BackgroundMany clinicians depend solely on journal abstracts to guide clinical decisions.ObjectivesThis study aims to determine if there are differences in the accuracy of responses to simulated cases between resident physicians provided with an abstract only and those with full-text articles. It also attempts to describe their information-seeking behaviour.MethodsSeventy-seven resident physicians from four specialty departments of a tertiary care hospital completed a paper-based questionnaire with clinical simulation cases, then randomly assigned to two intervention groups—access to abstracts-only and access to both abstracts and full-text. While having access to medical literature, they completed an online version of the same questionnaire.FindingsThe average improvement across departments was not significantly different between the abstracts-only group and the full-text group (p=0.44), but when accounting for an interaction between intervention and department, the effect was significant (p=0.049) with improvement greater with full-text in the surgery department. Overall, the accuracy of responses was greater after the provision of either abstracts-only or full-text (p<0.0001). Although some residents indicated that ‘accumulated knowledge’ was sufficient to respond to the patient management questions, in most instances (83% of cases) they still sought medical literature.ConclusionsOur findings support studies that doctors will use evidence when convenient and current evidence improved clinical decisions. The accuracy of decisions improved after the provision of evidence. Clinical decisions guided by full-text articles were more accurate than those guided by abstracts alone, but the results seem to be driven by a significant difference in one department.

This study determined the psychosocial impact of COVID-19 on families of adult COVID-19 patients in isolation facilities in Metro Manila, Philippines. This prospective cohort study was conducted in COVID-19 healthcare facilities. Data collection was undertaken 2 weeks and 8 weeks after discharge. Logistic regression was performed to determine the socioeconomic and clinical factors influencing anxiety, depression, and family function. Based on HADS-P, 43.2% of the participants had anxiety symptoms, and 16.2% had depression symptoms 2 weeks after the discharge of their relative with COVID-19 infection. The prevalence of anxiety and depression significantly decreased to 24.3% and 5.4%, respectively, 8 weeks after discharge. The percentage of participants with a perceived moderate family dysfunction was 9.5% in the 2nd week and 6.8% in the 8th week post discharge. Participants with perceived severe family dysfunction increased from none to 4.1%. The most inadequate family resources for the participants were economic, medical, and educational resources. Patient anxiety (p = 0.010) and perceived inadequate family resources (p = 0.032) were associated with anxiety symptoms among family members. Patient anxiety (p = 0.013) and low educational attainment (p = 0.002) were associated with anxiety symptoms among family members 8 weeks after discharge. On the other hand, patient depression (p = 0.013) was a factor related to depressive symptoms among family members 2 weeks after discharge. This study provided an in-depth understanding of the mental health status of family members caring for relatives with COVID-19 infection. This can be used to guide healthcare professionals caring for COVID-19 patients and their family members.