Background: Since December 2019, a novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) began its journey around the world. Medical students, as frontline healthcare workers, are more susceptible to be infected by the virus. The aim of this study was to assess COVID-19 related knowledge, self-reported preventive behaviors and risk perception among Iranian medical students within the first week after the onset of the outbreak in Iran. Methods: This cross-sectional study was conducted from 26th to 28th of February, 2020. Participants were Iranian medical students (5th-7th year) whose knowledge, preventive behaviors and risk perceptions of COVID-19 were assessed using an online questionnaire. The questionnaire consisted of 26 questions including 15 items about COVID-19 related knowledge, 9 items regarding preventive measures and 2 items about COVID-19 risk perception. The validity and reliability of the questionnaire were shown to be satisfactory. Results: A total of 240 medical students completed the questionnaire. The mean age of participants was 23.67 years. The average of correct answers of knowledge was 86.96%; and 79.60% had high level of related knowledge. The average rate of practicing preventive behaviors was 94.47%; and 94.2% had high level of performance in preventive behaviors. The cumulative score of risk perception was 4.08 out of 8 which was in moderate range. Risk perception was significantly different between stagers and interns and between those being trained in emergency room (ER) and non-ER wards. There was a significant negative correlation between preventive behaviors and risk perception. Conclusion: We found a high level of COVID-19 related knowledge and self-reported preventive behaviors and moderate risk perception among Iranian medical students.
Purpose To find out what is known from literature about Long COVID until January 30, 2021. Methods We undertook a four-step search with no language restriction. A preliminary search was made to identify the keywords. A search strategy of all electronic databases resulted in 66 eligible studies. A forward and backward search of the references and citations resulted in additional 54 publications. Non-English language articles were translated using Google Translate. We conducted our scoping review based on the PRISMA-ScR Checklist. Results Of 120 papers, we found only one randomized clinical trial. Of the 67 original studies, 22 were cohort, and 28 were cross-sectional studies. Of the total 120 publications, 49.1% focused on signs and symptoms, 23.3% on management, and 10.8% on pathophysiology. Ten publications focused on imaging studies. The results are also presented extensively in a narrative synthesis in separated sections (nomenclature, diagnosis, pathophysiology, risk factors, signs/symptoms, management). Conclusions The controversies in its definition have impaired proper recognition and management. The predominant symptoms were: fatigue, breathlessness, arthralgia, sleep difficulties, and chest pain. Recent reports also point to the risk of long-term sequela with cutaneous, respiratory, cardiovascular, musculoskeletal, mental health, neurologic, and renal involvement in those who survive the acute phase of the illness. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s15010-021-01666-x.
On January 23, 2020, the Chinese government announced the city lockdown of Wuhan. Since then, there have been controversial debates among experts about the efficacy of mass quarantine, the oldest and probably one of the most effective methods for controlling infectious disease outbreaks. The impact of health policymaking section of health system governance becomes visible to all stakeholders and the public in such emergency contexts. The success and failure of such policies should be evaluated in order to find the proper course of action for the local and international communities. In this review, we aim to investigate the efficacy of mass quarantine in China during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. We found good quality evidence for the effectiveness of mass quarantine during the current stage of COVID-19 pandemic, and these strategies seem to have been highly effective in controlling the spread of the disease.
Background: The necessity of easing pandemic restrictions is explicit. Due to the harsh consequences of lockdowns, governments are willing to find reasonable pathways to reopen their activities. Methods: To find out the basics of developing a reopening roadmap, on 6th-10th August 2020, we conducted a systematic search on Pubmed, Scopus, Embase, and Web of Science, but no roadmap was found. Then, we manually searched Google to review the grey literature. Two independent authors extracted the data, and the senior author solved the discrepancies.Results: According to the search strategy, finally, sixteen roadmaps were included. Data categorized into four sections: principals, general recommendations for individuals, health key metrics, and in-phases strategy. The number of phases or stages differed from three to six, with a minimum of two weeks considered for each one. Health key metrics were categorized into four subsets: sufficient preventive capacities, appropriate diagnosis capacity, appropriate epidemiological monitoring capacity, and sufficient health system capacity. These metrics were used as the criteria for progressing or returning over the roadmap, which guarantees a roadmap's dynamicity. Noticeably, few roadmaps didn’t mention these criteria that may alter the dynamicity of their roadmap. When some areas face new surges, the roadmap's dynamicity is essential, and it is vital to describe the criteria to stop the reopening process and implement the restrictions again. Conclusions: Providing evidence for policymaking about lifting the COVID-19 restrictions seems to be missed in the literature, should be addressed more, and further studies are recommended.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.