Showing 1 to 10 of 894 records(fetched in 3.152 seconds)
TitlePsychosocial impact of COVID-19.
AuthorsDubey, S; Biswas, P; Ghosh, R; Chatterjee, S; Dubey, MJ; Chatterjee, S; Lahiri, D; Lavie, CJ
JournalDiabetes & metabolic syndrome
Publication Date1 Dec 2020
Date Added to PubMed12 Jun 2020
AbstractAlong with its high infectivity and fatality rates, the 2019 Corona Virus Disease (COVID-19) has caused universal psychosocial impact by causing mass hysteria, economic burden and financial losses. Mass fear of COVID-19, termed as "coronaphobia", has generated a plethora of psychiatric manifestations across the different strata of the society. So, this review has been undertaken to define psychosocial impact of COVID-19. Pubmed and GoogleScholar are searched with the following key terms- "COVID-19", "SARS-CoV2", "Pandemic", "Psychology", "Psychosocial", "Psychitry", "marginalized", "telemedicine", "mental health", "quarantine", "infodemic", "social media" and" "internet". Few news paper reports related to COVID-19 and psychosocial impacts have also been added as per context. Disease itself multiplied by forced quarantine to combat COVID-19 applied by nationwide lockdowns can produce acute panic, anxiety, obsessive behaviors, hoarding, paranoia, and depression, and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in the long run. These have been fueled by an "infodemic" spread via different platforms of social media. Outbursts of racism, stigmatization, and xenophobia against particular communities are also being widely reported. Nevertheless, frontline healthcare workers are at higher-risk of contracting the disease as well as experiencing adverse psychological outcomes in form of burnout, anxiety, fear of transmitting infection, feeling of incompatibility, depression, increased substance-dependence, and PTSD. Community-based mitigation programs to combat COVID-19 will disrupt children's usual lifestyle and may cause florid mental distress. The psychosocial aspects of older people, their caregivers, psychiatric patients and marginalized communities are affected by this pandemic in different ways and need special attention. For better dealing with these psychosocial issues of different strata of the society, psychosocial crisis prevention and intervention models should be urgently developed by the government, health care personnel and other stakeholders. Apt application of internet services, technology and social media to curb both pandemic and infodemic needs to be instigated. Psychosocial preparedness by setting up mental organizations specific for future pandemics is certainly necessary.
Linkhttp://doi.org/10.1016/j.dsx.2020.05.035
TitleHow the COVID-19 pandemic will change the future of critical care.
AuthorsArabi, YM; Azoulay, E; Al-Dorzi, HM; Phua, J; Salluh, J; Binnie, A; Hodgson, C; Angus, DC; Cecconi, M; Du, B; Fowler, R; Gomersall, CD; Horby, P; Juffermans, NP; Kesecioglu, J; Kleinpell, RM; Machado, FR; Martin, GS; Meyfroidt, G; Rhodes, A; Rowan, K; Timsit, JF; Vincent, JL; Citerio, G
JournalIntensive care medicine
Publication Date1 Mar 2021
Date Added to PubMed23 Feb 2021
AbstractCoronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) has posed unprecedented healthcare system challenges, some of which will lead to transformative change. It is obvious to healthcare workers and policymakers alike that an effective critical care surge response must be nested within the overall care delivery model. The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted key elements of emergency preparedness. These include having national or regional strategic reserves of personal protective equipment, intensive care unit (ICU) devices, consumables and pharmaceuticals, as well as effective supply chains and efficient utilization protocols. ICUs must also be prepared to accommodate surges of patients and ICU staffing models should allow for fluctuations in demand. Pre-existing ICU triage and end-of-life care principles should be established, implemented and updated. Daily workflow processes should be restructured to include remote connection with multidisciplinary healthcare workers and frequent communication with relatives. The pandemic has also demonstrated the benefits of digital transformation and the value of remote monitoring technologies, such as wireless monitoring. Finally, the pandemic has highlighted the value of pre-existing epidemiological registries and agile randomized controlled platform trials in generating fast, reliable data. The COVID-19 pandemic is a reminder that besides our duty to care, we are committed to improve. By meeting these challenges today, we will be able to provide better care to future patients.
Linkhttp://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-021-06352-y
TitleHealth workers' perceptions and experiences of using mHealth technologies to deliver primary healthcare services: a qualitative evidence synthesis.
AuthorsOdendaal, WA; Anstey Watkins, J; Leon, N; Goudge, J; Griffiths, F; Tomlinson, M; Daniels, K
JournalThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews
Publication Date26 Mar 2020
Date Added to PubMed28 Mar 2020
AbstractMobile health (mHealth), refers to healthcare practices supported by mobile devices, such as mobile phones and tablets. Within primary care, health workers often use mobile devices to register clients, track their health, and make decisions about care, as well as to communicate with clients and other health workers. An understanding of how health workers relate to, and experience mHealth, can help in its implementation. To synthesise qualitative research evidence on health workers' perceptions and experiences of using mHealth technologies to deliver primary healthcare services, and to develop hypotheses about why some technologies are more effective than others. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Science Citation Index and Social Sciences Citation Index in January 2018. We searched Global Health in December 2015. We screened the reference lists of included studies and key references and searched seven sources for grey literature (16 February to 5 March 2018). We re-ran the search strategies in February 2020. We screened these records and any studies that we identified as potentially relevant are awaiting classification. We included studies that used qualitative data collection and analysis methods. We included studies of mHealth programmes that were part of primary healthcare services. These services could be implemented in public or private primary healthcare facilities, community and workplace, or the homes of clients. We included all categories of health workers, as well as those persons who supported the delivery and management of the mHealth programmes. We excluded participants identified as technical staff who developed and maintained the mHealth technology, without otherwise being involved in the programme delivery. We included studies conducted in any country. We assessed abstracts, titles and full-text papers according to the inclusion criteria. We found 53 studies that met the inclusion criteria and sampled 43 of these for our analysis. For the 43 sampled studies, we extracted information, such as country, health worker category, and the mHealth technology. We used a thematic analysis process. We used GRADE-CERQual to assess our confidence in the findings. Most of the 43 included sample studies were from low- or middle-income countries. In many of the studies, the mobile devices had decision support software loaded onto them, which showed the steps the health workers had to follow when they provided health care. Other uses included in-person and/or text message communication, and recording clients' health information. Almost half of the studies looked at health workers' use of mobile devices for mother, child, and newborn health. We have moderate or high confidence in the following findings. mHealth changed how health workers worked with each other: health workers appreciated being more connected to colleagues, and thought that this improved co-ordination and quality of care. However, some described problems when senior colleagues did not respond or responded in anger. Some preferred face-to-face connection with colleagues. Some believed that mHealth improved their reporting, while others compared it to "big brother watching". mHealth changed how health workers delivered care: health workers appreciated how mHealth let them take on new tasks, work flexibly, and reach clients in difficult-to-reach areas. They appreciated mHealth when it improved feedback, speed and workflow, but not when it was slow or time consuming. Some health workers found decision support software useful; others thought it threatened their clinical skills. Most health workers saw mHealth as better than paper, but some preferred paper. Some health workers saw mHealth as creating more work. mHealth led to new forms of engagement and relationships with clients and communities: health workers felt that communicating with clients by mobile phone improved care and their relationships with clients, but felt that some clients needed face-to-face contact. Health workers were aware of the importance of protecting confidential client information when using mobile devices. Some health workers did not mind being contacted by clients outside working hours, while others wanted boundaries. Health workers described how some community members trusted health workers that used mHealth while others were sceptical. Health workers pointed to problems when clients needed to own their own phones. Health workers' use and perceptions of mHealth could be influenced by factors tied to costs, the health worker, the technology, the health system and society, poor network access, and poor access to electricity: some health workers did not mind covering extra costs. Others complained that phone credit was not delivered on time. Health workers who were accustomed to using mobile phones were sometimes more positive towards mHealth. Others with less experience, were sometimes embarrassed about making mistakes in front of clients or worried about job security. Health workers wanted training, technical support, user-friendly devices, and systems that were integrated into existing electronic health systems. The main challenges health workers experienced were poor network connections, access to electricity, and the cost of recharging phones. Other problems included damaged phones. Factors outside the health system also influenced how health workers experienced mHealth, including language, gender, and poverty issues. Health workers felt that their commitment to clients helped them cope with these challenges. Our findings propose a nuanced view about mHealth programmes. The complexities of healthcare delivery and human interactions defy simplistic conclusions on how health workers will perceive and experience their use of mHealth. Perceptions reflect the interplay between the technology, contexts, and human attributes. Detailed descriptions of the programme, implementation processes and contexts, alongside effectiveness studies, will help to unravel this interplay to formulate hypotheses regarding the effectiveness of mHealth.
Linkhttp://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD011942.pub2
TitleCommunity health workers and mHealth systems for hearing screening in rural Nicaraguan schoolchildren.
AuthorsSaunders, JE; Bessen, S; Magro, I; Cowan, D; Quiroz, MG; Mojica-Alvarez, K; Penalba, D; Reike, C; Niemczak, CE; Fellows, A; Buckey, JC
JournalJournal of global health
Publication Date9 Aug 2022
Date Added to PubMed9 Aug 2022
AbstractWe aimed to investigate the effectiveness of using minimally trained community health workers (CHW) to screen schoolchildren in rural Nicaragua for hearing loss using a tablet-based audiometric system integrated with asynchronous telehealth evaluations and mobile health (mHealth) appointment reminders. A population-based survey was conducted using community health workers (CHWs) to perform tablet-based audiometry, asynchronous telehealth evaluations, and mHealth reminders to screen 3398 school children (7-9 years of age) in 92 rural Nicaraguan communities. The accuracy of screening, test duration, testing efficiency, telehealth data validity, and compliance with recommended clinic visits were analyzed. Minimally trained CHWs successfully screened children within remote rural schools with automated audiometry (test duration = 5.8 minutes) followed by manual audiometry if needed (test duration = 4.3 minutes) with an estimated manual audiometry validity of 98.5% based on a review of convergence patterns. For children who were referred based on audiometry, the otoscopy and tympanometry obtained during telehealth evaluations were high quality (as reviewed by 3 experts) in 44.6% and 80.1% of ears, respectively. A combination of automated short message service (SMS) text messages and voice reminders resulted in a follow-up compliance of 75.2%. No families responded to SMS messages alone. Tablet-based hearing screening administered by minimally trained CHWs is feasible and effective in low- and middle-income countries. Manual audiometry was as efficient as automated audiometry in this setting. The physical exam tasks of otoscopy and tympanometry require additional training. Mobile phone messages improve compliance for confirmatory audiometry, but the utility of SMS messaging alone is unclear in this population.
Linkhttp://doi.org/10.7189/jogh.12.04060
TitleDigital Solutions for Community and Primary Health Workers: Lessons From Implementations in Africa.
AuthorsOwoyemi, A; Osuchukwu, JI; Azubuike, C; Ikpe, RK; Nwachukwu, BC; Akinde, CB; Biokoro, GW; Ajose, AB; Nwokoma, EI; Mfon, NE; Benson, TO; Ehimare, A; Irowa-Omoregie, D; Olaniran, S
JournalFrontiers in digital health
Publication Date1 Dec 2022
Date Added to PubMed28 Jun 2022
AbstractThe agenda for Universal Health Coverage has driven the exploration of various innovative approaches to expanding health services to the general population. As more African countries have adopted digital health tools as part of the strategic approach to expanding health services, there is a need for defining a standard framework for implementation across board. Therefore, there is a need to review and employ an evidence-based approach to inform managing challenges, adopting best approaches, and implement informed recommendations. We reviewed a variety of digital health tools applied to different health conditions in primary care settings and highlighted the challenges faced, approaches that worked and relevant recommendations. These include limited coverage and network connectivity, lack of technological competence, lack of power supply, limited mobile phone usage and application design challenges. Despite these challenges, this review suggests that mHealth solutions could attain effective usage when healthcare workers receive adequate onsite training, deploying applications designed in an intuitive and easy to understand approach in a manner that fits into the users existing workflows, and involvement of the stakeholders at all levels in the design, planning, and implementation stages of the interventions.
Linkhttp://doi.org/10.3389/fdgth.2022.876957
TitleSocial determinants of health and asthma.
AuthorsEspaillat, AE; Hernandez, ML; Burbank, AJ
JournalCurrent opinion in allergy and clinical immunology
Publication Date1 Apr 2023
Date Added to PubMed3 Feb 2023
AbstractSocial determinants of health play a major role in healthcare utilization and outcomes in patients with asthma. Continuing to understand how these complex and interwoven relationships interact to impact patient care will be crucial to creating innovative programmes that address these disparities. The current literature continues to support the association of substandard housing, urban and rural neighbourhoods, and race/ethnicity with poor asthma outcomes. Targeted interventions with community health workers (CHWs), telemedicine and local environmental rectifications can help improve outcomes. The link between social determinants and poor asthma outcomes continues to be supported by recent literature. These factors are both nonmodifiable and consequences of institutionalized racist policies that require innovative ideas, technologic equity and funding for groups most at risk for poorer outcomes.
Linkhttp://doi.org/10.1097/ACI.0000000000000872
TitleBridging the LatinX community care gap.
AuthorsGonzalez, AG
JournalCurrent opinion in endocrinology, diabetes, and obesity
Publication Date1 Aug 2022
Date Added to PubMed2 Jul 2022
AbstractTo summarize current developments aimed at improving diabetes care utilizing novel and culturally sensitive strategies to bridge the care gap in the LatinX community. There is more than a decade of literature describing disparities in diabetes care and outcomes particularly involving ethnic and racial minorities leading to higher incidence of acute and long-term complications. Social determinants of health including language and cultural barriers in the LatinX community are important determining factors. We found three novel strategies reported in the current literature aimed at closing the diabetes care gap in LatinX patients: community-based efforts: community health workers (CHWs) and peer-led; shared medical and educational models; and adapting telehealth group appointments. Here we review relevant but limited published articles found in the literature addressing the diabetes care gap in the LatinX community utilizing cost effective, novel and culturally sensitive strategies and reinforce the importance of continued work and publications on this very important field.
Linkhttp://doi.org/10.1097/MED.0000000000000747
TitleDigital Health-Enabled Community-Centered Care: Scalable Model to Empower Future Community Health Workers Using Human-in-the-Loop Artificial Intelligence.
AuthorsRodrigues, SM; Kanduri, A; Nyamathi, A; Dutt, N; Khargonekar, P; Rahmani, AM
JournalJMIR formative research
Publication Date6 Apr 2022
Date Added to PubMed7 Apr 2022
AbstractDigital health-enabled community-centered care (D-CCC) represents a pioneering vision for the future of community-centered care. D-CCC aims to support and amplify the digital footprint of community health workers through a novel artificial intelligence-enabled closed-loop digital health platform designed for, and with, community health workers. By focusing digitalization at the level of the community health worker, D-CCC enables more timely, supported, and individualized community health worker-delivered interventions. D-CCC has the potential to move community-centered care into an expanded, digitally interconnected, and collaborative community-centered health and social care ecosystem of the future, grounded within a robust and digitally empowered community health workforce.
Linkhttp://doi.org/10.2196/29535
TitleMobile technologies to support healthcare provider to healthcare provider communication and management of care.
AuthorsGonçalves-Bradley, DC; J Maria, AR; Ricci-Cabello, I; Villanueva, G; Fønhus, MS; Glenton, C; Lewin, S; Henschke, N; Buckley, BS; Mehl, GL; Tamrat, T; Shepperd, S
JournalThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews
Publication Date18 Aug 2020
Date Added to PubMed20 Aug 2020
AbstractThe widespread use of mobile technologies can potentially expand the use of telemedicine approaches to facilitate communication between healthcare providers, this might increase access to specialist advice and improve patient health outcomes. To assess the effects of mobile technologies versus usual care for supporting communication and consultations between healthcare providers on healthcare providers' performance, acceptability and satisfaction, healthcare use, patient health outcomes, acceptability and satisfaction, costs, and technical difficulties. We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and three other databases from 1 January 2000 to 22 July 2019. We searched clinical trials registries, checked references of relevant systematic reviews and included studies, and contacted topic experts. Randomised trials comparing mobile technologies to support healthcare provider to healthcare provider communication and consultations compared with usual care. We followed standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane and EPOC. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence. We included 19 trials (5766 participants when reported), most were conducted in high-income countries. The most frequently used mobile technology was a mobile phone, often accompanied by training if it was used to transfer digital images. Trials recruited participants with different conditions, and interventions varied in delivery, components, and frequency of contact. We judged most trials to have high risk of performance bias, and approximately half had a high risk of detection, attrition, and reporting biases. Two studies reported data on technical problems, reporting few difficulties. Mobile technologies used by primary care providers to consult with hospital specialists We assessed the certainty of evidence for this group of trials as moderate to low. Mobile technologies: - probably make little or no difference to primary care providers following guidelines for people with chronic kidney disease (CKD; 1 trial, 47 general practices, 3004 participants); - probably reduce the time between presentation and management of individuals with skin conditions, people with symptoms requiring an ultrasound, or being referred for an appointment with a specialist after attending primary care (4 trials, 656 participants); - may reduce referrals and clinic visits among people with some skin conditions, and increase the likelihood of receiving retinopathy screening among people with diabetes, or an ultrasound in those referred with symptoms (9 trials, 4810 participants when reported); - probably make little or no difference to patient-reported quality of life and health-related quality of life (2 trials, 622 participants) or to clinician-assessed clinical recovery (2 trials, 769 participants) among individuals with skin conditions; - may make little or no difference to healthcare provider (2 trials, 378 participants) or participant acceptability and satisfaction (4 trials, 972 participants) when primary care providers consult with dermatologists; - may make little or no difference for total or expected costs per participant for adults with some skin conditions or CKD (6 trials, 5423 participants). Mobile technologies used by emergency physicians to consult with hospital specialists about people attending the emergency department We assessed the certainty of evidence for this group of trials as moderate. Mobile technologies: - probably slightly reduce the consultation time between emergency physicians and hospital specialists (median difference -12 minutes, 95% CI -19 to -7; 1 trial, 345 participants); - probably reduce participants' length of stay in the emergency department by a few minutes (median difference -30 minutes, 95% CI -37 to -25; 1 trial, 345 participants). We did not identify trials that reported on providers' adherence, participants' health status and well-being, healthcare provider and participant acceptability and satisfaction, or costs. Mobile technologies used by community health workers or home-care workers to consult with clinic staff We assessed the certainty of evidence for this group of trials as moderate to low. Mobile technologies: - probably make little or no difference in the number of outpatient clinic and community nurse consultations for participants with diabetes or older individuals treated with home enteral nutrition (2 trials, 370 participants) or hospitalisation of older individuals treated with home enteral nutrition (1 trial, 188 participants); - may lead to little or no difference in mortality among people living with HIV (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.22) or diabetes (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.28 to 3.12) (2 trials, 1152 participants); - may make little or no difference to participants' disease activity or health-related quality of life in participants with rheumatoid arthritis (1 trial, 85 participants); - probably make little or no difference for participant acceptability and satisfaction for participants with diabetes and participants with rheumatoid arthritis (2 trials, 178 participants). We did not identify any trials that reported on providers' adherence, time between presentation and management, healthcare provider acceptability and satisfaction, or costs. Our confidence in the effect estimates is limited. Interventions including a mobile technology component to support healthcare provider to healthcare provider communication and management of care may reduce the time between presentation and management of the health condition when primary care providers or emergency physicians use them to consult with specialists, and may increase the likelihood of receiving a clinical examination among participants with diabetes and those who required an ultrasound. They may decrease the number of people attending primary care who are referred to secondary or tertiary care in some conditions, such as some skin conditions and CKD. There was little evidence of effects on participants' health status and well-being, satisfaction, or costs.
Linkhttp://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD012927.pub2
TitleHealth Worker mHealth Utilization: A Systematic Review.
AuthorsWhite, A; Thomas, DS; Ezeanochie, N; Bull, S
JournalComputers, informatics, nursing : CIN
Publication Date1 May 2016
Date Added to PubMed10 Mar 2016
AbstractThis systematic review describes mHealth interventions directed at healthcare workers in low-resource settings from the PubMed database from March 2009 to May 2015. Thirty-one articles were selected for final review. Four categories emerged from the reviewed articles: data collection during patient visits, communication between health workers and patients, communication between health workers, and public health surveillance. Most studies used a combination of quantitative and qualitative methods to assess acceptability of use, barriers to use, changes in healthcare delivery, and improved health outcomes. Few papers included theory explicitly to guide development and evaluation of their mHealth programs. Overall, evidence indicated that mobile technology tools, such as smartphones and tablets, substantially benefit healthcare workers, their patients, and healthcare delivery. Limitations to mHealth tools included insufficient program use and sustainability, unreliable Internet and electricity, and security issues. Despite these limitations, this systematic review demonstrates the utility of using mHealth in low-resource settings and the potential for widespread health system improvements using technology.
Linkhttp://doi.org/10.1097/CIN.0000000000000231
MNCHFPRHHIV/AIDSMalariaNoncommunicable diseaseCOVID-19Decision-makingEducation & trainingBehavior changeGovernancePrivacy & securityEquityCHWsYouth & adolescentsSystematic reviewsProtocols & research designMedical RecordsLaboratoryPharmacyHuman ResourcesmHealthSMSChatbotsAI