Mortality from gastrointestinal congenital anomalies at 264 hospitals in 74 low-income, middle-income, and high-income countries: a multicentre, international, prospective cohort study

Summary Background Congenital anomalies are the fifth leading cause of mortality in children younger than 5 years globally. Many gastrointestinal congenital anomalies are fatal without timely access to neonatal surgical care, but few studies have been done on these conditions in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). We compared outcomes of the seven most common gastrointestinal congenital anomalies in low-income, middle-income, and high-income countries globally, and identified factors associated with mortality. Methods We did a multicentre, international prospective cohort study of patients younger than 16 years, presenting to hospital for the first time with oesophageal atresia, congenital diaphragmatic hernia, intestinal atresia, gastroschisis, exomphalos, anorectal malformation, and Hirschsprung’s disease. Recruitment was of consecutive patients for a minimum of 1 month between October, 2018, and April, 2019. We collected data on patient demographics, clinical status, interventions, and outcomes using the REDCap platform. Patients were followed up for 30 days after primary intervention, or 30 days after admission if they did not receive an intervention. The primary outcome was all-cause, in-hospital mortality for all conditions combined and each condition individually, stratified by country income status. We did a complete case analysis. Findings We included 3849 patients with 3975 study conditions (560 with oesophageal atresia, 448 with congenital diaphragmatic hernia, 681 with intestinal atresia, 453 with gastroschisis, 325 with exomphalos, 991 with anorectal malformation, and 517 with Hirschsprung’s disease) from 264 hospitals (89 in high-income countries, 166 in middleincome countries, and nine in low-income countries) in 74 countries. Of the 3849 patients, 2231 (58·0%) were male. Median gestational age at birth was 38 weeks (IQR 36–39) and median bodyweight at presentation was 2·8 kg (2·3–3·3). Mortality among all patients was 37 (39·8%) of 93 in low-income countries, 583 (20·4%) of 2860 in middle-income countries, and 50 (5·6%) of 896 in high-income countries (p<0·0001 between all country income groups). Gastroschisis had the greatest difference in mortality between country income strata (nine [90·0%] of ten in lowincome countries, 97 [31·9%] of 304 in middle-income countries, and two [1·4%] of 139 in high-income countries; p≤0·0001 between all country income groups). Factors significantly associated with higher mortality for all patients combined included country income status (low-income vs high-income countries, risk ratio 2·78 [95% CI 1·88–4·11], p<0·0001; middle-income vs high-income countries, 2·11 [1·59–2·79], p<0·0001), sepsis at presentation (1·20 [1·04–1·40], p=0·016), higher American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score at primary intervention (ASA 4–5 vs ASA 1–2, 1·82 [1·40–2·35], p<0·0001; ASA 3 vs ASA 1–2, 1·58, [1·30–1·92], p<0·0001]), surgical safety checklist not used (1·39 [1·02–1·90], p=0·035), and ventilation or parenteral nutrition unavailable when needed (ventilation 1·96, [1·41–2·71], p=0·0001; parenteral nutrition 1·35, [1·05–1·74], p=0·018). Administration of parenteral nutrition (0·61, [0·47–0·79], p=0·0002) and use of a peripherally inserted central catheter (0·65 [0·50–0·86], p=0·0024) or percutaneous central line (0·69 [0·48–1·00], p=0·049) were associated with lower mortality. Interpretation Unacceptable differences in mortality exist for gastrointestinal congenital anomalies between lowincome, middle-income, and high-income countries. Improving access to quality neonatal surgical care in LMICs will be vital to achieve Sustainable Development Goal 3.2 of ending preventable deaths in neonates and children younger than 5 years by 2030

Arabic Patient-Reported Measures of Activity and Participation for Children: A Systematic Review of Psychometric Properties

Aim: To systematically review measurement properties of Arabic patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) that assess activity and participation in children with and without health conditions. Method: Four databases were searched. Arabic PROMs with focus on activity and/or participation constructs were selected. Data on measurement properties were extracted and the methodological quality of the studies was assessed by COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) risk of bias checklist. Result: Of the total 149 articles screened, only 10 studies involving 10 measures that assessed activity and/or participation in children with or without health conditions were included. The focus of all PROMs is primarily on the activity of daily living at home and/or school, but dimensions of measurement differed across PROMs. None of the PROMs demonstrated sufficient properties for all psychometrics. The most studied psychometric property was internal consistency, whereas the least studied psychometric property was structural validity. Responsiveness was not investigated in any of the studies included. Conclusions: Despite the presence of Arabic PROMs on activity and participation for children, none of the reviewed measures satisfied all psychometric properties. Clinicians and researchers are encouraged to carefully select PROMs that are psychometrically sound and appropriate for the construct being measured

Prevalence and factors associated with low back pain among health care workers in southwestern Saudi Arabia

Abstract Background The purpose was to measure the prevalence and related risk factors of low back pain (LBP) among health care workers (HCWs) at different levels of health care in southwestern Saudi Arabia. Methods A cross-sectional study using a self-administered questionnaire was conducted among HCWs providing primary, secondary and tertiary health care services in the Aseer region, southwestern Saudi Arabia. The questionnaire collected data regarding having LBP in the past 12 months, socio-demographics, work conditions and history of chronic diseases, regular physical exercise and overexertional back trauma. Univariate and multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed. Results Out of 740 participants, the overall prevalence of LBP in the past 12 months amounted to73.9% (95% CI: 70.7–77.0). The prevalence of LBP with neurological symptoms reached 50.0%. The prevalence of LBP necessitating medications and or physiotherapy was 40.5%, while the prevalence of LBP requiring medical consultation was 20%. Using multivariable logistic regression, the following risk factors were identified: working in secondary and tertiary hospitals (aOR = 1.32, 95% CI:1.01–1.76), increased BMI (aOR = 1.10, 95% CI:1.01–3.65), and positive history of overexertional back trauma (aOR = 11.52, 95% CI:4.14–32.08). On the other hand, practising regular physical exercise was a significant protective factor (aOR = 0.61, 95% CI: 0.42–0.89). Conclusions LBP is a common problem among HCWs. Many preventable risk factors have been identified, including exertional back trauma, increased BMI and lack of regular physical exercise. Occupational health and safety programmes to build ergonomically safe working conditions and encourage regular physical exercise are needed

Violence towards healthcare workers: A study conducted in Abha City, Saudi Arabia

Background: Workplace violence in healthcare settings is a common, but an underreported problem that has been largely ignored. Violence against healthcare workers can have an adverse effect on their performance outcomes and thus influence patients' health and satisfaction. The aim of this study was to determine the frequency and types of violence against healthcare workers in a Saudi Arabian city. It was also to identify the risk factors of violence against healthcare workers and to investigate the possible consequences of such behavior. Materials and Methods: In Abha city, there are two government hospitals and ten primary healthcare centers. All healthcare workers in these healthcare institutions including physicians, nurses, dentists, pharmacists, laboratory technicians or specialists, radiologists, social workers, and psychologists were eligible to participate in this cross-sectional study. Data were collected using a structured self-administered questionnaire. Results: A total of 738 healthcare workers responded (92% response rate). The mean age was 31 ± 7.7 years (range 21–60) and the majority (64.9%) were females and 69.4% were Saudis. More than half (57.5%) had experienced some workplace violence at least once. Verbal assaults and slaps were the most common form of workplace-related violence (58%). Conclusions: Violence against healthcare workers in Abha city is more common, especially against nurses. The reasons need to be explored in order to set and develop policies, regulations and interventions to prevent violence against workers

COVID-19 Vaccine Uptake and Hesitancy among Pregnant and Lactating Women in Saudi Arabia

Introduction: Pregnant and breastfeeding women comprise a high-risk group for the development of severe COVID-19. Therefore, vaccination is highly recommended for perinatal women; however, vaccination levels for this group remain inadequate. This study explores the percentage of COVID-19 vaccination among Saudi pregnant and lactating women, as well as their attitudes toward it. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional questionnaire-based survey on a sample of Saudi pregnant and breastfeeding women. The study included pregnant and lactating women. Results: The percentage of COVID-19 vaccine uptake was 78.2%. A total of 45 (21.8%) out of 206 women did not receive the vaccine. The overall vaccine hesitancy was 21.8%. Breastfeeding women were 2.86 more likely not to receive the vaccine as compared to pregnant women. Being a mother of over five children increased the vaccine uptake among our participating women (n = 20, 90%; p < 0.01). The majority of the subjects had taken the Pfizer vaccine (81.98%, 132/161). The availability of the COVID-19 vaccine was the most common factor for choosing a particular vaccine. Protection from infection (60.2%, 97/161) was reported as the main driver for vaccine uptake. The most common reason perceived for delaying COVID-19 vaccination was being worried about the side effects (176, 85.44%) on one’s own body and the effects on the unborn child (130, 63.1%). Conclusion: We uncovered high levels of hesitancy, primarily induced by concerns about adverse effects and social media-related misinformation. These high levels of vaccine uptake are likely due to the large-scale obligatory vaccination program provided in Saudi Arabia, which was well-structured and far reaching. Our results provide further support for the so-called “protection motivation theory” in boosting vaccine acceptance. Counseling and educating pregnant and breastfeeding women about COVID-19 vaccination is the need of the hour

COVID-19 Vaccine Uptake and Hesitancy among Pregnant and Lactating Women in Saudi Arabia

Introduction: Pregnant and breastfeeding women comprise a high-risk group for the development of severe COVID-19. Therefore, vaccination is highly recommended for perinatal women; however, vaccination levels for this group remain inadequate. This study explores the percentage of COVID-19 vaccination among Saudi pregnant and lactating women, as well as their attitudes toward it. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional questionnaire-based survey on a sample of Saudi pregnant and breastfeeding women. The study included pregnant and lactating women. Results: The percentage of COVID-19 vaccine uptake was 78.2%. A total of 45 (21.8%) out of 206 women did not receive the vaccine. The overall vaccine hesitancy was 21.8%. Breastfeeding women were 2.86 more likely not to receive the vaccine as compared to pregnant women. Being a mother of over five children increased the vaccine uptake among our participating women (n = 20, 90%; p &lt; 0.01). The majority of the subjects had taken the Pfizer vaccine (81.98%, 132/161). The availability of the COVID-19 vaccine was the most common factor for choosing a particular vaccine. Protection from infection (60.2%, 97/161) was reported as the main driver for vaccine uptake. The most common reason perceived for delaying COVID-19 vaccination was being worried about the side effects (176, 85.44%) on one&rsquo;s own body and the effects on the unborn child (130, 63.1%). Conclusion: We uncovered high levels of hesitancy, primarily induced by concerns about adverse effects and social media-related misinformation. These high levels of vaccine uptake are likely due to the large-scale obligatory vaccination program provided in Saudi Arabia, which was well-structured and far reaching. Our results provide further support for the so-called &ldquo;protection motivation theory&rdquo; in boosting vaccine acceptance. Counseling and educating pregnant and breastfeeding women about COVID-19 vaccination is the need of the hour

SARS-CoV-2 vaccination modelling for safe surgery to save lives: data from an international prospective cohort study

Background: Preoperative SARS-CoV-2 vaccination could support safer elective surgery. Vaccine numbers are limited so this study aimed to inform their prioritization by modelling. Methods: The primary outcome was the number needed to vaccinate (NNV) to prevent one COVID-19-related death in 1 year. NNVs were based on postoperative SARS-CoV-2 rates and mortality in an international cohort study (surgical patients), and community SARS-CoV-2 incidence and case fatality data (general population). NNV estimates were stratified by age (18-49, 50-69, 70 or more years) and type of surgery. Best- and worst-case scenarios were used to describe uncertainty. Results: NNVs were more favourable in surgical patients than the general population. The most favourable NNVs were in patients aged 70 years or more needing cancer surgery (351; best case 196, worst case 816) or non-cancer surgery (733; best case 407, worst case 1664). Both exceeded the NNV in the general population (1840; best case 1196, worst case 3066). NNVs for surgical patients remained favourable at a range of SARS-CoV-2 incidence rates in sensitivity analysis modelling. Globally, prioritizing preoperative vaccination of patients needing elective surgery ahead of the general population could prevent an additional 58 687 (best case 115 007, worst case 20 177) COVID-19-related deaths in 1 year. Conclusion: As global roll out of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination proceeds, patients needing elective surgery should be prioritized ahead of the general population