The study aims to determine the level of Knowledge, Attitude, and Practice (KAP) related to COVID-19 preventive health habits and perception of fear towards COVID-19 in subjects living in Bangladesh. Design: Prospective, cross-sectional survey of (n = 2157) male and female subjects, 13-88 years of age, living in Bangladesh. Methods: Ethical approval and trial registration were obtained before the commencement of the study. Subjects who volunteered to participate and signed the informed consent were enrolled in the study and completed the structured questionnaire on KAP and Fear of COVID-19 scale (FCV-19S). Results: Twenty-eight percent (28.69%) of subjects reported one or more COVID-19 symptoms, and 21.4% of subjects reported one or more co-morbidities. Knowledge scores were slightly higher in males (8.75± 1.58) than females (8.66± 1.70). Knowledge was significantly correlated with age (p < .005), an education level (p < .001), attitude (p < .001), and urban location (p < .001). Knowledge scores showed an inverse correlation with fear scores (p < .001). Eighty-three percent (83.7%) of subjects with COVID-19 symptoms reported wearing a mask in public, and 75.4% of subjects reported staying away from crowded places. Subjects with one or more symptoms reported higher fear compared to subjects without (18.73± 4.6; 18.45± 5.1). Conclusion: Bangladeshis reported a high prevalence of self-isolation, positive preventive health behaviors related to COVID-19, and moderate to high fear levels. Higher knowledge and Practice were found in males, higher education levels, older age, and urban location. Fear of COVID-19 was more prevalent in female and elderly subjects. A positive attitude was reported for the majority of subjects, reflecting the belief that COVID-19 was controllable and containable.

Background Dissociative seizures are paroxysmal events resembling epilepsy or syncope with characteristic features that allow them to be distinguished from other medical conditions. We aimed to compare the effectiveness of cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) plus standardised medical care with standardised medical care alone for the reduction of dissociative seizure frequency. MethodsIn this pragmatic, parallel-arm, multicentre randomised controlled trial, we initially recruited participants at 27 neurology or epilepsy services in England, Scotland, and Wales. Adults (≥18 years) who had dissociative seizures in the previous 8 weeks and no epileptic seizures in the previous 12 months were subsequently randomly assigned (1:1) from 17 liaison or neuropsychiatry services following psychiatric assessment, to receive standardised medical care or CBT plus standardised medical care, using a web-based system. Randomisation was stratified by neuropsychiatry or liaison psychiatry recruitment site. The trial manager, chief investigator, all treating clinicians, and patients were aware of treatment allocation, but outcome data collectors and trial statisticians were unaware of treatment allocation. Patients were followed up 6 months and 12 months after randomisation. The primary outcome was monthly dissociative seizure frequency (ie, frequency in the previous 4 weeks) assessed at 12 months. Secondary outcomes assessed at 12 months were: seizure severity (intensity) and bothersomeness; longest period of seizure freedom in the previous 6 months; complete seizure freedom in the previous 3 months; a greater than 50% reduction in seizure frequency relative to baseline; changes in dissociative seizures (rated by others); health-related quality of life; psychosocial functioning; psychiatric symptoms, psychological distress, and somatic symptom burden; and clinical impression of improvement and satisfaction. p values and statistical significance for outcomes were reported without correction for multiple comparisons as per our protocol. Primary and secondary outcomes were assessed in the intention-to-treat population with multiple imputation for missing observations. This trial is registered with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial registry, ISRCTN05681227, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02325544.

BackgroundThe objective of this study was to identify the prevalence of long COVID symptoms in a large cohort of people living with and affected by long COVID and identify any potential associated risk factors.MethodsA prospective survey was undertaken of an inception cohort of confirmed people living with and affected by long COVID (aged 18–87 years). 14392 participants were recruited from 24 testing facilities across Bangladesh between June and November 2020. All participants had a previously confirmed positive COVID-19 diagnosis, and reported persistent symptoms and difficulties in performing daily activities. Participants who consented were contacted by face-to-face interview, and were interviewed regarding long COVID, and restriction of activities of daily living using post COVID-19 functional status scale. Cardiorespiratory parameters measured at rest (heart rate, systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, oxygen saturation levels, maximal oxygen consumption, inspiratory and expiratory lung volume) were also measured.ResultsAmong 2198 participants, the prevalence of long COVID symptoms at 12 weeks was 16.1%. Overall, eight long COVID symptoms were identified and in descending order of prominence are: fatigue, pain, dyspnoea, cough, anosmia, appetite loss, headache and chest pain. People living with and affected by long COVID experienced between 1 and 8 long COVID symptoms with an overall duration period of 21.8±5.2 weeks. Structural equation modelling predicted the length of long COVID to be related to younger age, female gender, rural residence, prior functional limitation and smoking.ConclusionIn this cohort, at 31 weeks post diagnosis, the prevalence of long COVID symptoms was 16.1%. The risk factors identified for presence and longer length of long COVID symptoms warrant further research and consideration to support public health initiatives.

Background: Researchers setting out to conduct research employing questionnaires in nonEnglish speaking populations need instruments that have been validated in the indigenous languages. In this study we have tried to review the literature on the status of cross-cultural and/or criterion validity of all the questionnaires measuring psychiatric symptoms available in Urdu language. Methods:A search of Medline, Embase, PsycINFO and http://www.pakmedinet.com was conducted using the search terms; Urdu psychiatric rating scale, and Urdu and Psychiatry. References of retrieved articles were searched. Only studies describing either cross-cultural or criterion validation of a questionnaire in Urdu measuring psychiatric symptoms were included. Results:Thirty two studies describing validation of 19 questionnaires were identified. Six of these questionnaires were developed indigenously in Urdu while thirteen had been translated from English. Of the six indigenous questionnaires five had had their criterion validity examined. Of the thirteen translated questionnaires only four had had both their cross-cultural and criterion validity assessed. Conclusion:There is a paucity of validated questionnaires assessing psychiatric symptoms in Urdu. The BSI, SRQ and AKUADS are the questionnaires that have been most thoroughly evaluated in Urdu. BackgroundWith an estimated population of about 165 million [1] Pakistan is the sixth most populous nation in the world. Although only about 8% of Pakistanis speak Urdu (the national language of Pakistan) as their first language, most people in Pakistan are bilingual speaking their regional language and Urdu almost equally easily [2]. English is spoken mostly by the educated classes and used for official correspondence. With a literacy ratio of 44% and about 50% of the population receiving only primary or below primary education [3] there are many Pakistanis who are unable to read and understand English.Most psychiatric research involves use of questionnaires of one sort of another. Most of these questionnaires have been developed in the English language and Western culture. There are questions as to how applicable or relevant these questionnaires would be in a primarily non-English speaking Eastern nation like Pakistan. We, therefore, need questionnaires that are in a language that can be understood by majority of the Pakistani people, like Urdu, and are relevant to their culture. In the absence of such questionnaires the two options available are either to create a new questionnaire in Urdu, or to translate and adapt an already established questionnaire from English. If the latter route of translating and adapting an established questionnaire is taken, which is more often taken by virtue of being a less daunting task than creating a new questionnaire, there are five major domains of cross-cultural validity that need to be considered [4,5].1. Content validity. The content of the instrument should be relevant in the culture into which the instrument is being translated.