Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 3 de 3
Filtrar
Más filtros

Banco de datos
Tipo del documento
País de afiliación
Intervalo de año de publicación
1.
Indian J Occup Environ Med ; 28(1): 33-37, 2024.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38783873

RESUMEN

Background: Nursing profession requires strength and resilience not just physically, but emotionally as well which requires them to adapt in stressful situations that they are often exposed to in their work environment. Objective: To determine the prevalence and associated factors of emotional intelligence (EI) and occupational stress (OS) among the nursing professionals from selected tertiary care hospitals in Bangalore, India. Methods: This was a multi-centric, cross-sectional study done among nurses with more than 1year of work experience and they were randomly selected from four tertiary care hospitals in Bangalore. The EI and OS were assessed using the Emotional intelligence scale (EIS) and Occupational Stress Index (OSI). Data was collected, both online and offline, owing to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. The data was analyzed using SPSS v21.0 to calculate the mean, associations, and regression. Results: Out of the total 294, the mean age of the study participants was 27±4.92years. A total of 75 (25.5%) nurses had poor EI and 245 (83.3%) had moderate OSI. None of the participants had high OSI. There was a significant association between the severity grades of EI and OSI (P = 0.010) and a binary logistic regression showed that those staff with high EI had a lesser odd (OR 0.531, 95% CI 0.282-0.999) of developing occupational stress as compared to those with low EI. Conclusion: EI plays a significant role in reversing the effect of one's occupational stress. Thereby, the training curriculum should include skills and measures of resilience to facilitate their EI improvement.

2.
Lancet Reg Health Southeast Asia ; 22: 100361, 2024 Mar.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38482152

RESUMEN

Background: There are limited global data on head-to-head comparisons of vaccine platforms assessing both humoral and cellular immune responses, stratified by pre-vaccination serostatus. The COVID-19 vaccination drive for the Indian population in the age group 18-45 years began in April 2021 when seropositivity rates in the general population were rising due to the delta wave of COVID-19 pandemic during April-May 2021. Methods: Between June 30, 2021, and Jan 28, 2022, we enrolled 691 participants in the age group 18-45 years across four clinical sites in India. In this non-randomised and laboratory blinded study, participants received either two doses of Covaxin® (4 weeks apart) or two doses of Covishield™ (12 weeks apart) as per the national vaccination policy. The primary outcome was the seroconversion rate and the geometric mean titre (GMT) of antibodies against the SARS-CoV-2 spike and nucleocapsid proteins post two doses. The secondary outcome was the frequency of cellular immune responses pre- and post-vaccination. Findings: When compared to pre-vaccination baseline, both vaccines elicited statistically significant seroconversion and binding antibody levels in both seronegative and seropositive individuals. In the per-protocol cohort, Covishield™ elicited higher antibody responses than Covaxin® as measured by seroconversion rate (98.3% vs 74.4%, p < 0.0001 in seronegative individuals; 91.7% vs 66.9%, p < 0.0001 in seropositive individuals) as well as by anti-spike antibody levels against the ancestral strain (GMT 1272.1 vs 75.4 binding antibody units/ml [BAU/ml], p < 0.0001 in seronegative individuals; 2089.07 vs 585.7 BAU/ml, p < 0.0001 in seropositive individuals). As participants at all clinical sites were not recruited at the same time, site-specific immunogenicity was impacted by the timing of vaccination relative to the delta and omicron waves. Surrogate neutralising antibody responses against variants-of-concern including delta and omicron was higher in Covishield™ recipients than in Covaxin® recipients; and in seropositive than in seronegative individuals after both vaccination and asymptomatic infection (omicron variant). T cell responses are reported from only one of the four site cohorts where the vaccination schedule preceded the omicron wave. In seronegative individuals, Covishield™ elicited both CD4+ and CD8+ spike-specific cytokine-producing T cells whereas Covaxin® elicited mainly CD4+ spike-specific T cells. Neither vaccine showed significant post-vaccination expansion of spike-specific T cells in seropositive individuals. Interpretation: Covishield™ elicited immune responses of higher magnitude and breadth than Covaxin® in both seronegative individuals and seropositive individuals, across cohorts representing the pre-vaccination immune history of most of the vaccinated Indian population. Funding: Corporate social responsibility (CSR) funding from Hindustan Unilever Limited (HUL) and Unilever India Pvt. Ltd. (UIPL).

3.
Indian J Occup Environ Med ; 27(4): 275-277, 2023.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38390490
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA