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]

Background: Changes in demographics with an older population, the illness panorama with increasing prevalence of non-communicable diseases, and the shift from hospital care to home-based care place demand on primary health care, which requires multiprofessional collaboration and team-based organization of work. The COVID-19 pandemic affected health care in various ways, such as heightened infection control measures, changing work practices, and increased workload. Objectives: This study aimed to investigate the association between primary care practices' organization, and quality and safety changes during the COVID-19 pandemic. Design: Data were collected from 38 countries in a large online survey, the PRICOV-19 study. For this paper, the participating practices were categorized as "Only GPs", comprising practices with solely general practitioners (GPs) and/or GP trainees, without any other health care professionals (n = 1,544), and "Multiprofessional," comprising practices with at least one GP or GP trainee and one or more other health professionals (n = 3,936). Results: Both categories of practices improved in infection control routines when compared before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. A larger proportion of the multiprofessional practices changed their routines to protect vulnerable patients. Telephone triage was used in more "Multiprofessional" practices, whereas "Only GPs" were more likely to perform video consultations as an alternative to physical visits. Both types of practices reported that the time to review new guidelines and scientific literature decreased during the pandemic. However, both had more meetings to discuss directives than before the pandemic. Conclusions: Multiprofessional teams were keener to introduce changes to the care organization to protect vulnerable patients. However, practices with only GPs were found to be more aligned with video consultations, perhaps reflecting the close patient-doctor relationship. In contrast, telephone triage was used more in multiprofessional teams. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Healthcare workers (HCWs) in the United Kingdom (UK) have faced many challenges during the COVID-19 pandemic, some of these arising out of their social positions. Existing literature explicating these challenges (e.g., lack of appropriate PPE, redeployment, understaffing) have highlighted inequities in how these have been experienced by HCWs based on ethnicity, gender or, job role. In this paper, we move a step ahead and examine how the intersection of these social positions have impacted HCWs' experiences of challenges during the pandemic. Methods: We collected qualitative data, using interviews and focus groups, from 164 HCWs from different ethnicities, gender, job roles, migration statuses, and regions in the United Kingdom (UK) between December 2020 and July 2021. Interviews and focus groups were conducted online or by telephone, and recorded with participants' permission. Recordings were transcribed and a hybrid thematic analytical approach integrating inductive data-driven codes with deductive ones informed by an intersectional framework was adopted to analyse the transcripts. Results: Thematic analysis of transcripts identified disempowerment, disadvantage and, discrimination as the three main themes around which HCWs' experiences of challenges were centred, based on their intersecting identities (e.g., ethnicity gender, and/or migration status). Our analysis also acknowledges that disadvantages faced by HCWs were linked to systemic and structural factors at the micro, meso and macro ecosystemic levels. This merging of analysis which is grounded in intersectionality and considers the ecosystemic levels has been termed as 'intrasectionalism'. Discussion: Our research demonstrates how an intrasectional lens can help better understand how different forms of mutually reinforcing inequities exist at all levels within the healthcare workforce and how these impact HCWs from certain backgrounds who face greater disadvantage, discrimination and disempowerment, particularly during times of crisis like the COVID-19 pandemic. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has been noted to decrease access to maternal health and family planning services globally. However, evidence from the Middle East and North Africa region is very scarce and limited. We qualitatively explored women's experiences in accessing maternal health and family planning services during the COVID-19 lockdown months in the two Egyptian governorates of Port Said and Souhag. Methods: Using a case study design, semi-structured phone interviews were conducted with a total of 40 women aged 18–35 years from Port Said and Souhag governorates in Egypt. Interviews explored women's experiences in accessing maternal health and family planning services during COVID-19 lockdown months, their coping strategies, and impact of challenges and/or coping strategies on participants and their families. The collected data was analyzed manually using qualitative thematic analysis. Results: Many participants were unable to access maternal health and family planning services during COVID-19 lockdown due to fear of contracting the virus, closure of health facilities, changing service hours, family planning method or drug stock-outs, and/or financial constraints. The above challenges in accessing services along with coping strategies that some women and their families used exposed women to additional health risks, including unintended pregnancies, and posed several social, emotional, and financial burdens to many. Conclusions: The COVID-19 pandemic and associated lockdown measures undermined women's access to maternal and family planning services and interfered with their ability to achieve their reproductive goals. The paper concludes with a number of recommendations to ensure access to maternal and family planning services at times of crisis. Those recommendations include: (1) adapting reliable guidelines from humanitarian settings, (2) providing adequate guidance to healthcare providers and the public to tackle fears and misinformation, (3) making self-care products available such as oral contraceptive pills, vaginal rings and self- administered injectables, (4) involving other health professionals in the provision of maternal and family planning services through task-sharing/shifting, (5) expanding the use of telemedicine and/or digital health services especially to those living in remote areas and (6) raising policymakers' awareness of the centrality of reproductive rights and the importance of protecting them at all times. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]