-
International Journal of Environmental... Mar 2021The COVID‑19 pandemic and associated public health measures have disrupted the lives of people around the world. It is already evident that the direct and indirect... (Review)
Review
The COVID‑19 pandemic and associated public health measures have disrupted the lives of people around the world. It is already evident that the direct and indirect psychological and social effects of the COVID‑19 pandemic are insidious and affect the mental health of young children and adolescents now and will in the future. The aim and objectives of this knowledge-synthesis study were to identify the impact of the pandemic on children's and adolescent's mental health and to evaluate the effectiveness of different interventions employed during previous and the current pandemic to promote children's and adolescents' mental health. We conducted the systematic review according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and included experimental randomized and nonrandomized controlled trials, observational studies, and qualitative studies. : Of the 5828 articles that we retrieved, 18 articles met the inclusion criteria. We thematically analyzed them and put the major findings under the thematic areas of impact of the pandemic on children's and adolescents' mental health. These studies reported that pandemics cause stress, worry, helplessness, and social and risky behavioral problems among children and adolescents (e.g., substance abuse, suicide, relationship problems, academic issues, and absenteeism from work). Interventions such as art-based programs, support services, and clinician-led mental health and psychosocial services effectively decrease mental health issues among children and adolescents. Children and adolescents are more likely to experience high rates of depression and anxiety during and after a pandemic. It is critical that future researchers explore effective mental health strategies that are tailored to the needs of children and adolescents. Explorations of effective channels regarding the development and delivery of evidenced-based, age-appropriate services are vital to lessen the effects and improve long-term capacities for mental health services for children and adolescents. : The COVID-19 pandemic's physical restrictions and social distancing measures have affected each and every domain of life. Although the number of children and adolescents affected by the disease is small, the disease and the containment measures such as social distancing, school closure, and isolation have negatively impacted the mental health and well-being of children and adolescents. The impact of COVID-19 on the mental health of children and adolescents is of great concern. Anxiety, depression, disturbances in sleep and appetite, as well as impairment in social interactions are the most common presentations. It has been indicated that compared to adults, this pandemic may continue to have increased long term adverse consequences on children's and adolescents' mental health. As the pandemic continues, it is important to monitor the impact on children's and adolescents' mental health status and how to help them to improve their mental health outcomes in the time of the current or future pandemics.
Topics: Adolescent; Anxiety; COVID-19; Child; Child, Preschool; Humans; Mental Health; Pandemics; SARS-CoV-2
PubMed: 33810225
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph18073432 -
BMC Public Health Dec 2019Healthy lifestyles play an important role in the prevention of premature death, chronic diseases, productivity loss and other social and economic concerns. However,...
BACKGROUND
Healthy lifestyles play an important role in the prevention of premature death, chronic diseases, productivity loss and other social and economic concerns. However, workplace interventions to address issues of fitness and nutrition which include work-related outcomes are complex and thus challenging to implement and appropriately measure the effectiveness of. This systematic review investigated the impact of workplace nutrition and physical activity interventions, which include components aimed at workplace's physical environment and organizational structure, on employees' productivity, work performance and workability.
METHODS
A systematic review that included randomized controlled trials and or non-randomized controlled studies was conducted. Medline, EMBASE.com, Cochrane Library and Scopus were searched until September 2016. Productivity, absenteeism, presenteeism, work performance and workability were the primary outcomes of our interest, while sedentary behavior and changes in other health-related behaviors were considered as secondary outcomes. Two reviewers independently screened abstracts and full-texts for study eligibility, extracted the data and performed a quality assessment using the Cochrane Collaboration Risk-of-Bias Tool for randomized trials and the Risk-of-Bias in non-randomized studies of interventions. Findings were narratively synthesized.
RESULTS
Thirty-nine randomized control trials and non-randomized controlled studies were included. Nearly 28% of the included studies were of high quality, while 56% were of medium quality. The studies covered a broad range of multi-level and environmental-level interventions. Fourteen workplace nutrition and physical activity intervention studies yielded statistically significant changes on absenteeism (n = 7), work performance (n = 2), workability (n = 3), productivity (n = 1) and on both workability and productivity (n = 1). Two studies showed effects on absenteeism only between subgroups.
CONCLUSIONS
The scientific evidence shows that it is possible to influence work-related outcomes, especially absenteeism, positively through health promotion efforts that include components aimed at the workplace's physical work environment and organizational structure. In order to draw further conclusions regarding work-related outcomes in controlled high-quality studies, long-term follow-up using objective outcomes and/or quality assured questionnaires are required.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
Registration number: PROSPERO CRD42017081837.
Topics: Absenteeism; Efficiency; Exercise; Humans; Non-Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Nutritional Status; Occupational Health Services; Program Evaluation; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Work Performance
PubMed: 31830955
DOI: 10.1186/s12889-019-8033-1 -
Archives of Physical Medicine and... Jan 2021To present recent evidence on the prevalence, incidence, costs, activity limitations, and work limitations of common conditions requiring rehabilitation.
A Systematic Review of the Incidence, Prevalence, Costs, and Activity and Work Limitations of Amputation, Osteoarthritis, Rheumatoid Arthritis, Back Pain, Multiple Sclerosis, Spinal Cord Injury, Stroke, and Traumatic Brain Injury in the United States: A 2019 Update.
OBJECTIVES
To present recent evidence on the prevalence, incidence, costs, activity limitations, and work limitations of common conditions requiring rehabilitation.
DATA SOURCES
Medline (PubMed), SCOPUS, Web of Science, and the gray literature were searched for relevant articles about amputation, osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, back pain, multiple sclerosis, spinal cord injury, stroke, and traumatic brain injury.
STUDY SELECTION
Relevant articles (N=106) were included.
DATA EXTRACTION
Two investigators independently reviewed articles and selected relevant articles for inclusion. Quality grading was performed using the Methodological Evaluation of Observational Research Checklist and Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Form.
DATA SYNTHESIS
The prevalence of back pain in the past 3 months was 33.9% among community-dwelling adults, and patients with back pain contribute $365 billion in all-cause medical costs. Osteoarthritis is the next most prevalent condition (approximately 10.4%), and patients with this condition contribute $460 billion in all-cause medical costs. These 2 conditions are the most prevalent and costly (medically) of the illnesses explored in this study. Stroke follows these conditions in both prevalence (2.5%-3.7%) and medical costs ($28 billion). Other conditions may have a lower prevalence but are associated with relatively higher per capita effects.
CONCLUSIONS
Consistent with previous findings, back pain and osteoarthritis are the most prevalent conditions with high aggregate medical costs. By contrast, other conditions have a lower prevalence or cost but relatively higher per capita costs and effects on activity and work. The data are extremely heterogeneous, which makes anything beyond broad comparisons challenging. Additional information is needed to determine the relative impact of each condition.
Topics: Absenteeism; Amputation, Surgical; Arthritis, Rheumatoid; Back Pain; Brain Injuries, Traumatic; Health Expenditures; Humans; Incidence; Multiple Sclerosis; Osteoarthritis; Physical Functional Performance; Prevalence; Spinal Cord Injuries; United States
PubMed: 32339483
DOI: 10.1016/j.apmr.2020.04.001 -
JAMA Pediatrics Dec 2022Short-course antibiotic therapy could enhance adherence and reduce adverse drug effects and costs. However, based on sparse evidence, most guidelines recommend a longer... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
IMPORTANCE
Short-course antibiotic therapy could enhance adherence and reduce adverse drug effects and costs. However, based on sparse evidence, most guidelines recommend a longer course of antibiotics for nonsevere childhood community-acquired pneumonia (CAP).
OBJECTIVE
To determine whether a shorter course of antibiotics was noninferior to a longer course for childhood nonsevere CAP.
DATA SOURCES
MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, and 3 Chinese databases from inception to March 31, 2022, as well as clinical trial registries and Google.com.
STUDY SELECTION
Randomized clinical trials comparing a shorter- vs longer-course therapy using the same oral antibiotic for children with nonsevere CAP were included.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Random-effects models were used to pool the data, which were analyzed from April 15, 2022, to May 15, 2022. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) was used to rate the quality of the evidence.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
Treatment failure, defined by persistence of pneumonia or the new appearance of any general danger signs of CAP (eg, lethargy, unconsciousness, seizures, or inability to drink), elevated temperature (>38 °C) after completion of treatment, change of antibiotic, hospitalization, death, missing more than 3 study drug doses, loss to follow-up, or withdrawal of informed consent.
RESULTS
Nine randomized clinical trials including 11 143 participants were included in this meta-analysis. A total of 98% of the participants were aged 2 to 59 months, and 58% were male. Eight studies with 10 662 patients reported treatment failure. Treatment failure occurred in 12.8% vs 12.6% of participants randomized to a shorter vs a longer course of antibiotics. High-quality evidence showed that a shorter course of oral antibiotic was noninferior to a longer course with respect to treatment failure for children with nonsevere CAP (risk ratio, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.92-1.11; risk difference, 0.00; 95% CI, -0.01 to 0.01; I2 = 0%). A 3-day course of antibiotic treatment was noninferior to a 5-day course for the outcome of treatment failure (risk ratio, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.91-1.12; I2 = 0%), and a 5-day course was noninferior to a 10-day course (risk ratio, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.50-1.53; I2 = 0%). A shorter course of antibiotics was associated with fewer reports of gastroenteritis (risk ratio, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.66-0.95) and lower caregiver absenteeism (incident rate ratio, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.65-0.84).
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
Results of this meta-analysis suggest that a shorter course of antibiotics was noninferior to a longer course in children aged 2 to 59 months with nonsevere CAP. Clinicians should consider prescribing a shorter course of antibiotics for the management of pediatric nonsevere CAP.
Topics: Humans; Male; Child; Female; Community-Acquired Infections; Pneumonia; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Fever; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 36374480
DOI: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2022.4123 -
Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases Jun 2020The past decades have seen rapid advances in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). In particular, the introduction of biologic and targeted synthetic...
BACKGROUND
The past decades have seen rapid advances in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). In particular, the introduction of biologic and targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs have improved clinical outcomes and reconfigured traditional RA cost compositions.
OBJECTIVES
To map the existing evidence concerning cost of illness of RA, as the treatment pathway evolves in the biologic era, and examine how costs have been measured and estimated, in order to assemble and appropriately interpret available data.
METHODS
Systematic review of studies that estimated the costs of patients with RA. Multiple electronic databases were searched to identify studies published between 2000 and 2019. The reported total costs and cost components were evaluated according to the study and population characteristics. The Cochran-Armitage test was used to determine statistically significant trends in increasing or decreasing proportions over time.
RESULTS
Overall, 72 studies were included. Drug costs compromised the main component (up to 87%) of direct costs with an increasing trajectory over time, although not statistically significant. The proportion of costs for hospitalisation showed a statistically significant decrease chronologically (p=0.044). Indirect costs, primarily associated with absenteeism and work disability accounted for 39% to 86% of total costs. The reported indirect costs are highly sensitive to the approach to estimation.
CONCLUSIONS
A decreasing trend in inpatient costs chronologically suggested a cost shift in other components of direct costs. Indirect costs still contributed a considerable proportion of total costs, with work disability being the main cost component. Economic analyses that do not incorporate or appropriately measure indirect costs will underestimate the full economic impact of RA.
Topics: Absenteeism; Arthritis, Rheumatoid; Biological Products; Cost of Illness; Disabled Persons; Drug Costs; Employment; Health Care Costs; Humans
PubMed: 32245893
DOI: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-216243 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2019Work-related musculoskeletal disorders are a group of musculoskeletal disorders that comprise one of the most common disorders related to occupational sick leave...
BACKGROUND
Work-related musculoskeletal disorders are a group of musculoskeletal disorders that comprise one of the most common disorders related to occupational sick leave worldwide. Musculoskeletal disorders accounted for 21% to 28% of work absenteeism days in 2017/2018 in the Netherlands, Germany and the UK. There are several interventions that may be effective in tackling the high prevalence of work-related musculoskeletal disorders among workers, such as physical, cognitive and organisational interventions. In this review, we will focus on work breaks as a measure of primary prevention, which are a type of organisational intervention.
OBJECTIVES
To compare the effectiveness of different work-break schedules for preventing work-related musculoskeletal symptoms and disorders in healthy workers, when compared to conventional or alternate work-break schedules.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, SCOPUS, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, to April/May 2019. In addition, we searched references of the included studies and of relevant literature reviews.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of work-break interventions for preventing work-related musculoskeletal symptoms and disorders among workers. The studies were eligible for inclusion when intervening on work-break frequency, duration and/or type, compared to conventional or an alternate work-break intervention. We included only those studies in which the investigated population included healthy, adult workers, who were free of musculoskeletal complaints during study enrolment, without restrictions to sex or occupation. The primary outcomes were newly diagnosed musculoskeletal disorders, self-reported musculoskeletal pain, discomfort or fatigue, and productivity or work performance. We considered workload changes as secondary outcomes.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently screened titles, abstracts and full texts for study eligibility, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We contacted authors for additional study data where required. We performed meta-analyses, where possible, and we assessed the overall quality of the evidence for each outcome of each comparison using the five GRADE considerations.
MAIN RESULTS
We included six studies (373 workers), four parallel RCTs, one cross-over RCT, and one combined parallel plus cross-over RCT. At least 295 of the employees were female and at least 39 male; for the remaining 39 employees, the sex was not specified in the study trial. The studies investigated different work-break frequencies (five studies) and different work-break types (two studies). None of the studies investigated different work-break durations. We judged all studies to have a high risk of bias. The quality of the evidence for the primary outcomes of self-reported musculoskeletal pain, discomfort and fatigue was low; the quality of the evidence for the primary outcomes of productivity and work performance was very low. The studies were executed in Europe or Northern America, with none from low- to middle-income countries. One study could not be included in the data analyses, because no detailed results have been reported.Changes in the frequency of work breaksThere is low-quality evidence that additional work breaks may not have a considerable effect on musculoskeletal pain, discomfort or fatigue, when compared with no additional work breaks (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.08; 95% CI -0.35 to 0.18; three studies; 225 participants). Additional breaks may not have a positive effect on productivity or work performance, when compared with no additional work breaks (SMD -0.07; 95% CI -0.33 to 0.19; three studies; 225 participants; very low-quality evidence).We found low-quality evidence that additional work breaks may not have a considerable effect on participant-reported musculoskeletal pain, discomfort or fatigue (MD 1.80 on a 100-mm VAS scale; 95% CI -41.07 to 64.37; one study; 15 participants), when compared to work breaks as needed (i.e. microbreaks taken at own discretion). There is very low-quality evidence that additional work breaks may have a positive effect on productivity or work performance, when compared to work breaks as needed (MD 542.5 number of words typed per 3-hour recording session; 95% CI 177.22 to 907.78; one study; 15 participants).Additional higher frequency work breaks may not have a considerable effect on participant-reported musculoskeletal pain, discomfort or fatigue (MD 11.65 on a 100-mm VAS scale; 95% CI -41.07 to 64.37; one study; 10 participants; low-quality evidence), when compared to additional lower frequency work breaks. We found very low-quality evidence that additional higher frequency work breaks may not have a considerable effect on productivity or work performance (MD -83.00 number of words typed per 3-hour recording session; 95% CI -305.27 to 139.27; one study; 10 participants), when compared to additional lower frequency work breaks.Changes in the duration of work breaksNo trials were identified that assessed the effect of different durations of work breaks.Changes in the type of work breakWe found low-quality evidence that active breaks may not have a considerable positive effect on participant-reported musculoskeletal pain, discomfort and fatigue (MD -0.17 on a 1-7 NRS scale; 95% CI -0.71 to 0.37; one study; 153 participants), when compared to passive work breaks.Relaxation work breaks may not have a considerable effect on participant-reported musculoskeletal pain, discomfort or fatigue, when compared to physical work breaks (MD 0.20 on a 1-7 NRS scale; 95% CI -0.43 to 0.82; one study; 97 participants; low-quality evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We found low-quality evidence that different work-break frequencies may have no effect on participant-reported musculoskeletal pain, discomfort and fatigue. For productivity and work performance, evidence was of very low-quality that different work-break frequencies may have a positive effect. For different types of break, there may be no effect on participant-reported musculoskeletal pain, discomfort and fatigue according to low-quality evidence. Further high-quality studies are needed to determine the effectiveness of frequency, duration and type of work-break interventions among workers, if possible, with much higher sample sizes than the studies included in the current review. Furthermore, work-break interventions should be reconsidered, taking into account worker populations other than office workers, and taking into account the possibility of combining work-break intervention with other interventions such as ergonomic training or counselling, which may may possibly have an effect on musculoskeletal outcomes and work performance.
Topics: Adult; Ergonomics; Health Personnel; Health Workforce; Humans; Musculoskeletal Diseases; Occupational Diseases; Personnel Staffing and Scheduling; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Workplace
PubMed: 31334564
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012886.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2019The prevalence of musculoskeletal symptoms among sedentary workers is high. Interventions that promote occupational standing or walking have been found to reduce... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The prevalence of musculoskeletal symptoms among sedentary workers is high. Interventions that promote occupational standing or walking have been found to reduce occupational sedentary time, but it is unclear whether these interventions ameliorate musculoskeletal symptoms in sedentary workers.
OBJECTIVES
To investigate the effectiveness of workplace interventions to increase standing or walking for decreasing musculoskeletal symptoms in sedentary workers.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, OSH UPDATE, PEDro, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) search portal up to January 2019. We also screened reference lists of primary studies and contacted experts to identify additional studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cluster-randomised controlled trials (cluster-RCTs), quasi RCTs, and controlled before-and-after (CBA) studies of interventions to reduce or break up workplace sitting by encouraging standing or walking in the workplace among workers with musculoskeletal symptoms. The primary outcome was self-reported intensity or presence of musculoskeletal symptoms by body region and the impact of musculoskeletal symptoms such as pain-related disability. We considered work performance and productivity, sickness absenteeism, and adverse events such as venous disorders or perinatal complications as secondary outcomes.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently screened titles, abstracts, and full-text articles for study eligibility. These review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We contacted study authors to request additional data when required. We used GRADE considerations to assess the quality of evidence provided by studies that contributed to the meta-analyses.
MAIN RESULTS
We found ten studies including three RCTs, five cluster RCTs, and two CBA studies with a total of 955 participants, all from high-income countries. Interventions targeted changes to the physical work environment such as provision of sit-stand or treadmill workstations (four studies), an activity tracker (two studies) for use in individual approaches, and multi-component interventions (five studies). We did not find any studies that specifically targeted only the organisational level components. Two studies assessed pain-related disability. Physical work environment There was no significant difference in the intensity of low back symptoms (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.35, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.80 to 0.10; 2 RCTs; low-quality evidence) nor in the intensity of upper back symptoms (SMD -0.48, 95% CI -.096 to 0.00; 2 RCTs; low-quality evidence) in the short term (less than six months) for interventions using sit-stand workstations compared to no intervention. No studies examined discomfort outcomes at medium (six to less than 12 months) or long term (12 months and more). No significant reduction in pain-related disability was noted when a sit-stand workstation was used compared to when no intervention was provided in the medium term (mean difference (MD) -0.4, 95% CI -2.70 to 1.90; 1 RCT; low-quality evidence). Individual approach There was no significant difference in the intensity or presence of low back symptoms (SMD -0.05, 95% CI -0.87 to 0.77; 2 RCTs; low-quality evidence), upper back symptoms (SMD -0.04, 95% CI -0.92 to 0.84; 2 RCTs; low-quality evidence), neck symptoms (SMD -0.05, 95% CI -0.68 to 0.78; 2 RCTs; low-quality evidence), shoulder symptoms (SMD -0.14, 95% CI -0.63 to 0.90; 2 RCTs; low-quality evidence), or elbow/wrist and hand symptoms (SMD -0.30, 95% CI -0.63 to 0.90; 2 RCTs; low-quality evidence) for interventions involving an activity tracker compared to an alternative intervention or no intervention in the short term. No studies provided outcomes at medium term, and only one study examined outcomes at long term. Organisational level No studies evaluated the effects of interventions solely targeted at the organisational level. Multi-component approach There was no significant difference in the proportion of participants reporting low back symptoms (risk ratio (RR) 0.93, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.27; 3 RCTs; low-quality evidence), neck symptoms (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.32; 3 RCTs; low-quality evidence), shoulder symptoms (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.12 to 5.80; 2 RCTs; very low-quality evidence), and upper back symptoms (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.32; 3 RCTs; low-quality evidence) for interventions using a multi-component approach compared to no intervention in the short term. Only one RCT examined outcomes at medium term and found no significant difference in low back symptoms (MD -0.40, 95% CI -1.95 to 1.15; 1 RCT; low-quality evidence), upper back symptoms (MD -0.70, 95% CI -2.12 to 0.72; low-quality evidence), and leg symptoms (MD -0.80, 95% CI -2.49 to 0.89; low-quality evidence). There was no significant difference in the proportion of participants reporting low back symptoms (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.40; 2 RCTs; low-quality evidence), neck symptoms (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.08; two RCTs; low-quality evidence), and upper back symptoms (RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.08 to 3.29; 2 RCTs; low-quality evidence) for interventions using a multi-component approach compared to no intervention in the long term. There was a statistically significant reduction in pain-related disability following a multi-component intervention compared to no intervention in the medium term (MD -8.80, 95% CI -17.46 to -0.14; 1 RCT; low-quality evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Currently available limited evidence does not show that interventions to increase standing or walking in the workplace reduced musculoskeletal symptoms among sedentary workers at short-, medium-, or long-term follow up. The quality of evidence is low or very low, largely due to study design and small sample sizes. Although the results of this review are not statistically significant, some interventions targeting the physical work environment are suggestive of an intervention effect. Therefore, in the future, larger cluster-RCTs recruiting participants with baseline musculoskeletal symptoms and long-term outcomes are needed to determine whether interventions to increase standing or walking can reduce musculoskeletal symptoms among sedentary workers and can be sustained over time.
Topics: Adult; Ergonomics; Humans; Musculoskeletal Diseases; Occupational Diseases; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sedentary Behavior; Standing Position; Walking; Workplace
PubMed: 31742666
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012487.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2020Workplace aggression constitutes a serious issue for healthcare workers and organizations. Aggression is tied to physical and mental health issues at an individual... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Workplace aggression constitutes a serious issue for healthcare workers and organizations. Aggression is tied to physical and mental health issues at an individual level, as well as to absenteeism, decreased productivity or quality of work, and high employee turnover rates at an organizational level. To counteract these negative impacts, organizations have used a variety of interventions, including education and training, to provide workers with the knowledge and skills needed to prevent aggression. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of education and training interventions that aim to prevent and minimize workplace aggression directed toward healthcare workers by patients and patient advocates.
SEARCH METHODS
CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, six other databases and five trial registers were searched from their inception to June 2020 together with reference checking, citation searching and contact with study authors to identify additional studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), cluster-randomized controlled trials (CRCTs), and controlled before and after studies (CBAs) that investigated the effectiveness of education and training interventions targeting aggression prevention for healthcare workers.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Four review authors evaluated and selected the studies resulting from the search. We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
We included nine studies-four CRCTs, three RCTs, and two CBAs-with a total of 1688 participants. Five studies reported episodes of aggression, and six studies reported secondary outcomes. Seven studies were conducted among nurses or nurse aides, and two studies among healthcare workers in general. Three studies took place in long-term care, two in the psychiatric ward, and four in hospitals or health centers. Studies were reported from the United States, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, Taiwan, and Sweden. All included studies reported on education combined with training interventions. Four studies evaluated online programs, and five evaluated face-to-face programs. Five studies were of long duration (up to 52 weeks), and four studies were of short duration. Eight studies had short-term follow-up (< 3 months), and one study long-term follow-up (> 1 year). Seven studies were rated as being at "high" risk of bias in multiple domains, and all had "unclear" risk of bias in a single domain or in multiple domains. Effects on aggression Short-term follow-up The evidence is very uncertain about effects of education and training on aggression at short-term follow-up compared to no intervention (standardized mean difference [SMD] -0.33, 95% confidence interval [CI] -1.27 to 0.61, 2 CRCTs; risk ratio [RR] 2.30, 95% CI 0.97 to 5.42, 1 CBA; SMD -1.24, 95% CI -2.16 to -0.33, 1 CBA; very low-certainty evidence). Long-term follow-up Education may not reduce aggression compared to no intervention in the long term (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.37, 1 CRCT; low-certainty evidence). Effects on knowledge, attitudes, skills, and adverse outcomes Education may increase personal knowledge about workplace aggression at short-term follow-up (SMD 0.86, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.38, 1 RCT; low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about effects of education on personal knowledge in the long term (RR 1.26, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.75, 1 RCT; very low-certainty evidence). Education may improve attitudes among healthcare workers at short-term follow-up, but the evidence is very uncertain (SMD 0.59, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.94, 2 CRCTs and 3 RCTs; very low-certainty evidence). The type and duration of interventions resulted in different sizes of effects. Education may not have an effect on skills related to workplace aggression (SMD 0.21, 95% CI -0.07 to 0.49, 1 RCT and 1 CRCT; very low-certainty evidence) nor on adverse personal outcomes, but the evidence is very uncertain (SMD -0.31, 95% CI -1.02 to 0.40, 1 RCT; very low-certainty evidence). Measurements of these concepts showed high heterogeneity.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Education combined with training may not have an effect on workplace aggression directed toward healthcare workers, even though education and training may increase personal knowledge and positive attitudes. Better quality studies that focus on specific settings of healthcare work where exposure to patient aggression is high are needed. Moreover, as most studies have assessed episodes of aggression toward nurses, future studies should include other types of healthcare workers who are also victims of aggression in the same settings, such as orderlies (healthcare assistants). Studies should especially use reports of aggression at an institutional level and should rely on multi-source data while relying on validated measures. Studies should also include days lost to sick leave and employee turnover and should measure outcomes at one-year follow-up. Studies should specify the duration and type of delivery of education and should use an active comparison to prevent raising awareness and reporting in the intervention group only.
Topics: Aggression; Bias; Controlled Before-After Studies; Exposure to Violence; Health Personnel; Humans; Nursing Assistants; Nursing Staff; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Workplace Violence
PubMed: 32898304
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011860.pub2 -
Tropical Medicine and Infectious Disease May 2023Chikungunya (CHIK) is a re-emerging viral infection endemic in tropical and subtropical areas. While the typical clinical presentation is an acute febrile syndrome,... (Review)
Review
Chikungunya (CHIK) is a re-emerging viral infection endemic in tropical and subtropical areas. While the typical clinical presentation is an acute febrile syndrome, long-term articular complications and even death can occur. This review characterizes the global epidemiological and economic burden of chikungunya. The search included studies published from 2007 to 2022 in MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, and SciELO for a thorough evaluation of the literature. Rayyan software was used for data analysis, and data were summarized descriptively and reported following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Seventy-six publications were included. Chikungunya is widely distributed in the tropics, including Africa, Asia, South America, and Oceania/the Pacific Islands, and co-circulates with other simultaneous arboviruses such as DENV, ZIKV, and YFV. Chikungunya infection can lead to chronic articular manifestations with a significant impact on the quality of life in the long term. In addition, it generates absenteeism and economic and social losses and can cause fatal infections in vulnerable populations, mainly in high-risk patients with co-morbidities and at the extremes of age. Reported costs associated with CHIKV diseases are substantial and vary by region, age group, and public/private delivery of healthcare services. The chikungunya disease burden includes chronicity, severe infections, increased hospitalization risks, and associated mortality. The disease can impact the economy in several spheres, significantly affecting the health system and national economies. Understanding and measuring the full impact of this re-emerging disease is essential.
PubMed: 37368719
DOI: 10.3390/tropicalmed8060301 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2022The common cold is a spontaneously remitting infection of the upper respiratory tract, characterised by a runny nose, nasal congestion, sneezing, cough, malaise, sore... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The common cold is a spontaneously remitting infection of the upper respiratory tract, characterised by a runny nose, nasal congestion, sneezing, cough, malaise, sore throat, and fever (usually < 37.8 ºC). Whilst the common cold is generally not harmful, it is a cause of economic burden due to school and work absenteeism. In the United States, economic loss due to the common cold is estimated at more than USD 40 billion per year, including an estimate of 70 million workdays missed by employees, 189 million school days missed by children, and 126 million workdays missed by parents caring for children with a cold. Additionally, data from Europe show that the total cost per episode may be up to EUR 1102. There is also a large expenditure due to inappropriate antimicrobial prescription. Vaccine development for the common cold has been difficult due to antigenic variability of the common cold viruses; even bacteria can act as infective agents. Uncertainty remains regarding the efficacy and safety of interventions for preventing the common cold in healthy people, thus we performed an update of this Cochrane Review, which was first published in 2011 and updated in 2013 and 2017.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the clinical effectiveness and safety of vaccines for preventing the common cold in healthy people.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (April 2022), MEDLINE (1948 to April 2022), Embase (1974 to April 2022), CINAHL (1981 to April 2022), and LILACS (1982 to April 2022). We also searched three trials registers for ongoing studies, and four websites for additional trials (April 2022). We did not impose any language or date restrictions.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of any virus vaccine compared with placebo to prevent the common cold in healthy people.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used Cochrane's Screen4Me workflow to assess the initial search results. Four review authors independently performed title and abstract screening to identify potentially relevant studies. We retrieved the full-text articles for those studies deemed potentially relevant, and the review authors independently screened the full-text reports for inclusion in the review, recording reasons for exclusion of the excluded studies. Any disagreements were resolved by discussion or by consulting a third review author when needed. Two review authors independently collected data on a data extraction form, resolving any disagreements by consensus or by involving a third review author. We double-checked data transferred into Review Manager 5 software. Three review authors independently assessed risk of bias using RoB 1 tool as outlined in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. We carried out statistical analysis using Review Manager 5. We did not conduct a meta-analysis, and we did not assess publication bias. We used GRADEpro GDT software to assess the certainty of the evidence and to create a summary of findings table. MAIN RESULTS: We did not identify any new RCTs for inclusion in this update. This review includes one RCT conducted in 1965 with an overall high risk of bias. The RCT included 2307 healthy young men in a military facility, all of whom were included in the analyses, and compared the effect of three adenovirus vaccines (live, inactivated type 4, and inactivated type 4 and 7) against a placebo (injection of physiological saline or gelatin capsule). There were 13 (1.14%) events in 1139 participants in the vaccine group, and 14 (1.19%) events in 1168 participants in the placebo group. Overall, we do not know if there is a difference between the adenovirus vaccine and placebo in reducing the incidence of the common cold (risk ratio 0.95, 95% confidence interval 0.45 to 2.02; very low-certainty evidence). Furthermore, no difference in adverse events when comparing live vaccine preparation with placebo was reported. We downgraded the certainty of the evidence to very low due to unclear risk of bias, indirectness because the population of this study was only young men, and imprecision because confidence intervals were wide and the number of events was low. The included study did not assess vaccine-related or all-cause mortality. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This Cochrane Review was based on one study with very low-certainty evidence, which showed that there may be no difference between the adenovirus vaccine and placebo in reducing the incidence of the common cold. We identified a need for well-designed, adequately powered RCTs to investigate vaccines for the common cold in healthy people. Future trials on interventions for preventing the common cold should assess a variety of virus vaccines for this condition, and should measure such outcomes as common cold incidence, vaccine safety, and mortality (all-cause and related to the vaccine).
Topics: Child; Humans; Male; Adenovirus Vaccines; Common Cold; Incidence; Systematic Reviews as Topic; Vaccines, Attenuated; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 36515550
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002190.pub6