Introduction: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has significantly affected health care workers (HCWs), including their mental health. However, there has been limited evidence on this topic in the Vietnamese context. Therefore, this study aimed to explore COVID-19-related, psychological stress risk factors among HCWs, their concerns and demands for mental health support during the pandemic period.Methods: We employed a cross-sectional study design with convenience sampling. An online, self-administered questionnaire was used and distributed through social media among medical and non-medical HCWs from April 22 to May 12, 2020. HCWs were categorized either as frontline or non-frontline. We measured the prevalence of psychological stress using the Impact of Event Scale-Revised (IES-R) instrument. Multivariate binary logistic regression analysis was performed to identify risk factors associated with psychological stress among HCWs.Results: Among the 774 enrolled participants, 761 (98.3%) eligible subjects were included in the analysis. Most respondents were females (58.2%), between 31 and 40 years of age (37.1%), lived in areas where confirmed COVID-19 cases had been reported (61.9%), medical HCWs (59.9%) and practiced being at the frontline (46.3%). The prevalence of stress was 34.3%. We identified significant risk factors such as being frontline HCWs (odds ratio [OR] = 1.77 [95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.17–2.67]), perceiving worse well-being as compared to those before the COVID-19 outbreak [OR = 4.06 (95% CI: 2.15–7.67)], and experiencing chronic diseases [OR = 1.67 (95% CI: (1.01–2.77)]. Majority (73.9%) were concerned about testing positive for COVID-19 and exposing the infection to their families. Web-based psychological interventions that could provide knowledge on managing mental distress and consulting services were highly demanded among HCWs.Conclusion: The prevalence of psychological stress among HCWs in Vietnam during the COVID-19 pandemic was high. There were also significant risk factors associated with it. Psychological interventions involving web-based consulting services are highly recommended to provide mental health support among HCWs.

Background: The first nationwide lockdown due to the COVID-19 pandemic was implemented in Vietnam from April 1 to 15, 2020. Nevertheless, there has been limited information on the impact of COVID-19 on the psychological health of the public. Objective: This study aimed to estimate the prevalence of psychological issues and identify the factors associated with the psychological impact of COVID-19 during the first nationwide lockdown among the general population in Vietnam. Methods: We employed a cross-sectional study design with convenience sampling. A self-administered, online survey was used to collect data and assess psychological distress, depression, anxiety, and stress of participants from April 10 to 15, 2020. The Impact of Event Scale-Revised (IES-R) and the Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Scale-21 (DASS-21) were utilized to assess psychological distress, depression, anxiety, and stress of participants during social distancing due to COVID-19. Associations across factors were explored using regression analysis. Results: A total of 1385 respondents completed the survey. Of this, 35.9% (n=497) experienced psychological distress, as well as depression (n=325, 23.5%), anxiety (n=195, 14.1%), and stress (n=309, 22.3%). Respondents who evaluated their physical health as average had a higher IES-R score (beta coefficient [B]=9.16, 95% CI 6.43 to 11.89), as well as higher depression (B=5.85, 95% CI 4.49 to 7.21), anxiety (B=3.64, 95% CI 2.64 to 4.63), and stress (B=5.19, 95% CI 3.83 to 6.56) scores for DASS-21 than those who rated their health as good or very good. Those who self-reported their health as bad or very bad experienced more severe depression (B=9.57, 95% CI 4.54 to 14.59), anxiety (B=7.24, 95% CI 3.55 to 10.9), and stress (B=10.60, 95% CI 5.56 to 15.65). Unemployment was more likely to be associated with depression (B=3.34, 95% CI 1.68 to 5.01) and stress (B=2.34, 95% CI 0.84 to 3.85). Regarding worries about COVID-19, more than half (n=755, 54.5%) expressed concern for their children aged <18 years, which increased their IES-R score (B=7.81, 95% CI 4.98 to 10.64) and DASS-21 stress score (B=1.75, 95% CI 0.27 to 3.24). The majority of respondents (n=1335, 96.4%) were confident about their doctor's expertise in terms of COVID-19 diagnosis and treatment, which was positively associated with less distress caused by the outbreak (B=-7.84, 95% CI-14.58 to-1.11).

Although clopidogrel is a frequently used antiplatelet medication to treat and prevent atherothrombotic disease, clinicians must balance its clinical effectiveness with the potential side effect of bleeding. However, many previous studies have evaluated beneficial and adverse factors separately. The objective of our study was to perform a comprehensive meta‐analysis of studies of clopidogrel’s clinical effectiveness and/or risk of bleeding in order to identify and assess all reported risk factors, thus helping clinicians to balance patient safety with drug efficacy. We analyzed randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of maintenance use in four stages: search for relevant primary articles; abstract and full article screening; quality assessment and data extraction; and synthesis and data analysis. Screening of 7,109 articles yielded 52 RCTs that met the inclusion criteria. Twenty‐seven risk factors were identified. “Definite risk factors” were defined as those with aggregated odds ratios (ORs) > 1 and confidence intervals (CIs) > 1 if analyzed in more than one study. Definite risk factors for major bleeding were concomitant aspirin use (OR 2.83, 95% CI 2.04–3.94) and long duration of clopidogrel therapy (> 6 months) (OR 1.74, 95% CI 1.21–2.50). Dual antiplatelet therapy, extended clopidogrel therapy, and high maintenance dose (150 mg/day) of clopidogrel were definite risk factors for any bleeding. Reduced renal function, both mild and severe, was the only definite risk factor for clinical ineffectiveness. These findings can help clinicians predict the risks and effectiveness of clopidogrel use for their patients and be used in clinical decision support tools.

No abstract