No abstract

Background: Monkeypox virus re-surged in May 2022 as a new potential global health threat, with outbreaks bursting in multiple countries across different continents. This study was conducted in Saudi Arabia during the first month following the WHO announcement of the Monkeypox outbreak, to assess healthcare workers (HCWs) perceptions of, worries concerning, and vaccine acceptance for, Monkeypox, in light of the resolving COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: A national cross-sectional survey was conducted between 27 May and 10 June 2022, in Saudi Arabia. Data were collected on: HCWs’ sociodemographic and job-related characteristics; COVID-19 infection status; and worries concerning Monkeypox, compared to COVID-19 and its sources; as well as their perceptions and awareness of, and advocacy for, supporting Monkeypox vaccination. Results: A total of 1130 HCWs completed the survey, of which 41.6% have already developed COVID-19. However, 56.5% were more concerned about COVID-19 compared to Monkeypox, while the rest were more worried about Monkeypox disease. The main cause for concern among 68.8% of the participants was the development of another worldwide pandemic, post-COVID-19, followed by their concern of either themselves or their families contracting the infection (49.6%). Most HCWs (60%) rated their level of self-awareness of Monkeypox disease as moderate to high. Males, and those who had previously developed COVID-19, were significantly less likely to worry about Monkeypox. The worry about Monkeypox developing into a pandemic, and the perception of Monkeypox being a severe disease, correlated significantly positively with the odds of high worry concerning the disease. The major predictors of participants’ advocacy for vaccination against Monkeypox disease were: those who had developed COVID-19 previously; and those who supported tighter infection control measures (than those currently used) to combat the disease. A total of 74.2% of the surveyed HCWs perceived that they needed to read more about Monkeypox disease. Conclusions: Approximately half of the HCWs in this study were more concerned about Monkeypox disease than COVID-19, particularly regarding its possible progression into a new pandemic, during the first month following the WHO’s Monkeypox international alert. In addition, the majority of participants were in favor of applying tighter infection prevention measures to combat the disease. The current study highlights areas requiring attention for healthcare administrators regarding HCWs’ perceptions and preparedness for Monkeypox, especially in the event of a local or international pandemic.

There are many active drugs to treat metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) patients who progress through their first-line vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) inhibitor. Many clinicians choose a second-line VEGF inhibitor based on the type of response to first-line VEGF inhibitor, without data supporting this practice. This study was conducted to determine the association of response to second-line VEGF inhibitor with response to first-line VEGF inhibitor. All mRCC patients in participating centers of the International mRCC Database Consortium who were treated from January 2004 through June 2011 with a second-line VEGF inhibitor after failure of a different first-line VEGF inhibitor were retrospectively identified. The primary outcome is objective response rate (ORR) and the secondary outcome is progression-free survival (PFS) in each line of therapy. Of 1,602 total database patients, 464 patients received a first- and second-line VEGF inhibitor. The ORR to first-line therapy was 22 %, and the ORR to second-line therapy was 11 %. The ORR to second-line therapy was not different among patients achieving partial response versus stable disease versus progressive disease to first-line therapy (14 % vs. 10 % vs. 11 %, respectively; chi-squared trend test p=0.17). The median PFS on first-line VEGF-targeted therapy was 7.5 months (95 % CI, 6.6–8.1), and the median PFS on second-line VEGF inhibitor was 3.9 months (95 % CI, 3.6–4.5). There was no correlation between first-line and second-line PFS (Pearson correlation coefficient 0.025; p=0.59). The clinical response to a second-line VEGF inhibitor is not dependent on response to the first-line VEGF-inhibitor. Further studies are needed to define clinical parameters that predict response to second-line therapy to optimize the sequence of VEGF-targeted therapy in metastatic RCC patients.

Objective: We aimed to assess the level of fear among nurses in Saudi Arabia during the COVID-19 outbreak.Methods: A cross-sectional survey-based study was conducted from June to August 2020. All nurses currently working in public and private hospitals in Saudi Arabia during the COVID-19 pandemic were invited to complete an online survey. We used the 7-item unidimensional Fear of COVID-19 Scale (FCV-19S) to assess the level of fear of COVID-19. Multiple regression analysis was used to identify predictors associated with fear of COVID-19.Results: A total of 969 nurses participated in this study. The participants were relatively young with a mean age of 35.5 ± 10.46 years. About two-thirds of the participants were women (65.9%), married (57.2%), and were non-Saudi nationals (67%). The total mean score for the FCV-19S was 19.7 SD 7.03 (range 7–35), which is near the mid-point, indicating a moderate level of fear of COVID-19. Out of the eight variables measured in the analysis, three variables emerged as a significant predictor (i.e., gender, marital status, and age). A higher level of fear (FCV-19S) was associated with being a woman, married, and older age (p ≤ 0.05).Conclusion: This study demonstrated the level of fear of COVID-19 among nurses in Saudi Arabia. Overall, nurses in Saudi reported moderate levels of fear of COVID-19. Assessing the level of fear of nurses who work during the COVID-19 pandemic should be a priority to health care administrators to prevent mental health difficulties or psychological injury.

Several studies have been conducted to investigate the barriers to implementing evidence-based practice (EBP) worldwide. In Saudi Arabia, a few studies were conducted in hospital and mental health settings, and no study has explored the topic in primary healthcare settings. This study aimed to examine the barriers perceived by primary healthcare nurses in implementing EBP. This study employed a correlational and cross-sectional design. A total of 284 nurses were surveyed using the BARRIERS scale. Regression analysis was performed to identify the effects of predictor variables on the four subscales. The overall raw score on the BARRIERS scale was 86.21 (standard deviation = 16.15). The highest mean score was reported in the organizational subscale, followed by the innovation and communication subscales, whereas the lowest mean score was reported in the adopter subscale. The findings showed that the three top-ranked barriers were: (1) results of the studies are not generalizable to nurses’ setting, (2) facilities are inadequate, and (3) physicians do not cooperate with the implementation. Findings showed that nurses encounter organizational-related barriers to a moderate extent and EBP implementation varies depending on gender, level of education, and job position. There is a need to create and implement educational interventions and programs to overcome the barriers to effective EBP implementation among primary healthcare nurses.