6 research outputs found
Postpartum health professional contact for improving maternal and infant health outcomes for healthy women and their infants (Protocol)
This is the protocol for a review and there is no abstract. The objectives are as follows: To assess the effect of health professional contact (e.g. home visits, telehealth contact (other than by telephone), or visits to clinics) with postpartum women, not enrolled in specialised programs, within the first four weeks following hospital discharge on maternal and infant health outcomes
Towards integrated care in breastfeeding support: a cross-sectional survey of practitioners’ perspectives
The IBLCE exam: candidate experience, motivation, study strategies used and predictors of success
Abstract Background Optimising breastfeeding rates is a public health priority. Studies have shown that all forms of extra breastfeeding support increase breastfeeding rates, including support provided by trained health professionals. International Board Certified Lactation Consultants (IBCLCs) are trained healthcare professionals in the clinical management of breastfeeding and human lactation. The IBCLC certification is a sought-after credential and can only be obtained after passing the exam administered by the International Board of Lactation Consultant Examiners (IBLCE). In Slovenia and Croatia, the IBLCE exam has been offered since 2006 and 2009, respectively. In this study, our aim was to 1) determine which candidate characteristics are associated with a passing grade on the IBLCE exam; and 2) analyse differences between candidates from Slovenia and Croatia, given Slovenians’ higher achievements in the past. Methods In February, 2017, a 4-page, 36-question survey was sent via Survey Monkey to the available email addresses of all past IBLCE exam candidates in Croatia and Slovenia. Questions covered sociodemographic data, breastfeeding education, exam preparation, motivation and experience taking the IBLCE exam. Results Ninety-two participants completed the online survey: 36 from Croatia and 55 from Slovenia, giving a response of 47 and 52%, respectively. No significant difference was found in pass rates between the two countries, despite Slovenians being younger and spending more time observing normal breastfeeding dyads. Variables found to be significantly more common among respondents who passed the IBLCE exam included: attending breastfeeding conferences/symposiums, using a breastfeeding atlas and studying with others. Statistical predictors of IBLCE exam success were: number of hours of bedside teaching, perceived clarity of photographs and breastfeeding conference/symposium attendance. Respondents who reported that they had attended a breastfeeding conference/symposium, had less hours of bedside teaching and perceived exam photographs as completely clear, were 7.49 (95% CI 2.26, 24.84), 0.48 (95% CI 0.28, 0.82), and 3.49 (95% CI 1.17, 10.41) times more likely to pass the exam, respectively. Conclusion Breastfeeding conference attendance, less bedside teaching and perceived clarity of exam photographs may be predictors of IBLCE exam success. Further studies on larger samples of exam candidates are required to confirm our findings and determine other factors associated with passing the IBLCE exam
The IBLCE exam: candidate experience, motivation, study strategies used and predictors of success
Novel Coronavirus Infection (COVID-19) in Humans: A Scoping Review and Meta-Analysis
A growing body of literature on the 2019 novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) is becoming available, but a synthesis of available data has not been conducted. We performed a scoping review of currently available clinical, epidemiological, laboratory, and chest imaging data related to the SARS-CoV-2 infection. We searched MEDLINE, Cochrane CENTRAL, EMBASE, Scopus and LILACS from 01 January 2019 to 24 February 2020. Study selection, data extraction and risk of bias assessment were performed by two independent reviewers. Qualitative synthesis and meta-analysis were conducted using the clinical and laboratory data, and random-effects models were applied to estimate pooled results. A total of 61 studies were included (59,254 patients). The most common disease-related symptoms were fever (82%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 56%–99%; n = 4410), cough (61%, 95% CI 39%–81%; n = 3985), muscle aches and/or fatigue (36%, 95% CI 18%–55%; n = 3778), dyspnea (26%, 95% CI 12%–41%; n = 3700), headache in 12% (95% CI 4%–23%, n = 3598 patients), sore throat in 10% (95% CI 5%–17%, n = 1387) and gastrointestinal symptoms in 9% (95% CI 3%–17%, n = 1744). Laboratory findings were described in a lower number of patients and revealed lymphopenia (0.93 × 109/L, 95% CI 0.83–1.03 × 109/L, n = 464) and abnormal C-reactive protein (33.72 mg/dL, 95% CI 21.54–45.91 mg/dL; n = 1637). Radiological findings varied, but mostly described ground-glass opacities and consolidation. Data on treatment options were limited. All-cause mortality was 0.3% (95% CI 0.0%–1.0%; n = 53,631). Epidemiological studies showed that mortality was higher in males and elderly patients. The majority of reported clinical symptoms and laboratory findings related to SARS-CoV-2 infection are non-specific. Clinical suspicion, accompanied by a relevant epidemiological history, should be followed by early imaging and virological assay
Clinical, laboratory and radiological characteristics and outcomes of novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) infection in humans: A systematic review and series of meta-analyses.
New evidence on the COVID-19 pandemic is being published daily. Ongoing high-quality assessment of this literature is therefore needed to enable clinical practice to be evidence-based. This review builds on a previous scoping review and aimed to identify associations between disease severity and various clinical, laboratory and radiological characteristics. We searched MEDLINE, CENTRAL, EMBASE, Scopus and LILACS for studies published between January 1, 2019 and March 22, 2020. Clinical studies including ≥10 patients with confirmed COVID-19 of any study design were eligible. Two investigators independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. A quality effects model was used for the meta-analyses. Subgroup analysis and meta-regression identified sources of heterogeneity. For hospitalized patients, studies were ordered by overall disease severity of each population and this order was used as the modifier variable in meta-regression. Overall, 86 studies (n = 91,621) contributed data to the meta-analyses. Severe disease was strongly associated with fever, cough, dyspnea, pneumonia, any computed tomography findings, any ground glass opacity, lymphocytopenia, elevated C-reactive protein, elevated alanine aminotransferase, elevated aspartate aminotransferase, older age and male sex. These variables typically increased in prevalence by 30-73% from mild/early disease through to moderate/severe disease. Among hospitalized patients, 30-78% of heterogeneity was explained by severity of disease. Elevated white blood cell count was strongly associated with more severe disease among moderate/severe hospitalized patients. Elevated lymphocytes, low platelets, interleukin-6, erythrocyte sedimentation rate and D-dimers showed potential associations, while fatigue, gastrointestinal symptoms, consolidation and septal thickening showed non-linear association patterns. Headache and sore throat were associated with the presence of disease, but not with more severe disease. In COVID-19, more severe disease is strongly associated with several clinical, laboratory and radiological characteristics. Symptoms and other variables in early/mild disease appear non-specific and highly heterogeneous. Clinical Trial Registration: PROSPERO CRD42020170623