Search

Your search keyword '"Haidich, Anna‐Bettina"' showing total 756 results
Start Over Author "Haidich, Anna‐Bettina"
756 results on '"Haidich, Anna‐Bettina"'

4. ccaR: A Package for Assessing Primary Study Overlap across Systematic Reviews in Overviews

Author

Bougioukas, Konstantinos I., Diakonidis, Theodoros, Mavromanoli, Anna C., and Haidich, Anna-Bettina

Abstract

An overview of reviews aims to collect, assess, and synthesize evidence from multiple systematic reviews (SRs) on a specific topic using rigorous and reproducible methods. An important methodological challenge in conducting an overview of reviews is the management of overlapping data due to the inclusion of the same primary studies in SRs. We present a free, open-source R package called ccaR (https://github.com/thdiakon/ccaR) that provides easy-to-use functions for assessing the degree of overlap of primary studies in an overview of reviews with the use of the corrected cover area (CCA) index. A worked example with and without consideration of chronological structural missingness is outlined, illustrating the steps involved in, calculating the CCA index and creating a publication-ready heatmap. We expect ccaR to be useful for overview authors, methodologists, and reviewers who are familiar with the basics of R and contribute to the discussion on different methodological approaches for implementing the CCA index. Future research and applications could further investigate the functionality or potential limitations of our package and other potential uses.

Published
2023
Full Text
View/download PDF

24. Endothelial dysfunction in acute and long standing COVID−19: A prospective cohort study

Author

Oikonomou, Evangelos, Souvaliotis, Nektarios, Lampsas, Stamatios, Siasos, Gerasimos, Poulakou, Garyphallia, Theofilis, Panagiotis, Papaioannou, Theodore G., Haidich, Anna-Bettina, Tsaousi, Georgia, Ntousopoulos, Vasileios, Sakka, Vissaria, Charalambous, Georgios, Rapti, Vasiliki, Raftopoulou, Sylvia, Syrigos, Konstantinos, Tsioufis, Costas, Tousoulis, Dimitris, and Vavuranakis, Manolis

Published
2022
Full Text
View/download PDF

30. MEASUREMENT OF BLOOD PRESSURE OF VISITORS IN PRIMARY CARE UNITS BY MEDICAL STUDENTS: A QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS OF THEIR VIEWS ON THE ACTION

Author

Triantafyllou, Areti, primary, Evangelidis, Nikolaos, additional, Kavvadas, Dimitrios, additional, Evangelidis, Paschalis, additional, Manti, Sofia, additional, Giormezi, Anastasia, additional, Gavana, Magdalini, additional, Ouzouni, Styliani, additional, Staikos, Ioannis, additional, Theodoropoulos, Ilias, additional, Vitoris, Ioannis, additional, Vlachopoulos, Nikolaos, additional, Haidich, Anna-Bettina, additional, and Smyrnakis, Emmanouil, additional

Published
2024
Full Text
View/download PDF

44. Primary care professionals’ experiences during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in Greece: a qualitative study

Author

Smyrnakis, Emmanouil, Symintiridou, Despoina, Andreou, Martha, Dandoulakis, Michael, Theodoropoulos, Elias, Kokkali, Stamatia, Manolaki, Chrysanthi, Papageorgiou, Dimitra Iosifina, Birtsou, Charis, Paganas, Aristofanis, Stachteas, Panagiotis, Vlachopoulos, Nikolaos, Pagkozidis, Ilias, Zeimbekis, Akis, Roka, Violeta, Giakoumis, Anastasios, Kotsani, Marina, Avakian, Ioanna, Makridou, Efthymia, Gavana, Magda, Haidich, Anna-Bettina, and Avgerinou, Christina

Published
2021
Full Text
View/download PDF

49. Appraisal methods and outcomes of AMSTAR 2 assessments in overviews of systematic reviews of interventions in the cardiovascular field: A methodological study.

Author

Karakasis, Paschalis, Bougioukas, Konstantinos I., Pamporis, Konstantinos, Fragakis, Nikolaos, and Haidich, Anna‐Bettina

Subjects
RANDOMIZED controlled trials, REGRESSION analysis, DRUG therapy, DATABASES
Abstract

This study aimed to assess the methods and outcomes of The Measurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) 2 appraisals in overviews of reviews (overviews) of interventions in the cardiovascular field and identify factors that are associated with these outcomes. MEDLINE, Scopus, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched until November 2022. Eligible were overviews of cardiovascular interventions, analyzing systematic reviews (SRs) of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Extracted data included characteristics of overviews and SRs and AMSTAR 2 appraisal methods and outcomes. Data were synthesized using descriptive statistics and logistic regression to explore potential associations between the characteristics of SRs and extracted AMSTAR 2 overall ratings ("High‐Moderate" vs. "Low‐Critically low"). The original results on individual AMSTAR 2 items were entered into the official AMSTAR 2 online tool and the recalculated overall confidence ratings were compared to those provided in overviews. All 34 overviews identified were published between 2019 and 2022. Rating of overall confidence following the algorithm suggested by AMSTAR 2 developers was noted in 74% of overviews. The 679 unique included SRs were mainly of "Critically low" (53%) or "Low" (18.7%) confidence and underperformed in items 2 (Protocol, no = 65.2%) and 7 (List of excluded studies, no = 84%). The following characteristics of SRs were significantly associated with higher overall ratings: Cochrane origin, pharmacological interventions, including exclusively RCTs, citation of methodological and reporting guidelines, protocol, absence of funding and publication after AMSTAR 2 release. Generally, overviews' authors tended to deviate from the original rating scheme and ascribe higher ratings to SRs compared to the official AMSTAR 2 online tool. Most SRs included in overviews of cardiovascular interventions have critically low or low confidence in their results. Overviews' authors should be more transparent about the methods used to derive the overall confidence in SRs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Published
2024
Full Text
View/download PDF

50. Burnout among primary healthcare professionals during COVID-19 pandemic: A need for timely identification strategies to increase the resilience of the Greek health system.

Author

Vlachopoulos, Nikolaos, Papageorgiou, Dimitra Iosifina, Stachteas, Panagiotis, Pagkozidis, Ilias, Angelopoulou, Paraskevi, Haidich, Anna Bettina, Smyrnakis, Emmanouil, and Gavana, Magda

Subjects
COVID-19 pandemic, PSYCHOLOGICAL burnout, RISK perception, MEDICAL personnel, DESCRIPTIVE statistics
Abstract

INTRODUCTION The study aims to assess the level of burnout among Greek Primary Healthcare Professionals (physicians, nurses, and allied professionals) and to investigate the association between work-related stressors with the presence of clinical burnout. METHODS A multi-center, web-based, cross-sectional survey was conducted from June to end of October 2021, in Greece. Facilitating convenience sampling, the survey recorded demographic data, personal experience with COVID-19, and emerging work-related perspectives and concerns. Burnout was assessed using the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI), which is a 22-item inventory, referring to three burnout dimensions: emotional exhaustion (EA, 9 items), depersonalization (DE, 5 items), and personal accomplishment (PA, 8 items). The inventory is rated on a 7-point Likert scale, and, for diagnosis, burnout is experienced when at least 2 of the 3 dimensions yield high scores. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and multiple regression models. RESULTS A total of 236 participants, including 104 physicians, 83 nurses, and 49 allied professionals, with a mean age of 46 years (SD=9.3) and a male/female ratio of 0.4, completed the online questionnaire. In respect to MBI subscales, high burnout risk was found in the 23.3%, 29.7%, and 46.6% of the three types of participants, respectively. Gender, occupation, and education level were not identified as predisposing factors. Nevertheless, vulnerability was related to young age (<44 years, p=0.028), working in urban settings (29/64, p=0.001), and the experience of severe SARS-CoV-2 infection in the work environment (32/85, p=0.018). Clinical burnout was more frequently observed in participants who would avoid visiting patients (n=36/96, p=0.015), in those who stated that work could endanger their health (n=59/183, p=0.023), and in those concerned about an imminent staff (n=54/155, p=0.004) or protective equipment (n=53/141, p<0.001) shortage. CONCLUSIONS This study showed the severe psychological impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. Building resilience through the timely identification of risk factors and implementation of meaningful interventions to promote the mental health of healthcare workers is critical. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Published
2024
Full Text
View/download PDF

Catalog

Books, media, physical & digital resources
See catalog results