Has the COVID-19 pandemic changed the utilization and provision of essential health care services from 2019 to 2020 in the primary health care network in Lebanon? Results from a nationwide representative cross-sectional survey.

There is limited research soliciting the patient and staff perspectives on the overall effects of COVID-19 on the utilization and provision of primary care in Lebanon. The present study was part of a larger study on the overall effect of COVID-19 on both utilization and provision of essential health care services within the Lebanese primary health care network (PHCN). Here, we present the patient and staff perspectives on continuity of service provision, adherence to infection prevention and control measures, and the role of the PHCN in epidemic preparedness and response. We conducted a cross-sectional survey between June and July 2021 among patients who had received a health care service in 2019 or 2020 from registered primary healthcare centers (PHCs) in the network and among the respective PHC staff working during the same period. A total of 763 patients and 198 staff completed the surveys. Services were reported as interrupted by 15% of the total patients who used services either in 2020 only or in both 2019 and 2020. Access to chronic (67%) and acute medications (40%) were reported as the main interrupted services. Immunization also emerged as a foregone service in 2020. Among the staff, one third (33%) reported interruptions in the provision of services. Financial barriers rather than fear of COVID-19 were reported as main reasons for interruption. Both groups considered that the facilities implemented adequate infection prevention and control measures. They perceived that the PHCN maintained some essential healthcare services and that it should have played a bigger role in the response to the pandemic. There was a continuity in utilization and provision of services in the PHCN that was higher than expected, with non-communicable diseases and immunizations suffering more than other services

The science of clinical practice: disease diagnosis or patient prognosis? Evidence about "what is likely to happen" should shape clinical practice.

BACKGROUND: Diagnosis is the traditional basis for decision-making in clinical practice. Evidence is often lacking about future benefits and harms of these decisions for patients diagnosed with and without disease. We propose that a model of clinical practice focused on patient prognosis and predicting the likelihood of future outcomes may be more useful. DISCUSSION: Disease diagnosis can provide crucial information for clinical decisions that influence outcome in serious acute illness. However, the central role of diagnosis in clinical practice is challenged by evidence that it does not always benefit patients and that factors other than disease are important in determining patient outcome. The concept of disease as a dichotomous 'yes' or 'no' is challenged by the frequent use of diagnostic indicators with continuous distributions, such as blood sugar, which are better understood as contributing information about the probability of a patient's future outcome. Moreover, many illnesses, such as chronic fatigue, cannot usefully be labelled from a disease-diagnosis perspective. In such cases, a prognostic model provides an alternative framework for clinical practice that extends beyond disease and diagnosis and incorporates a wide range of information to predict future patient outcomes and to guide decisions to improve them. Such information embraces non-disease factors and genetic and other biomarkers which influence outcome. SUMMARY: Patient prognosis can provide the framework for modern clinical practice to integrate information from the expanding biological, social, and clinical database for more effective and efficient care

Facial expression accompanying pain

The study of facial expression accompanying pain is of both practical and theoretical importance. It has been suggested that nonverbal behavior may provide accurate information on pain states to supplement self-report and that perhaps facial expressions could even serve as accurate measures of pain in the absence of verbal report. Recent studies of specific facial expressions accompanying pain have benefited greatly from the techniques and findings of earlier research on facial expressions of emotion. These research findings also raise a number of questions concerning relationships between pain and emotion expressions, and provide some tools (e.g. direct facial measurement systems) for answering them. A review of empirical research indicates that there are distinct facial expressions which accompany acute painful experiences with some regularity, and that these expressions occur in both infants and adults, at least in Western cultures. Important areas for future research include cross-cultural studies, investigations of the circumstances under which these facial expressions occur and the possibilities for masking or falsifying them and research into facial behaviors related to chronic pain.

Studying sex and gender differences in pain and analgesia: A consensus report

In September 2006, members of the Sex, Gender and Pain Special Interest Group of the International Association for the Study of Pain met to discuss the following: (1) what is known about sex and gender differences in pain and analgesia; (2) what are the "best practice" guidelines for pain research with respect to sex and gender; and (3) what are the crucial questions to address in the near future? The resulting consensus presented herein includes input from basic science, clinical and psychosocial pain researchers, as well as from recognized experts in sexual differentiation and reproductive endocrinology. We intend this document to serve as a utilitarian and thought-provoking guide for future research on sex and gender differences in pain and analgesia, both for those currently working in this field as well as those still wondering, "Do I really need to study females?" (C) 2007 International Association for the Study of Pain. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved