The novel coronavirus outbreak began in late December 2019 and rapidly spread worldwide, critically impacting public health systems. A number of already approved and marketed drugs are being tested for repurposing, including Favipiravir. We aim to investigate the efficacy and safety of Favipiravir in treatment of COVID-19 patients through a systematic review and meta-analysis. This systematic review and meta-analysis were reported in accordance with the PRISMA statement. We registered the protocol in the PROSPERO (CRD42020180032). All clinical trials which addressed the safety and efficacy of Favipiravir in comparison to other control groups for treatment of patients with confirmed infection with SARS-CoV2 were included. We searched electronic databases including LitCovid/PubMed, Scopus, Web of Sciences, Cochrane, and Scientific Information Database up to 31 December 2020. We assessed the risk of bias of the included studies using Cochrane Collaboration criteria. All analyses were performed using the Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software version 2, and the risk ratio index was calculated. Egger and Begg test was used for assessing publication bias. Nine studies were included in our meta-analysis. The results of the meta-analysis revealed a significant clinical improvement in the Favipiravir group versus the control group during seven days after hospitalization (RR = 1.24, 95% CI: 1.09–1.41; P = 0.001). Viral clearance was more in 14 days after hospitalization in Favipiravir group than control group, but this finding marginally not significant (RR = 1.11, 95% CI: 0.98–1.25; P = 0.094). Requiring supplemental oxygen therapy in the Favipiravir group was 7% less than the control group, (RR = 0.93, 95% CI: 0.67–1.28; P = 0.664). Transferred to ICU and adverse events were not statistically different between two groups. The mortality rate in the Favipiravir group was approximately 30% less than the control group, but this finding not statistically significant. Favipiravir possibly exerted no significant beneficial effect in the term of mortality in the general group of patients with mild to moderate COVID-19. We should consider that perhaps the use of antiviral once the patient has symptoms is too late and this would explain their low efficacy in the clinical setting.

Aim This study sought to describe the experiences of critical care nurses caring for patients infected by coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19). Design A qualitative phenomenological design was used. Methods We enrolled 15 nurses who provided care for patients infected by COVID‐19 purposively and through snowballing, using a phenomenological approach in critical care units of Iran's public hospitals between May and June 2020. The semi‐structured interviews were carried out either via face‐to‐face or telephone and were analyzed using the 7‐step method of Colaizzi. Results The experiences of nurses caring for patients infected with COVID‐19 were categorized into four challenges, including psychological (eight subthemes), organizational (six subthemes), social (six subthemes), and professional (five subthemes). In general, based on the current classification, there seems to be a mixture of positive and negative effects on the psychological, social, and professional challenges and the negative effect only on the organizational challenges. Conclusions Positive and negative emotions and experiences have coexisted for the critical care nurses since the COVID‐19 outbreak. Emotional support and psychological counseling play an important role in maintaining nurses' optimal mental health during the COVID‐19 crisis. Adequate protective equipment, financial and nonfinancial supports, effective communication, training and hiring of staff, and appropriate work shifts are also required to reduce nurses' negative experiences when providing care for the affected individuals.

Objective Competent managers are vital to the productivity and service quality of healthcare organizations and the sustainability of the healthcare system. To improve their management competence, understanding of management competency requirements is important. The purpose of this study was to synthesize the evidence related to the leadership and management competencies in healthcare organizations through the best-fit method. Methods A systematic review of literature published between 2000 and 2020 was performed to identify studies focusing on confirming and/or identifying the competency requirements of hospital managers. The best-fit framework synthesis method was used to map the identified competencies and associated behavioral items against the validated management competency assessment program (MCAP) management competency framework. Results Twelve studies were identified for inclusion in the review. The mapping of the identified competencies and behavioral items generated a competency model for hospital managers that can apply for different healthcare context. The new competency model includes the following seven core leadership and management competencies: evidence-informed decision-making, operations, administration and resource management, knowledge of healthcare environment and the organization, interpersonal, communication qualities and relationship management, leading people and organisation, enabling and managing change, and professionalism. Conclusion This review and the mapping of the competencies identified in previous studies against the validated MCAP framework has resulted in the recommendation for an extended leadership and management competency framework for health service managers. It provides guidance for the formulation of training and development directions for the health service management workforce in a different healthcare context.

Objectives This study aimed to investigate and synthesize the current evidence on knowledge, attitudes, and practices (KAPs) of the general population regarding COVID-19. Study Design Systematic review and meta-analysis. Methods We conducted a systematic search on PubMed/LitCovid, Scopus, and Web of Sciences databases for papers in the English language only, up to 1 January 2021. We used the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) checklist developed for cross-sectional studies to appraise the quality of the included studies. All stages of the review conducted by two independent reviewers and potential discrepancies were solved with a consultation with a third reviewer. We reported the result as number and percentage. A meta-analysis conducted using a random effect model with a 95% confidence interval. Results Forty-eight studies encompassing 76848 participants were included in this review. 56.53% of the participants were female. The mean age of the participants was 33.7 years. 85.42% of the included studies were scored as good quality, 12.50% as fair quality, and the remaining (2.08%) as low quality. 87.5% examined all three components of the KAPs model. The knowledge component was reported as good, and poor in 89.5%, and 10.5% of the included studies, respectively. Of the studies that examined the attitude component, 100% reported a positive attitude. For the practice component, 93.2% reported satisfactory practice, and 6.8% poor practice. The result of the meta-analysis showed that the overall score of KAPs components about COVID-19 were 78.9, 79.8, and 74.1, respectively. Conclusions This systematic review and meta-analysis showed that the overall KAP components in the included studies were at an acceptable level. In general, knowledge was at a good level, the attitude was positive and practice was at a satisfactory level. Using an integrated international system can help better evaluate these components and compare them between countries.

Background Medical errors are considered as a major threat to patient safety. To clarify medical errors’ status in Iran, a review was conducted to estimate the accurate prevalence of medical errors. Methods A comprehensive search was conducted in international databases (MEDLINE, Scopus and the Web of Science), national databases (SID, Magiran, and Barakat) and Google Scholar search engine. The search was performed without time limitation up to January 2017 using the MeSH terms of Medical “error(s)” and “Iran” in Endnote X5. Article in English and Persian which estimated the prevalence of medical errors in Iran were eligible to be included in this review. The JBI appraisal instrument was used to assess the quality of included studies, by two independent reviewers. The prevalence of medical errors was calculating using random effect model. Stata software was used for data analysis. Results In 40 included studies, the most frequent occupational group observed were nursing staff and nursing students (21 studies; 52% of studies). The most reported type of error was medication error (25 studies; 62% of studies, with prevalence ranged from 10 to 80%). University or teaching hospitals (30 studies; 75% of studies) as well as, internal/intensive care wards (10 studies; 25% of studies) were the most frequent hospitals and wards detected. Based on the result of the random effect model, the overall estimated prevalence of medical errors was 50% (95% confidence interval: 0.426, 0.574). Conclusion Result of the comprehensive literature review of the current studies, found a wide variation in the prevalence of medical errors based on the occupational group, type of error, and health care setting. In this regards, providing enough education to nurses, improvement of patient safety culture and quality of services and attention to special wards, especially in teaching hospitals are suggested. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s12913-019-4464-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.