scholarly journals Prevalence of HIV in Different High-Risk Groups and Associated Risk Factors in Pakistan. A Systematic Review from 2010 to 2020

2021 ◽  
Vol 04 (03) ◽  
Author(s):  
Aswa Gondal ◽  
Mahrukh Rasheed ◽  
Sana Ali ◽  
Zain Ul Abdin ◽  
Omar Rahim ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Risk Groups ◽  
Associated Risk Factors

scholarly journals Middle East Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus (MERS-CoV) Seropositive Camel Handlers in Kenya

Viruses ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (4) ◽  
pp. 396 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alice N. Kiyong’a ◽  
Elizabeth A. J. Cook ◽  
Nisreen M. A. Okba ◽  
Velma Kivali ◽  
Chantal Reusken ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
At Risk ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Middle East ◽  
Respiratory Disease ◽  
Risk Groups ◽  
Middle East Respiratory Syndrome ◽  
Limited Evidence ◽  
Dromedary Camels ◽  
Associated Risk Factors

Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) is a respiratory disease caused by a zoonotic coronavirus (MERS-CoV). Camel handlers, including slaughterhouse workers and herders, are at risk of acquiring MERS-CoV infections. However, there is limited evidence of infections among camel handlers in Africa. The purpose of this study was to determine the presence of antibodies to MERS-CoV in high-risk groups in Kenya. Sera collected from 93 camel handlers, 58 slaughterhouse workers and 35 camel herders, were screened for MERS-CoV antibodies using ELISA and PRNT. We found four seropositive slaughterhouse workers by PRNT. Risk factors amongst the slaughterhouse workers included being the slaughterman (the person who cuts the throat of the camel) and drinking camel blood. Further research is required to understand the epidemiology of MERS-CoV in Africa in relation to occupational risk, with a need for additional studies on the transmission of MERS-CoV from dromedary camels to humans, seroprevalence and associated risk factors.

scholarly journals Tuberculosis screening costs and cost-effectiveness in high-risk groups: a systematic review

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
H. Alsdurf ◽  
B. Empringham ◽  
C. Miller ◽  
A. Zwerling
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Risk Groups ◽  
Screening Tools ◽  
Molecular Diagnostic ◽  
Systematic Screening ◽  
Structural Risk

Abstract Background Systematic screening for active tuberculosis (TB) is a strategy which requires the health system to seek out individuals, rather than waiting for individuals to self-present with symptoms (i.e., passive case finding). Our review aimed to summarize the current economic evidence and understand the costs and cost-effectiveness of systematic screening approaches among high-risk groups and settings. Methods We conducted a systematic review on economic evaluations of screening for TB disease targeting persons with clinical and/or structural risk factors, such as persons living with HIV (PLHIV) or persons experiencing homelessness. We searched three databases for studies published between January 1, 2010 and February 1, 2020. Studies were included if they reported cost and a key outcome measure. Owing to considerable heterogeneity in settings and type of screening strategy, we synthesized data descriptively. Results A total of 27 articles were included in our review; 19/27 (70%) took place in high TB burden countries. Seventeen studies took place among persons with clinical risk factors, including 14 among PLHIV, while 13 studies were among persons with structural risk factors. Nine studies reported incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) ranging from US$51 to $1980 per disability-adjusted life year (DALY) averted. Screening was most cost-effective among PLHIV. Among persons with clinical and structural risk factors there was limited evidence, but screening was generally not shown to be cost-effective. Conclusions Studies showed that screening is most likely to be cost-effective in a high TB prevalence population. Our review highlights that to reach the “missing millions” TB programmes should focus on simple, cheaper initial screening tools (i.e., symptom screen and CXR) followed by molecular diagnostic tools (i.e., Xpert®) among the highest risk groups in the local setting (i.e., PLHIV, urban slums). Programmatic costs greatly impact cost-effectiveness thus future research should provide both fixed and variable costs of screening interventions to improve comparability.

scholarly journals Nurses’ burnout and associated risk factors during the COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Petros Galanis ◽  
Irene Vraka ◽  
Despoina Fragkou ◽  
Angeliki Bilali ◽  
Daphne Kaitelidou
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Risk Factors ◽  
Social Support ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Health Care ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Maslach Burnout Inventory ◽  
Self Confidence ◽  
Associated Risk Factors

AbstractBackgroundDuring the COVID-19 pandemic, physical and mental health of the nurses is greatly challenged since they work under unprecedented pressure and they are more vulnerable to the harmful effects of the disease.AimTo examine the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on nurses’ burnout and to identify associated risk factors.MethodsWe followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines for this systematic review and meta-analysis. PubMed, Scopus, ProQuest and pre-print services (medRχiv and PsyArXiv) were searched from January 1, 2020 to November 15, 2020 and we removed duplicates. We applied a random effect model to estimate pooled effects since the heterogeneity between results was very high.FindingsFourteen studies, including 17,390 nurses met the inclusion criteria. Five standardized and valid questionnaires were used to measure burnout among nurses; Maslach Burnout Inventory, Copenhagen Burnout Inventory, Professional Quality of Life Scale version 5, Mini-Z, and Spanish Burnout Inventory. The overall prevalence of emotional exhaustion was 34.1% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 22.5-46.6%), of depersonalization was 12.6% (95% CI: 6.9-19.7%), and of lack of personal accomplishment was 15.2% (95% CI: 1.4-39.8%). The following factors were associated with increased nurses’ burnout: younger age, higher educational level, higher degree, decreased social support, having a relative/friend diagnosed with COVID-19, low family and colleagues readiness to cope with COVID-19 outbreak, increased perceived threat of Covid-19, longer working time in quarantine areas, working in a high-risk environment (a COVID-19 designated hospital, a COVID-19 unit, etc.), working in hospitals with inadequate and insufficient material and human resources, decreased working safety while caring for COVID-19 patients, increased workload, decreased self-confidence in self-protection, and lower levels of specialized training regarding COVID-19, job experience, and self-confidence in caring for COVID-19.ConclusionNurses experience high levels of burnout during the COVID-19 pandemic, while several sociodemographic, social and occupational factors affect this burnout. Several interventions need to be implemented to mitigate mental health impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on nurses, e.g. screening for mental health illness and early supportive interventions for high-risk nurses, immediate access to mental health care services, social support to reduce feelings of isolation, sufficient personal protective equipment for all nurses to provide security etc. Governments, health care organizations and policy makers should act in this direction to prepare health care systems, individuals and nurses for a better response against the COVID-19 pandemic.

scholarly journals Yield and Efficiency of FIT Tests Alone vs. In Combination with Risk Factors for Colorectal Cancer Screening

2020 ◽  
Vol 3 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vasu Sheel ◽  
Leslie Azzis ◽  
Racehl Hinrichs ◽  
Thomas Imperiale
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Risk Factors ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Colorectal Neoplasia ◽  
Risk Groups ◽  
Fiscal Year ◽  
Advanced Colorectal Neoplasia ◽  
Immunochemical Test ◽  
Advanced Adenomas

Background: Although colonoscopy (CY) may be considered the best screening test for colorectal cancer (CRC), annual fecal immunochemical test (FIT), which quantifies fecal hemoglobin is a viable alternative. Countries and healthcare systems using FIT-based screening may need to prioritize which FIT positive persons requires CY sooner (e.g. within the same fiscal year). We conducted a systematic review of published literature to understand how the yield/positive predictive value (PPV) of FIT could be improved.   Study Design: We performed a search of electronic databases for articles published between 2015 and June 2020. Titles, abstracts, and full texts were independently screened. Included studies fulfilled predetermined criteria and had descriptive and quantitative data extracted. We identified studies comparing the yield of FIT for advanced colorectal neoplasia ([AN], CRC plus advanced adenomas) among FIT positive persons to the yield of AN when FIT is combined with risk factors (age, sex, BMI, etc.). Data were extracted to find yield and efficiency of FIT alone vs FIT plus risk factors among FIT positive persons.   Results: From 623 titles reviewed, 4 studies met inclusion criteria. The objective of the studies was to increase the yield of AN or CRC in FIT positive patients. The number needed to scope (NNS) among FIT positives to detect AN significantly decreased for each study when looking at high risk groups as yield/PPV increased. The yield with FIT alone ranged from 24% to 46% and the NNS from 2.2 to 4.1. With risk factors, yield and NNS among those at high risk were 33.2 % to 75.6% and from 1.3 to 3.0, respectively.  Conclusion and Potential Impact: This systematic review quantifies how risk factors improve the yield for AN in FIT positive persons, which is information required for countries and health care settings with limited resources that need to direct CY resources to FIT positive patients at high risk for AN.  

Stress, anxiety, depression and burnout in frontline health care workers during COVID-19 pandemic: a brief systematic review and new data from Russia

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ekaterina Mosolova ◽  
Dmitry Sosin ◽  
Sergey Mosolov
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Female Gender ◽  
Assessment Tools ◽  
Care Workers ◽  
Younger Age ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Associated Risk Factors ◽  
Anxiety Depression ◽  
The Impact

During the COVID-19 pandemic, healthcare workers (HCWs) have been subject to increased workload while also exposed to many psychosocial stressors. In a systematic review we analyze the impact that the pandemic has had on HCWs mental state and associated risk factors. Most studies reported high levels of depression and anxiety among HCWs worldwide, however, due to a wide range of assessment tools, cut-off scores, and number of frontline participants in the studies, results were difficult to compare. Our study is based on two online surveys of 2195 HCWs from different regions of Russia during spring and autumn epidemic outbreaks revealed the rates of anxiety, stress, depression, emotional exhaustion and depersonalization and perceived stress as 32.3%, 31.1%, 45.5%, 74.2%, 37.7% ,67.8%, respectively. Moreover, 2.4% of HCWs reported suicidal thoughts. The most common risk factors include: female gender, nurse as an occupation, younger age, working for over 6 months, chronic diseases, smoking, high working demands, lack of personal protective equipment, low salary, lack of social support, isolation from families, the fear of relatives getting infected. These results demonstrate the need for urgent supportive programs for HCWs fighting COVID-19 that fall into higher risk factors groups.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document