling for potential confounders. Results The prevalence of vaccinated children against COVID-19 was 32% as reported by the parents. Concerning parents’ attitudes towards vaccines safety, about one third of participants (32.5%) believe that all vaccines are not safe. In the regression analysis, children’s vaccination was significantly correlated with parents’ age, education, occupation, parents’ previous COVID-19 infection, and their vaccination status. Participants aged ≥50 years and those aged 40-50 years had an odds ratio of 17.9 (OR = 17.9, CI: 11.16-28.97) and 13.2 (OR = 13.2, CI: 8.42-20.88); respectively, for vaccinating their children compared to those aged 18-29 years. Parents who had COVID-19 vaccine were about five folds more likely to vaccinate their children compared with parents who did not receive the vaccine (OR = 4.9, CI: 3.12-7.70). The prevalence of children’s vaccination in the participating Arab countries is still not promising. Conclusion To encourage parents, vaccinate their children against COVID-19, Arab governments should strategize accordingly. Reassurance of the efficacy and effectiveness of the vaccine should target the general population using educational campaigns, social media, and official TV and radio channels.
ImportanceHelmet noninvasive ventilation has been used in patients with COVID-19 with the premise that helmet interface is more effective than mask interface in delivering prolonged treatments with high positive airway pressure, but data about its effectiveness are limited.ObjectiveTo evaluate whether helmet noninvasive ventilation compared with usual respiratory support reduces mortality in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure due to COVID-19 pneumonia.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis was a multicenter, pragmatic, randomized clinical trial that was conducted in 8 sites in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait between February 8, 2021, and November 16, 2021. Adult patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (n = 320) due to suspected or confirmed COVID-19 were included. The final follow-up date for the primary outcome was December 14, 2021.InterventionsPatients were randomized to receive helmet noninvasive ventilation (n = 159) or usual respiratory support (n = 161), which included mask noninvasive ventilation, high-flow nasal oxygen, and standard oxygen.Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe primary outcome was 28-day all-cause mortality. There were 12 prespecified secondary outcomes, including endotracheal intubation, barotrauma, skin pressure injury, and serious adverse events.ResultsAmong 322 patients who were randomized, 320 were included in the primary analysis, all of whom completed the trial. Median age was 58 years, and 187 were men (58.4%). Within 28 days, 43 of 159 patients (27.0%) died in the helmet noninvasive ventilation group compared with 42 of 161 (26.1%) in the usual respiratory support group (risk difference, 1.0% [95% CI, −8.7% to 10.6%]; relative risk, 1.04 [95% CI, 0.72-1.49]; P = .85). Within 28 days, 75 of 159 patients (47.2%) required endotracheal intubation in the helmet noninvasive ventilation group compared with 81 of 161 (50.3%) in the usual respiratory support group (risk difference, −3.1% [95% CI, −14.1% to 7.8%]; relative risk, 0.94 [95% CI, 0.75-1.17]). There were no significant differences between the 2 groups in any of the prespecified secondary end points. Barotrauma occurred in 30 of 159 patients (18.9%) in the helmet noninvasive ventilation group and 25 of 161 (15.5%) in the usual respiratory support group. Skin pressure injury occurred in 5 of 159 patients (3.1%) in the helmet noninvasive ventilation group and 10 of 161 (6.2%) in the usual respiratory support group. There were 2 serious adverse events in the helmet noninvasive ventilation group and 1 in the usual respiratory support group.Conclusions and RelevanceResults of this study suggest that helmet noninvasive ventilation did not significantly reduce 28-day mortality compared with usual respiratory support among patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure due to COVID-19 pneumonia. However, interpretation of the findings is limited by imprecision in the effect estimate, which does not exclude potentially clinically important benefit or harm.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04477668
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.