No abstract

<b><i>Introduction:</i></b> Physical inactivity has been linked to various noncommunicable diseases and their related health problems. As primary health care physicians (PHCPs) play a crucial role in promoting health and preventing disease, this study aims to determine the extent of physical inactivity among PHCPs and its impact on their counseling practices. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> A cross-sectional study was conducted across all primary health care centers in Qatar, targeting 511 physicians. A modified self-administered WHO stepwise tool was used to measure physical activity (PA) with another questionnaire to assess the counseling practices among PHCPs. <b><i>Results:</i></b> Out of 511 physicians, 306 (59.9%) responded to the survey. The majority of the participants were male (58.1%) with an average age of 45.8 ± 7.9 years. The majority of PHCPs were from the UK (44.3%), while only 4.1% were Qatari. Family physician consultants made up 51% of the respondents, while 30.2% were general practitioners, and the average years of experience were 14 ± 8.3 years. Only 39.5% of the respondents met the WHO PA recommendations. 50.5% of the physicians were overweight, and 23.1% were obese. The median percentage of patients counseled about PA was only 60 [IQR: 40–80]%, and there was no link found between a physician’s PA level and the percentage of patients they counseled on the subject. <b><i>Conclusion:</i></b> Physicians reported a high prevalence of physical inactivity. Furthermore, the practice of counseling the public on PA was low. Interventions are needed inside and outside the workplace to improve the PA among PHCPs and their counseling practices.

Background Research self-efficacy is one of the crucial predictors of productively engaging in research activities emphasized by the Qatar National Vision 2030. Nevertheless, studies typically focus on research self-efficacy among students, neglecting physicians, despite the importance of research as competency in continuous professional development. Therefore, the objective of our study is to understand the level of research self-efficacy among physicians and its determinants.  Methods An analytical cross-sectional design was employed. We utilized an open survey through DACIMA Software that included questions related to Self-Efficacy in Research Measure (SERM) and possible determinants. One-hundred-twenty-two completed answers, and the response rate was 19.2%. Following descriptive analyses, a chi-square test was used to uncover the associations among variables, with significance set to p ≤ 0.05. Next, a logistic regression model was conducted to identify the predictors of a low research self-efficacy level. Finally, reliability and principal component analysis were applied on the SERM scale. Results Three-quarters of the sample reported insufficient research self-efficacy. The sociodemographic and professional factors did not significantly associate with insufficient research self-efficacy. However, participation in clinical guidelines proved to be a determinant of sufficient research self-efficacy. Conclusions Physicians must be encouraged to participate in clinical guidelines to improve their research self-efficacy level.

No abstract

Background: The emergence of a novel coronavirus, known as severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2), has spread fear across the globe. As nations around the world mobilize significant resources to combat the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic, we have sought to conduct a bibliometric analysis of the disease. Objective: This study aimed to map the COVID-19 research productivity based on articles indexed in PubMed and ScienceDirect. Methods: The articles related to COVID-19 dated from December 2019 to December 2020 were retrieved from both databases. The articles were classified into categories according to their type and theme. Results: Publication outputs were assessed. A total of 518 articles were included for analysis. They were published in 182 journals, The Lancet is the most productive (41 articles; 9.1%). China (53.7%), USA(10.4%), and the UK (8.7%) were the most productive countries in terms of COVID-19 research. The most common type of research was commentary (21.8%) and the most frequent theme was awareness (30.3%). The median impact factor for the publishing journals was 3.717, with a statistically significant difference in the impact factor based on the article type, theme, and language. Conclusion: The findings of this first bibliometric study on COVID-19 suggest that there is a need for international collaboration and further research on the management of the disease.