Health care workers’ experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic: a scoping review

Background: COVID-19 has challenged health systems worldwide, especially the health workforce, a pillar crucial for health systems resilience. Therefore, strengthening health system resilience can be informed by analyzing health care workers’ (HCWs) experiences and needs during pandemics. This review synthesizes qualitative studies published during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic to identify factors affecting HCWs’ experiences and their support needs during the pandemic. This review was conducted using the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology for scoping reviews. A systematic search on PubMed was applied using controlled vocabularies. Only original studies presenting primary qualitative data were included. Results: 161 papers that were published from the beginning of COVID-19 pandemic up until 28th March 2021 were included in the review. Findings were presented using the socio-ecological model as an analytical framework. At the individual level, the impact of the pandemic manifested on HCWs’ well-being, daily routine, professional and personal identity. At the interpersonal level, HCWs’ personal and professional relationships were identified as crucial. At the institutional level, decision-making processes, organizational aspects and availability of support emerged as important factors affecting HCWs’ experiences. At community level, community morale, norms, and public knowledge were of importance. Finally, at policy level, governmental support and response measures shaped HCWs’ experiences. The review identified a lack of studies which investigate other HCWs than doctors and nurses, HCWs in non-hospital settings, and HCWs in low- and lower middle income countries. Discussion: This review shows that the COVID-19 pandemic has challenged HCWs, with multiple contextual factors impacting their experiences and needs. To better understand HCWs’ experiences, comparative investigations are needed which analyze differences across as well as within countries, including differences at institutional, community, interpersonal and individual levels. Similarly, interventions aimed at supporting HCWs prior to, during and after pandemics need to consider HCWs’ circumstances. Conclusions: Following a context-sensitive approach to empowering HCWs that accounts for the multitude of aspects which influence their experiences could contribute to building a sustainable health workforce and strengthening health systems for future pandemics.Peer Reviewe

Danger ahead: the burden of diseases, injuries, and risk factors in the Eastern Mediterranean Region, 1990–2015

Objectives The Eastern Mediterranean Region faces several health challenges at a difficult time with wars, unrest, and economic change. Methods We used the Global Burden of Disease 2015 study to present the burden of diseases, injuries, and risk factors in the Eastern Mediterranean Region from 1990 to 2015. Results Ischemic heart disease was the leading cause of death in the region in 2015, followed by cerebrovascular disease. Changes in total deaths ranged from a reduction of 25% for diarrheal diseases to an increase of about 42% for diabetes and tracheal, bronchus, and lung cancer. Collective violence and legal intervention increased by 850% during the time period. Diet was the leading risk factor for disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) for men compared to maternal malnutrition for females. Childhood undernutrition was the leading risk factor for DALYs in 1990 and 2005, but the second in 2015 after high blood pressure. Conclusions Our study shows that the region is facing several health challenges and calls for global efforts to stabilise the region and to address the current and future burden of disease

Exploratory study of the underutilization of CTSA module services

Background/Objective: The Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) program aims to enhance the quality, efficiency, and impact of translation from discovery to interventions that improve human health. CTSA program hubs at medical research institutions across the United States develop and test innovative tools, methods, and processes, offering core resources and training for the clinical and translational research (CTR) workforce. Hubs have developed services across different domains, such as informatics and pilot studies, to provide ad hoc expertise and staffing for local research teams. Although these services can provide efficient, cost-effective ways to cover skills gaps and implement rigorous studies, three CTSAs of varying size found the majority of investigators were single domain service users, likely missing opportunities to further enhance their work. Methods: Through interviews with CTSA service users and a survey of CTSA service managers, this exploratory study aims to identify barriers to using services from multiple modules and solutions to overcome those barriers. Results: Barriers include challenges in finding information about services, unclear or unknown user needs, and users’ lack of funding to engage in services. More issues were identified for the largest CTSA. Conclusions: Although this study represents a small subset of CTSA hubs, we anticipate that our findings and proposed solutions will be relevant to the broader CTSA community. This study provides foundational information can use in their own efforts to increase service utilization and methods that can be used for more comprehensive studies that focus on explaining the relationship between CTSA features and rates of single versus cross-module service use.Peer Reviewe

Comparative effectiveness of contact tracing interventions in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic review

Contact tracing is a non-pharmaceutical intervention (NPI) widely used in the control of the COVID-19 pandemic. Its effectiveness may depend on a number of factors including the proportion of contacts traced, delays in tracing, the mode of contact tracing (e.g. forward, backward or bidirectional contact training), the types of contacts who are traced (e.g. contacts of index cases or contacts of contacts of index cases), or the setting where contacts are traced (e.g. the household or the workplace). We performed a systematic review of the evidence regarding the comparative effectiveness of contact tracing interventions. 78 studies were included in the review, 12 observational (ten ecological studies, one retrospective cohort study and one pre-post study with two patient cohorts) and 66 mathematical modelling studies. Based on the results from six of the 12 observational studies, contact tracing can be effective at controlling COVID-19. Two high quality ecological studies showed the incremental effectiveness of adding digital contact tracing to manual contact tracing. One ecological study of intermediate quality showed that increases in contact tracing were associated with a drop in COVID-19 mortality, and a pre-post study of acceptable quality showed that prompt contact tracing of contacts of COVID-19 case clusters / symptomatic individuals led to a reduction in the reproduction number R. Within the seven observational studies exploring the effectiveness of contact tracing in the context of the implementation of other non-pharmaceutical interventions, contact tracing was found to have an effect on COVID-19 epidemic control in two studies and not in the remaining five studies. However, a limitation in many of these studies is the lack of description of the extent of implementation of contact tracing interventions. Based on the results from the mathematical modelling studies, we identified the following highly effective policies: (1) manual contact tracing with high tracing coverage and either medium-term immunity, highly efficacious isolation/quarantine and/ or physical distancing (2) hybrid manual and digital contact tracing with high app adoption with highly effective isolation/ quarantine and social distancing, (3) secondary contact tracing, (4) eliminating contact tracing delays, (5) bidirectional contact tracing, (6) contact tracing with high coverage in reopening educational institutions. We also highlighted the role of social distancing to enhance the effectiveness of some of these interventions in the context of 2020 lockdown reopening. While limited, the evidence from observational studies shows a role for manual and digital contact tracing in controlling the COVID-19 epidemic. More empirical studies accounting for the extent of contact tracing implementation are required.Peer Reviewe

Health in times of uncertainty in the eastern Mediterranean region, 1990–2013: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2013

Background The eastern Mediterranean region is comprised of 22 countries: Afghanistan, Bahrain, Djibouti, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, Oman, Pakistan, Palestine, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia, the United Arab Emirates, and Yemen. Since our Global Burden of Disease Study 2010 (GBD 2010), the region has faced unrest as a result of revolutions, wars, and the so-called Arab uprisings. The objective of this study was to present the burden of diseases, injuries, and risk factors in the eastern Mediterranean region as of 2013. Methods GBD 2013 includes an annual assessment covering 188 countries from 1990 to 2013. The study covers 306 diseases and injuries, 1233 sequelae, and 79 risk factors. Our GBD 2013 analyses included the addition of new data through updated systematic reviews and through the contribution of unpublished data sources from collaborators, an updated version of modelling software, and several improvements in our methods. In this systematic analysis, we use data from GBD 2013 to analyse the burden of disease and injuries in the eastern Mediterranean region specifi cally. Findings The leading cause of death in the region in 2013 was ischaemic heart disease (90·3 deaths per 100 000 people), which increased by 17·2% since 1990. However, diarrhoeal diseases were the leading cause of death in Somalia (186·7 deaths per 100 000 people) in 2013, which decreased by 26·9% since 1990. The leading cause of disabilityadjusted life-years (DALYs) was ischaemic heart disease for males and lower respiratory infection for females. High blood pressure was the leading risk factor for DALYs in 2013, with an increase of 83·3% since 1990. Risk factors for DALYs varied by country. In low-income countries, childhood wasting was the leading cause of DALYs in Afghanistan, Somalia, and Yemen, whereas unsafe sex was the leading cause in Djibouti. Non-communicable risk factors were the leading cause of DALYs in high-income and middle-income countries in the region. DALY risk factors varied by age, with child and maternal malnutrition aff ecting the younger age groups (aged 28 days to 4 years), whereas high bodyweight and systolic blood pressure aff ected older people (aged 60–80 years). The proportion of DALYs attributed to high body-mass index increased from 3·7% to 7·5% between 1990 and 2013. Burden of mental health problems and drug use increased. Most increases in DALYs, especially from non-communicable diseases, were due to population growth. The crises in Egypt, Yemen, Libya, and Syria have resulted in a reduction in life expectancy; life expectancy in Syria would have been 5 years higher than that recorded for females and 6 years higher for males had the crisis not occurred. Interpretation Our study shows that the eastern Mediterranean region is going through a crucial health phase. The Arab uprisings and the wars that followed, coupled with ageing and population growth, will have a major impact on the region’s health and resources. The region has historically seen improvements in life expectancy and other health indicators, even under stress. However, the current situation will cause deteriorating health conditions for many countries and for many years and will have an impact on the region and the rest of the world. Based on our fi ndings, we call for increased investment in health in the region in addition to reducing the confl icts

Assessing COVID-19 through the lens of health systems' preparedness: time for a change.

The last months have left no-one in doubt that the COVID-19 pandemic is exerting enormous pressure on health systems around the world, bringing to light the sub-optimal resilience of even those classified as high-performing. This makes us re-think the extent to which we are using the appropriate metrics in evaluating health systems which, in the case of this pandemic, might have masked how unprepared some countries were. It also makes us reflect on the strength of our solidarity as a global community, as we observe that global health protection remains, as this pandemic shows, focused on protecting high income countries from public health threats originating in low and middle income countries. To change this course, and in times like this, all nations should come together under one umbrella to respond to the pandemic by sharing intellectual, human, and material resources. In order to work towards stronger and better prepared health systems, improved and resilience-relevant metrics are needed. Further, a new model of development assistance for health, one that is focused on stronger and more resilient health systems, should be the world's top priority

Seroprevalence and risk factors of COVID-19 in healthcare workers from 11 African countries: a scoping review and appraisal of existing evidence.

A better understanding of serological data and risk factors for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection in healthcare workers (HCWs) is especially important in African countries where human resources and health services are more constrained. We reviewed and appraised the evidence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) seroprevalence and its risk factors in HCWs in Africa to inform response and preparedness strategies during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines in this scoping review. Databases including PubMed, Embase and preprint servers were searched accordingly from the start of the COVID-19 pandemic to 19 April 2021. Our search yielded 12 peer-reviewed and four pre-print articles comprising data on 9223 HCWs from 11 countries in Africa. Seroprevalence varied widely and ranged from 0% to 45.1%. Seropositivity was associated with older age, lower education, working as a nurse/non-clinical HCW or in gynaecology, emergency, outpatient or surgery departments. Asymptomatic rates were high and half of the studies recommended routine testing of HCWs. This scoping review found a varying but often high SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence in HCWs in 11 African countries and identified certain risk factors. COVID-19 public health strategies for policy and planning should consider these risk factors and the potential for high seroprevalence among HCWs when prioritizing infection prevention and control measures and vaccine deployment

Prioritisation processes for programme implementation and evaluation in public health: A scoping review

BackgroundProgramme evaluation is an essential and systematic activity for improving public health programmes through useful, feasible, ethical, and accurate methods. Finite budgets require prioritisation of which programmes can be funded, first, for implementation, and second, evaluation. While criteria for programme funding have been discussed in the literature, a similar discussion around criteria for which programmes are to be evaluated is limited. We reviewed the criteria and frameworks used for prioritisation in public health more broadly, and those used in the prioritisation of programmes for evaluation. We also report on stakeholder involvement in prioritisation processes, and evidence on the use and utility of the frameworks or sets of criteria identified. Our review aims to inform discussion around which criteria and domains are best suited for the prioritisation of public health programmes for evaluation.MethodsWe reviewed the peer-reviewed literature through OVID MEDLINE (PubMed) on 11 March 2022. We also searched the grey literature through Google and across key websites including World Health Organization (WHO), US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC), and the International Association of National Public Health Institutes (IANPHI) (14 March 2022). Articles were limited to those published between 2002 and March 2022, in English, French or German.ResultsWe extracted over 300 unique criteria from 40 studies included in the analysis. These criteria were categorised into 16 high-level conceptual domains to allow synthesis of the findings. The domains most frequently considered in the studies were “burden of disease” (33 studies), “social considerations” (30 studies) and “health impacts of the intervention” (28 studies). We only identified one paper which proposed criteria for use in the prioritisation of public health programmes for evaluation. Few prioritisation frameworks had evidence of use outside of the setting in which they were developed, and there was limited assessment of their utility. The existing evidence suggested that prioritisation frameworks can be used successfully in budget allocation, and have been reported to make prioritisation more robust, systematic, transparent, and collaborative.ConclusionOur findings reflect the complexity of prioritisation in public health. Development of a framework for the prioritisation of programmes to be evaluated would fill an evidence gap, as would formal assessment of its utility. The process itself should be formal and transparent, with the aim of engaging a diverse group of stakeholders including patient/public representatives

Uptake of breast and cervical cancer screening in four Gulf Cooperation Council countries

In Gulf Cooperation Council States, there is limited information on national levels of mammography and Pap smear screening uptake. The aim of this study is to provide a baseline for national estimates for mammography and Pap smear screening and to explore associations between screening uptake and socioeconomic factors. The nationally representative World Health Survey Plus, implemented in 2008/2009 in Kuwait, Oman, Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates (UAE), was used. Uptake of mammography and Pap smear was estimated for each country, followed by the examination of associations between screening and a range of socioeconomic variables. Levels of breast and cervical cancer screening uptake within recommended intervals in all countries were low. The percentages of women aged 40–75 years who had a mammogram were 4.9% in Saudi Arabia, 8.9% in Oman, 13.9% in the UAE and 14.6% in Kuwait. The percentages of women aged 25–49 years who had a Pap smear test were 7.6% in Saudi Arabia, 10.6% in Oman, 17.7% in Kuwait and 28.0% in the UAE. Marital status, wealth, education, nationality and place of residence are associated with screening uptake, with the lower educated, poor and unmarried having the lowest percentages of uptake. The four Gulf Cooperation Council countries need to set clear targets and increase the proportion of women who have regular breast and cervical cancer screening examinations. Health education campaigns and awareness programmes that are fully integrated into the health system are required to ensure women use services that are available to prevent breast and cervical cancers