Search

Background: Mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs) appear to be effective for improving the mental health of healthcare professionals (HCPs). However, the effectiveness of MBIs on extreme psychological trauma caused by the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is largely unknown. The aim of this paper was to systematically review empirical studies of MBIs for HCPs carried out during the COVID-19 pandemic, to evaluate them and their effectiveness in different areas of mental health. Methods: The electronic databases searched were Web of Science, Scopus, PubMed, and PsycINFO. The date when each database was last searched was September 15, 2023. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), non-randomized controlled trials (NRCTs), and non-randomized non-controlled trials (NRNCTs) focused on MBIs for health care staff who were working in healthcare centers during the COVID-19 pandemic were included. All of them employed standardized measures of mental health. The review followed the best practices and reported using PRISMA guidelines. A data collection form, adapted from the Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions, was used to extract and synthesize the results. The methods used to assess the risk of bias in the included studies were the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool and the ROBINS-I Tool. Results: Twenty-eight studies were included in the systematic review. Overall, the methodological quality of the studies was moderate. The results showed the effectiveness of MBIs in improving levels of stress, mindfulness, and mental well-being. However, no conclusive results were found regarding the effectiveness of MBIs in improving the levels of burnout, anxiety, depression, sleep quality, and resilience of HCPs. Conclusions: The MBIs for HCPs carried out during the COVID-19 pandemic have mainly contributed to improving stress, mindfulness, and mental well-being at a time of serious health emergency. However, more robust studies at a methodological level would have been desirable. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO CRD42021267621 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: In December 2019, the COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the urgent need for rapid collaboration, research, and interventions. International research collaborations foster more significant responses to rapid global changes by enabling international, multicentre research, decreasing biases, and increasing study validity while reducing overall research time and costs. However, there has been low uptake of collaborative research by African institutions and individuals. Aim: To systematically review facilitating factors and challenges to collaborative surgical research studies conducted in Africa. Methodology: A meta-research review using PubMed®/MEDLINE and Embase on surgical collaboration in Africa from 1st of January 2011 to 31st of September 2021 in accordance to PRISMA guidelines. Surgical studies by collaborative groups involving African authors and sites were included (55 papers). Data on the study period, geographical regions, and research scope, facilitating factors, and challenges were extracted from the studies retrieved from the search. Results: Most of the collaborations in Africa occurred with European institutions (76%). Of the 54 African countries, 63% (34/54) participated in surgical collaborations. The highest collaboration frequency occurred in South Africa (11%) and Nigeria (8%). However, most publications originated from Eastern Africa (43%). Leveraging synergies between high- and low- to middle-income countries (LMICs), well-defined structures, and secure data platforms facilitated collaboration. However, the underrepresentation of collaborators from LMICs was a significant challenge. Conclusion: Available literature provides critical insights into the facilitating factors and challenges of research collaboration with Africa. However, there is a need for a detailed prospective study to explore the themes highlighted further. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO 2022 CRD42022352115. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The best chance of eradicating the COVID-19 pandemic lies in a successful vaccination campaign against the virus. There is still hesitancy among some of the Malawians over the use of COVID-19 vaccines that are readily available. This review's objective was to currently analyze COVID-19 vaccination hesitancy among Malawians. Methods: This scoping review was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) extension for Scoping Reviews. An electronic database search was performed using CINAHL, OVID Medline, PubMed, and Google Scholar for studies published between January 1, 2020, and July 10, 2023, on the topic of reluctance toward COVID-19 vaccine in Malawi. A review of the journal titles and abstracts was performed to establish a match within the selection criteria. Based on the parameters of interest, this paper included publications that explicitly mentioned COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in Malawi. Results: A total of seven articles were identified as meeting the inclusion criteria. Some of the eligible Malawian population's poor response to COVID-19 vaccination was due to hesitancy. Misinformation is primarily to blame for COVID-19 vaccine reluctance. COVID-19 vaccines are viewed as dangerous or intended to cause harm such as the myth that the COVID-19 vaccine would cause infertility, severe disability, and even death. The review revealed that some people choose not to receive vaccines due to religious convictions and beliefs. Some individuals also think that getting the COVID-19 vaccine could result in receiving a triple-six (666) mark from the devil. There were also reports that the COVID-19 vaccination is being considered experimental and ineffective. Conclusions: The Malawi government should focus on fear and misinformation regarding COVID-19 vaccination campaigns, using interventions, motivational interviews, and individual sensitization. Traditional, religious, and youth-led organizations should provide practical information on COVID-19 vaccine safety and efficacy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]