Risk factors for Covid-19 infection among healthcare workers. A first report from a living systematic review and meta-analysis

Health care workers (HCWs) are more than ten times more likely to be infected with coronavirus in- fectious disease 2019 (COVID-19) than the general population, thus demonstrating the burden of COVID- 19 among HCWs. Factors that expose HCWs to a differentially high-risk of COVID-19 acquisition are important to elucidate, enable appropriate public health interventions to mitigate against high risk and reduce adverse outcomes from the infection. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to summarize and critically analyze the existing evidence on SARS-CoV-2 risk factors among HCWs. With no geographical limitation, we included studies, in any country, that reported (i) the PCR laboratory diagnosis of COVID-19 as an independent variable (ii) one or more COVID-19 risk factors among HCWs with risk estimates (relative risk, odds ratio, or hazard ratio) (iii) original, quantitative study design, and published in English or Mandarian

Association between food insecurity and key metabolic risk factors for diet-sensitive non-communicable diseases in sub-Saharan Africa : a systematic review and meta-analysis

In previous studies, food insecurity has been hypothesised to promote the prevalence of metabolic risk factors on the causal pathway to diet-sensitive non-communicable diseases (NCDs). This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to determine the associations between food insecurity and key metabolic risk factors on the causal pathway to diet-sensitive NCDs and estimate the prevalence of key metabolic risk factors among the food-insecure patients in sub-Saharan Africa. This study was guided by the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD) guidelines for undertaking systematic reviews in healthcare. The following databases were searched for relevant literature: PubMed, EBSCOhost (CINAHL with full text, Health Source - Nursing, MedLine). Epidemiological studies published between January 2015 and June 2019, assessing the associations between food insecurity and metabolic risk outcomes in sub-Saharan African populations, were selected for inclusion. Metaanalysis was performed with DerSimonian-Laird’s random-efect model at 95% confdence intervals (CIs). The I 2 statistics reported the degree of heterogeneity between studies. Publication bias was assessed by visual inspection of the funnel plots for asymmetry, and sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the meta-analysis results’ stability. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) – Version 2018 was used to appraise included studies critically. The initial searches yielded 11,803 articles, 22 cross-sectional studies were eligible for inclusion, presenting data from 26,609 (46.8% males) food-insecure participants, with 11,545 (42.1% males) reported prevalence of metabolic risk factors. Of the 22 included studies, we identifed strong evidence of an adverse association between food insecurity and key metabolic risk factors for diet-sensitive NCDs, based on 20 studies. The meta-analysis showed a signifcantly high pooled prevalence estimate of key metabolic risk factors among food-insecure participants at 41.8% (95% CI: 33.2% to 50.8%, I 2 = 99.5% p-value < 0.00) derived from 14 studies. The most prevalent type of metabolic risk factors was dyslipidaemia 27.6% (95% CI: 6.5% to 54.9%), hypertension 24.7% (95% CI: 15.6% to 35.1%), and overweight 15.8% (95% CI: 10.6% to 21.7%). Notably, the prevalence estimates of these metabolic risk factors were considerably more frequent in females than males. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, exposure to food insecurity was adversely associated with a wide spectrum of key metabolic risk factors, such as obesity, dyslipidaemia, hypertension, underweight, and overweight. These fndings highlight the need to address food insecurity as an integral part of diet-sensitive NCDs prevention programmes. Further, these fndings should guide recommendations on the initiation of food insecurity status.The College of Health Sciences Scholarship (University of KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa).http://www.nature.com/srep/index.htmlpm2022Nursing Scienc

Risk factors for COVID-19 among healthcare workers. A protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

Evidence on the spectrum of risk factors for infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) among front-line healthcare workers (HCWs) has not been well-described. While several studies evaluating the risk factors associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection among patient-facing and non-patient-facing front-line HCWs have been reported since the outbreak of the coronavirus disease in 2019 (COVID-19), and several more are still underway. There is, therefore, an immediate need for an ongoing, rigorous systematic review that continuously assesses the risk factors of SARS-CoV-2 infection among front-line HCWs.Here, we outline a protocol to serve as a guideline for conducting a living systematic review and meta-analysis to examine the burden of COVID-19 on front-line HCWs and identify risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 infection in patient-facing and non-patient-facing front-line HCWs

COVID-19 prevalence among healthcare workers. A systematic review and meta-analysis

Understanding the burden of SARS-CoV-2 infections among healthcare workers is a critical component to inform occupational health policy and strategy. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to map and analayse the available global evidence on the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infections among healthcare workers. The random-effects adjusted pooled prevalence of COVID-19 among those studies that conducted the test using the antibody (Ab) method was 7% [95% CI: 3 to 17%]. The random-effects adjusted pooled prevalence of COVID-19 among those studies that conducted the test using the PCR method was 11% [95% CI: 7 to 16%]. We found the burden of COVID-19 among healthcare workers to be quite significant and therefore a cause for global health concern. Furthermore, COVID-19 infections among healthcare workers affect service delivery through workers’ sick leave, the isolation of confirmed cases and quarantine of contacts, all of which place significant strain on an already shrunken health workforce.SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIALS : SUPPLEMENTARY FILE S1: PRISMA Flow Diagram, SUPPLEMENTARY FILE S2: List of full text articles reviewed, SUPPLEMENTARY FILE S3: Distribution of COVID-19 burden among health care workers in included studies, SUPPLEMENTARY FILE S4: Characteristics of included studies, SUPPLEMENTARY FILE S5: Egger’s plots for assessing the presence of publication bias for the meta-analysis, SUPPLEMENTARY FILE S6: Presentation of findings for assessing and accounting for small-study effects.https://www.mdpi.com/journal/ijerphSchool of Health Systems and Public Health (SHSPH

Risk factors for COVID-19 infection among healthcare workers. A first report from a living systematic review and meta-analysis

Health care workers (HCWs) are more than ten times more likely to be infected with coronavirus infectious disease 2019 (COVID-19) than the general population, thus demonstrating the burden of COVID- 19 among HCWs. Factors that expose HCWs to a differentially high-risk of COVID-19 acquisition are important to elucidate, enable appropriate public health interventions to mitigate against high risk and reduce adverse outcomes from the infection. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to summarize and critically analyze the existing evidence on SARS-CoV-2 risk factors among HCWs. With no geographical limitation, we included studies, in any country, that reported (i) the PCR laboratory diagnosis of COVID-19 as an independent variable (ii) one or more COVID-19 risk factors among HCWs with risk estimates (relative risk, odds ratio, or hazard ratio) (iii) original, quantitative study design, and published in English or Mandarian. Our initial search resulted in 470 articles overall, however, only 10 studies met the inclusion criteria for this review. Out of the 10 studies included in the review, inadequate/ lack of protective personal equipment, performing tracheal intubation, and gender were the most common risk factors of COVID-19. Based on the random effects adjusted pooled relative risk, HCWs who reported the use of protective personal equipment were 29% (95% CI: 16% to 41%) less likely to test positive for COVID-19. The study also revealed that HCWs who performed tracheal intubations were 34% (95% CI: 14% to 57%) more likely to test positive for COVID-19. Interestingly, this study showed that female HCWs are at 11% higher risk (RR 1.11 95% CI 1.01e1.21) of COVID-19 than their male counterparts. This article presents initial findings from a living systematic review and meta-analysis, therefore, did not yield many studies; however, it revealed a significant insight into better understanding COVID-19 risk factors among HCWs; insights important for devising preventive strategies that protect them from this infection.http://www.e-shaw.netam2023School of Health Systems and Public Health (SHSPH

Risk factors for COVID-19 infection among healthcare workers. A first report from a living systematic review and meta-analysis

Health care workers (HCWs) are more than ten times more likely to be infected with COVID-19 compared to the general population, thus demonstrating the burden of COVID-19 among HCWs. Factors that expose HCWs to a differentially high-risk of COVID-19 acquisition are important to elucidate, to enable appropriate public health interventions to mitigate against high risk and reduce adverse outcomes from the infection. We conducted a systematic review and meta analysis to summarise and critically analyse the existing evidence on SARS-CoV-2 risk factors among HCWs. With no geographical limitation, we included studies, in any country, that reported (i) PCR laboratory diagnosis of COVID—19 as an independent variable (ii) one or more COVID-19 risk factors among health care workers with risk estimates (relative risk, odds ratio or harzard ratio) (iii) original, quantitative study design and published in English or Mandarian. Our initial search resulted in 470 articles overall, however, only 10 studies met the inclusion criteria for this review. Out of the 10 studies included in the review, inadequate/lack of protective personal equipment (PPE), performing tracheal intubation (PTI) and gender were the most common risk factors of COVID-19. Based on the random effects adjusted pooled relative risk, HCWs who reported use PPE were 29% (95% CI: 16% to 41%) less likely to test positive for COVID-19. The study also revealed that HCWs who performed tracheal intubations were 34% (95% CI: 14% to 57%) more likely to test positive for COVID-19. Interestingly, this study showed that female HCWs are at 11% higher risk (RR 1.11 95% CI 1.01-1.21) of COVID-19 than their male counterparts. This paper presents initial findings from a living systematic review and meta-analysis, therefore, did not yield many studies, however, it revealed a significant insight to better understand COVID-19 risk factors among HCWs; insights important for devising preventive strategies that protect them from this infection

Systematic review and meta-analysis of the diagnostic accuracy of mobile-linked point-of-care diagnostics in sub-saharan Africa

Mobile health devices are emerging applications that could help deliver point-of-care (POC) diagnosis, particularly in settings with limited laboratory infrastructure, such as Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). The advent of Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 has resulted in an increased deployment and use of mHealth-linked POC diagnostics in SSA. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the accuracy of mobile-linked point-of-care diagnostics in SSA. Our systematic review and meta-analysis were guided by the Preferred Reporting Items requirements for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis. We exhaustively searched PubMed, Science Direct, Google Scholar, MEDLINE, and CINAHL with full text via EBSCOhost databases, from mHealth inception to March 2021. The statistical analyses were conducted using OpenMeta-Analyst software. All 11 included studies were considered for the meta-analysis. The included studies focused on malaria infections, Schistosoma haematobium, Schistosoma mansoni, soil-transmitted helminths, and Trichuris trichiura. The pooled summary of sensitivity and specificity estimates were moderate compared to those of the reference representing the gold standard. The overall pooled estimates of sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio, and diagnostic odds ratio of mobile-linked POC diagnostic devices were as follows: 0.499 (95% CI: 0.458–0.541), 0.535 (95% CI: 0.401–0.663), 0.952 (95% CI: 0.60–1.324), 1.381 (95% CI: 0.391–4.879), and 0.944 (95% CI: 0.579–1.538), respectively. Evidence shows that the diagnostic accuracy of mobile-linked POC diagnostics in detecting infections in SSA is presently moderate. Future research is recommended to evaluate mHealth devices’ diagnostic potential using devices with excellent sensitivities and specificities for diagnosing diseases in this setting.Supplementary file S1: Results from the initial database search.https://www.mdpi.com/journal/diagnosticsam2022School of Health Systems and Public Health (SHSPH

Risk of mortality in HIV-infected COVID-19 patients : a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND : The relationship between HIV infection and COVID-19 clinical outcomes remains a significant public health research problem. We aimed to determine the association of HIV comorbidity with COVID-19 mortality. METHODS : We searched PubMed, Google Scholar and World Health Organization library databases for relevant studies. All searches were conducted from 1st to 7th December 2021. Title, abstract and full text screening was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. The relative risk of mortality in HIV-infected COVID-19 patients was computed using a random-effects model. All analyses were performed using Meta and Metasens statistical packages available in R version 4.2.1 software package. The quality of included studies was assessed using the GRADE approach, Egger’s test was employed to determine the risk of bias. RESULTS : A total of 16 studies were included in this review. Among the COVID-19 patients with HIV infection, the mortality rate due to COVID-19 was 7.97% (4 287/53,801), and among the COVID-19 patients without HIV infection, the mortality rate due to COVID-19 was 0.69% (127, 961/18, 513, 747). In the random effects model, we found no statistically significant relative risk of mortality in HIV-infected COVID-19 patients (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.86–1.32). The between-studies heterogeneity was substantial (I2 = 91%, P < 0.01), while the risk of publication bias was not significant. CONCLUSION : Findings did not link HIV infection with an increased risk of COVID-19 mortality. Our results add to the conflicting data on the relationship between COVID-19 and HIV infection.http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jiphhj2022School of Health Systems and Public Health (SHSPH