BackgroundSingle studies support the presence of several post‐COVID‐19 symptoms; however, there is no evidence for the synthesis of symptoms.ObjectiveWe attempt to provide an overview of the persistent symptoms that post‐COVID‐19 patients encounter, as well as the duration of these symptoms to help them plan their rehabilitation.DesignSystematic review and meta‐analysis.ParticipantsA total of 16 studies involving 8756 patients post‐COVID‐19 were included.MethodsThe CINAHL, PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were searched from 2019 to August 2021. Observational studies that reported data on post‐COVID‐19 symptoms were included. The methodological quality of the studies was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal for Observational Studies. We included medium‐ to high‐quality studies. We used a random‐effects model for the meta‐analytical pooled prevalence of each post‐COVID‐19 symptom, and I2 statistics for heterogeneity.ResultsFrom the 2481 studies identified, 16 met the inclusion criteria. The sample included 7623 hospitalised and 1133 non‐hospitalised patients. We found the most prevalent symptoms were fatigue and dyspnea with a pooled prevalence ranging from 42% (27%–58%). Other post‐COVID‐19 symptoms included sleep disturbance 28% (14%–45%), cough 25% (10%–44%), anosmia/ageusia 24% (7%–47%), fever 21% (4%–47%), myalgia 17% (2%–41%), chest pain 11% (5%–20%), and headache 9% (2%–20%). In addition to physical symptoms, anxiety/depression was also prevalent 27% (8%–53%).ConclusionsFatigue and dyspnea were the most prevalent post‐COVID‐19 symptoms and experienced up to 12 months.Relevance to clinical practiceMultiple persistent symptoms are still experienced until 12 months of post‐Covid 19. This meta‐analysis should provide some awareness to nurses to highlights the unmet healthcare needs of post‐COVID‐19 patients. Long‐term monitoring for the evaluation and treatment of symptoms and conditions and rehabilitation programs should be conducted.

Aim: To identify, appraise and synthesize the available evidence from qualitative research exploring the suffering of patients with cancer during their illness trajectories. Design: Protocol for a qualitative systematic review. Data Sources: The database will include PubMed, CINAHL and Psych Info were searched in May 2020. Methods: The review protocol has been registered in International Prospective Register for Systematic Review (CRD42020165405). This review will systematically search qualitative research studies in databases from 1982-May 2020, with predetermined search terms. Searches are limited to studies in English. Two reviewers will independently appraise the methodological quality of the selected studies using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist for Qualitative Research. Disagreements can be settled through discussion which includes a third reviewer, if necessary. This review will use the meta-aggregative approach to analyze and synthesize data. A summary of findings from selected studies will be presented. Discussion: Suffering is a complex dimension that included physical psychological, existential and social dimensions. This review will enable nurses to gain an in-depth understanding of suffering that not only worsens at the end of life that can deliver comprehensive care. Impact: This review is designed to systematically identify and explore the suffering that patients with cancer experience during their illness trajectory. Often suffering is highlighted at the end of life phase. This review will synthesize the evidence of suffering from the beginning of the patient's diagnosis to the end of life. The results of this review provide evidence to support nursing developments in education and clinical practice so that understanding of cancer can be optimized. The findings of the proposed review will contribute as a basis for recommendations for future research regarding suffering.

No abstract

E‐health technology has been widely implemented in healthcare systems and has many benefits. However, available studies that focus on the acceptance and adoption of e‐health technology, particularly among older people in primary care centers, are still limited. A qualitative approach was adopted in this study to explore the acceptability and adoption of health technology among older people who use primary health care. Semistructured interviews were conducted with 11 older people to gain in‐depth insight into their perspectives on health technology. An inductive thematic analysis was conducted to gain insight from older people. Three main themes emerged: (1) “demand of care” refers a situation where participants realized that they had a health problem, sought ways to solve the health problem, and expected to be cared and monitored; (2) “resistance and openness” represent technology acceptance by older people; and (3) “preference for home health monitoring”: We found older people preferred home health monitoring in terms of comfort and ease of use. The study has provided important new knowledge in relation to acceptance and preference for health technology that currently exists, particularly among older people in Indonesia.