Search

Due to the increasing importance of caregivers in the treatment outcomes of patients with mental illness, this study aimed to systematically review studies investigating the former's caregiver burden and determine its prevalence. An open search, without filters, was conducted. Articles were selected from Medline, Scopus, and PubMed from inception to 30 April 2022 using the PRISMA protocol. Subgroup analyses examined the between-group differences by study setting, measurements used, and disorder type. A total of 5034 caregivers from 23 countries were included in this review. Thirty-nine studies were included in the systematic review, and, among them, twenty-six were deemed eligible for meta-analysis. The overall pooled prevalence of caregiver burden among caregivers of individuals with mental illness was 31.67% (95% CI = 26.22–37.12). Pooled prevalence was the highest among care recipients receiving treatment in a hospital setting (36.06%; 95% CI = 22.50–49.63), followed by the community and clinic settings. Caregiver prevalence values were higher for burden measured using the Zarit Burden Interview (38.05%; 95% CI = 27.68–48.43). compared with other instruments, and for carers of care recipients with psychosis (35.88%; 95% CI = 27.03–44.72) compared with those without. Thus, targeted interventions should focus on caregivers of patients in hospital settings and with psychotic symptoms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The COVID‐19 pandemic has generated many mental health problems worldwide. People living with HIV (henceforth known as PLHIV) bear a higher mental health burden in comparison with the general population. Therefore, their risk of mental health problems may be elevated during the pandemic. Methods: We conducted a systematic review and meta‐analysis to assess the prevalence of depression, anxiety, psychological stress, insomnia and loneliness among PLHIV during the COVID‐19 pandemic. Observational studies in four databases published from 1 January 2020 to 30 April 2021 investigating the prevalence of mental health conditions during the COVID‐19 pandemic were searched, and 197 articles were retrieved. After the processes of duplication removal, eligibility screening and full‐text assessment, 10 articles were included in the systematic review and six articles for meta‐analyses. A random‐effects model was applied to derive the pooled prevalence of mental health conditions. The risk of bias was assessed using the STROBE checklist. Results: Overall, the pooled prevalence rates of (moderate‐to‐severe) depression and anxiety among PLHIV were 16.9% [95% confidence interval (CI): 3.8%–30.0%] and 23.0% (95% CI: 12.0%–34.0%), respectively. Conclusions: More research is needed to investigate the mechanism by which the pandemic affects the mental health of PLHIV. Support and programmes are needed to ameliorate the mental health problems in this marginalized population. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: COVID-19 pandemic is having a devastating effect on the mental health and wellbeing of healthcare providers (HCPs) globally. This review is aimed at determining the prevalence of depression, anxiety, stress, fear, burnout and resilience and its associated factors among HCPs in Asia during the COVID-19 pandemic. Material and methods: We performed literature search using 4 databases from Medline, Cinahl, PubMed and Scopus from inception up to March 15, 2021 and selected relevant cross-sectional studies. Publication bias was assessed using funnel plot. Random effects model was used to estimate the pooled prevalence while risk factors were reported in odds ratio (OR) with 95% CI. Results: We included 148 studies with 159,194 HCPs and the pooled prevalence for depression was 37.5% (95%CI: 33.8–41.3), anxiety 39.7(95%CI: 34.3–45.1), stress 36.4% (95%CI: 23.2–49.7), fear 71.3% (95%CI: 54.6–88.0), burnout 68.3% (95%CI: 54.0–82.5), and low resilience was 16.1% (95%CI: 12.8–19.4), respectively. The heterogeneity was high (I2>99.4%). Meta-analysis reported that both females (OR = 1.48; 95% CI = 1.30–1.68) and nurses (OR = 1.21; 95%CI = 1.02–1.45) were at increased risk of having depression and anxiety [(Female: OR = 1.66; 95% CI = 1.49–1.85), (Nurse: OR = 1.36; 95%CI = 1.16–1.58)]. Females were at increased risk of getting stress (OR = 1.59; 95%CI = 1.28–1.97). Conclusion: In conclusion, one third of HCPs suffered from depression, anxiety and stress and more than two third of HCPs suffered from fear and burnout during the COVID-19 pandemic in Asia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The benefits of qigong for systolic and diastolic blood pressure (BP) reduction have been noted in previously published systematic reviews; however, the data on its effectiveness has been at best scarce. We aimed to update the evidence of qigong on blood pressure reduction after taking into consideration the risks of random error and reliability of data in the cumulative meta-analysis using trial sequential analysis (TSA). Methods: Included trials were assessed using Cochrane risk of bias instrument. We performed meta-analysis with random-effects model and random errors were evaluated with TSA. We performed the search for the eligible randomized controlled trial (RCT) through Medline, Cinahl, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and also PubMed. Results: A total of 370 subjects sourced from seven eligible RCTs were entered into the analysis. The pooled results demonstrated the significant reduction with the use of qigong of the systolic blood pressure [weighted mean difference (WMD), − 10.66 mmHg (95% confidence interval (CI) = − 17.69,-3.62, p < 0.001] and diastolic BP [WMD, − 6.76 mmHg, 95% CI = − 12.22, − 1.30, p < 0.001] as compared to the control group. Conclusions: Significant reductions in BP is seen with the use of qigong as compared with the control group, suggesting that qigong may be used as a complementary therapy in the somewhat complicated management of hypertension. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: As the world witnessed the devastation caused by the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak, a growing body of literature on COVID-19 is also becoming increasingly available. Stroke has increasingly been reported as a complication of COVID-19 infection. However, a systematic synthesis of the available data has not been conducted. Therefore, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of currently available epidemiological, clinical, and laboratory data related to both stroke and COVID-19 infection. Methods: We systematically searched Medline, Cinahl, and PubMed for studies related to stroke and COVID-19 from inception up to June 4, 2020. We selected cohort studies, case series, and case reports that reported the occurrence of stroke in COVID-19 patients. A fixed-effects model was used to estimate the pooled frequency of stroke in COVID-19 patients with a 95% confidence interval (CI). Results: Twenty-eight studies were included in the systematic review and seven studies for the meta-analysis. The pooled frequency of stroke in COVID-19 patients was 1.1% (95% CI: 0.8, 1.3). The heterogeneity was low (I 2 = 0.0%). Even though the frequency of stroke among patients having COVID-19 infection was low, those with concomitant COVID-19 infection and stroke suffered from a more severe infection and eventually had a poorer prognosis with a higher mortality rate (46.7%) than COVID-19 alone. Many COVID-19 patients shared the common traditional risk factors for stroke. We noted that ischemic stroke involving the anterior circulation with large vessels occlusion is the most common type of stroke with more strokes seen in multi-territorial regions, suggesting systemic thromboembolism. An elevated level of D-dimers, C-reactive protein, ferritin, lactic acid dehydrogenase, troponin, ESR, fibrinogen, and a positive antiphospholipid antibody were also noted in this review. Conclusions: The occurrence of stroke in patients with COVID-19 infection is uncommon, but it may pose as an important prognostic marker and indicator of severity of infection, by causing large vessels occlusion and exhibiting a thrombo-inflammatory vascular picture. Physicians should be made aware and remain vigilant on the possible two-way relationship between stroke and COVID-19 infection. The rate of stroke among patients with COVID-19 infection may increase in the future as they share the common risk factors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To evaluate the efficacy of high-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation over dorsolateral prefrontal cortex as a migraine prevention by conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis. Background: The efficacy of high-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation over dorsolateral prefrontal cortex as preventive migraine treatment remains debatable. Methods: PubMed, Scopus, CINAHL, CENTRAL, and BioMed Central databases were searched from their inception until December 2020. Randomised trials comparing high-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation over dorsolateral prefrontal cortex with sham for migraine prevention were included. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane guidelines. Headache days, pain intensity, acute medication intake, and disability were extracted as study outcomes and the mean difference with a random-effects model was used to determine the effect size. Results: Meta-analysis revealed that high-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation over dorsolateral prefrontal cortex significantly reduced acute medication intake (Mean Difference = 9.78, p = 0.02, 95%CI: 1.60, 17.96, p = 0.02) and functional disability (Mean Difference = 8.00, p < 0.05, 95%CI: 4.21, 11.79). However, no differences were found in headache days and pain intensity reduction, although there was a slight trend favouring high-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation. Conclusion: High-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation over dorsolateral prefrontal cortex may be effective in reducing acute medication intake and disability. However, more studies are needed to strengthen this preliminary evidence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]