Background Pregnant patients are potentially vulnerable to COVID‐19. Objectives To clarify the clinical features of COVID‐19 and analyze maternal/fetal morbidity and mortality and the obstetric and neonatal outcomes of pregnant patients. Search strategy Embase, PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHAL, LILACS, Google Scholar, and Scopus. Selection criteria Articles published from December 2019 to February 2021. Data collection and analysis The reviewers extracted relevant data from the full‐text. Data synthesis was performed using the R‐4.1.0 Project for Statistical Computing for Windows. The meta‐analysis of the included studies was carried out using the random‐effects model (DerSimonian and Laird). Heterogeneity was measured using I2 analysis. Results A total of 70 studies included 10 047 pregnant women with COVID‐19, of whom 71.6% were in their third trimester. The most common symptoms were fever, cough, chest pain, dyspnea, and fatigue. Most newborns were delivered preterm (24%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.17–0.34, I2 = 93%) and via cesarean delivery (42%, 95% CI 0.38–0.47, I2 = 92%). There were 108 maternal mortalities (2%, 95% CI 0.01–0.03, I2 = 54%) and 50 abortions (5%, 95% CI 0.03–0.09, I2 = 73%). The neonatal outcomes included fetal distress (11%, 95% CI 0.06–0.19, I2 = 91%), birth weight (15%, 95% CI 0.10–0.21, I2 = 76%), APGAR <7 (19%, 95% CI 0.12–0.28, I2 = 43%), admission to the neonatal intensive care unit (28%, 95% CI 0.17–0.43, I2 = 90%), and fetal mortality (2%, 95% CI 0.01–0.03, I2 = 46%). Conclusion  There was no evidence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus‐2 in the placenta, breast milk, umbilical cord, and amniotic fluid of pregnant patients. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42020181519.

IntroductionSARS-CoV-2 is responsible for a large number of global COVID-19 cases. Strategies such as social isolation, personal hygiene and frequent hand washing have been implemented; however, a protective vaccine is required to achieve sufficient herd immunity to SARS-CoV-2 infection to ultimately control the COVID-19 pandemic. To meet the urgent need for a vaccine, a reduction in the development schedule has been proposed from 10–15 years to 1–2 years. For this reason, this systematic review and meta-analysis protocol aims to compare the side effects, safety and toxicity of COVID-19 vaccines available globally, including their combinations.Methods and analysisWe will select randomised controlled trial-type studies that evaluate the side effects of the COVID-19 vaccine. PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, LILACS, SCOPUS, ClinicalTrials.gov, International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), medRxiv.org, biorxiv.org, preprints.org and the Cochrane Library will be searched for eligible studies until December 2021. Three reviewers will independently screen and select studies, assess methodological quality and extract data. A meta-analysis will be performed, if possible, and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations summary of findings will be presented.Ethics and disseminationThis study will review published data, and thus it is unnecessary to obtain ethical approval. The findings of this systematic review will be published in a peer-reviewed journal.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42021231101.

Introduction Studies carried out during previous pandemics revealed an increase in the prevalence of Burnout Syndrome and other psychiatric disorders among health professionals. A high prevalence of psychiatric disorders is also observed in some health categories, during the COVID-19 pandemic. Objective This systematic review/meta-analysis study aims to assess the prevalence of Burnout Syndrome and other psychiatric disorders (depression, anxiety, stress, and insomnia) among health care professionals and other support professionals during the COVID-19 pandemic. Inclusion criteria Observational studies published from December 2019, without language restrictions in which the prevalence of Burnout Syndrome and other psychiatric disorders among health professionals during the COVID-19 pandemic will be assessed. Methods PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, CINAHAL, PsycINFO, LILACS, SCOPUS, and The Cochrane Library will be searched for eligible studies. Two reviewers will independently screen and select studies, assess methodological quality, and extract data. A meta-analysis will be performed, if possible, and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment Development and Evaluation (GRADE). Ethics and disclosure This study will use secondary data. Thus, there is no need for submission to the ethics committee. The results of this systematic review will be published in a journal after a peer-review process. Trial registration Systematic review registration number: CRD42020212036.

Trata-se de um relato de experiência de estudantes dos cursos de enfermagem na perspectiva de expor a Fitoterapia como uma forma alternativa de terapêutica para assistência em Enfermagem. A Fitoterapia é terapia alternativa que é desenvolvida com o uso de plantas medicinais. Tem a finalidade de tratar e prevenir doenças, atualmente, tem se configurado como uma escolha mais natural e menos lesiva à saúde. Trata-se um relato de experiência de uma atividade vivenciada e elaborada por graduandos de enfermagem durante a disciplina de Terapias Naturais e Complementares, que tinha por objetivo conhecer melhor os Fitoterápicos e saber como utilizá-los na assistência em Enfermagem. Na realização dessa prática observamos que o conhecimento empírico pode torna-se cientifico, porém é necessário pesquisas e discussões no campo científico para consolidar o conhecimento popular; em relação à Enfermagem, a mesma, encontra na Fitoterapia uma nova alternativa para prestar uma assistência eficaz e satisfatória ao cliente. Conclui-se que as formas de terapias naturais se constituem mais uma medida de conhecimento para os futuros profissionais, para que os mesmos possam desenvolver um cuidado de enfermagem mais eficaz, estimulando a adoção da Fitoterapia nos programas de saúde pública.

The public disservice in health has become part of the daily lives of citizens, even with public policies of humanization and decentralization of services, representing an exceptional milestone for Brazilian public health. Thus, this research will investigate the proposal for decentralization and humanization of services to users, in line with article 6 of the Federal Constitution of Brazil (1988), and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It consists of a bibliographic survey, in which it was investigated through the Virtual Library in Saúyde, in the SciELO, LILACS databases and in the national legislation portal, in which the laws, decrees and ordinances referring to the subject of the study were researched, since which aims to present a proposal for the decentralization and humanization of health services to users in Brazil. 17 publications were analyzed in full, which were suitable for the purpose of this review. The decentralization of health services in Brazil is an important advance, bringing autonomy to health regions and a more directed management towards the adequate allocation of public resources to health in the country. Despite the legal support, what is perceived in practice is still far from what was expected and there is a long way to go to reach the desired quality standard when it comes to humanization of care. It is concluded, then, that even if the current legislation, there is still an important path to be followed for the health services provided in our country, present the desired level of excellence.