INTRODUCTION: Schizophrenia is a chronic, complex and severe psychiatric disorder affecting millions of people every year and inflicting different costs to the individual, family and community. A growing body of evidence has introduced several genetic and environmental factors and their interactions as aetiological factors of schizophrenia. The goal of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to present an updated representation of the global environmental risk factors of schizophrenia. METHOD AND ANALYSIS: This protocol is developed and reported according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocols guideline. We will systematically search the databases such as PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, PsycINFO and Embase until 30 September 2022. We include Cohort studies that have reported one or more risk factors of schizophrenia. We will also search Google Scholar search engine and references lists of included articles. Extracting the relevant data and assessing the quality of the included studies will be independently performed by different authors of our team. The risk of bias for the included studies will be evaluated using Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Subgroup analysis, meta-regression or sensitivity analysis will be our solution to deal with heterogeneity between studies. We will use a funnel diagram as well as Begg and Egger tests to check for possible publication bias. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not required because there will be no primary data collection or human involvement. The results of this study will be published in an international peer-reviewed journal. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42022359327.
Schizophrenia , Humans , Schizophrenia/epidemiology , Schizophrenia/etiology , Systematic Reviews as Topic , Meta-Analysis as Topic , Risk Factors , Cohort Studies , Research Design
Introduction: University students have been extensively affected with psychological problems due to outbreak of COVID-19 pandemic given their special position and status. In this study, we intend to examine the prevalence of depression, anxiety and stress among a group of students. Methods: This cross-sectional study was performed in medical Sciences universities of Mazandaran Province. 352 students were recruited by simple available sampling method. Data collection tools were Standard Mental Health Questionnaire (DASS-21) and demographic information questionnaire. Data analysis was done using SPSS software through descriptive and analytical statistics. Results: The mean age of students was 22.44 ± 3.4 and 54.3% of them were females. 33.6, 28.4, and 27.3% of students had moderate to extremely severe levels of symptoms of depression, anxiety, and stress, respectively. There was a significant relationship between total mental health score with physical activity (p < 0.04) and with smoking (p < 0.02). There was also a significant relationship between smoking and depression (p < 0.01). Conclusion: Considering the fact that anxiety, stress and depression are common among medical sciences students of Mazandaran Province, necessary measures must be taken to improve their mental health status.
OBJECTIVE: Handover without a structured format is prone to the omission of information and could be a potential risk to patient safety. We sought to determine the effect of a structured checklist on the quality of intraoperative change of shift handover between scrubs and circulars. METHODS: We conducted a control intervention study on operating room wards of two teaching hospitals from 20 Feb to 21 Nov 2020. This research was conducted in three stages as follows: assessing the current situation (as a group before the intervention), performing the intervention and evaluating the effect of using a checklist on handover quality after the intervention in two groups: with and without checklist. We examined the quality of handover between scrub and circular personnel in terms of handover duration and quality, omission of information and improvement in OR staff satisfaction. RESULTS: A total of 120 handovers were observed and evaluated. After intervention in the group using the checklist, the percentage of information omission in surgical report was decreased from 19.5 to 12.1% between scrubs (P < 0.00) and from 16.8 to 14.1% between circulars (P < 0.03). Also, in the role of scrub, the mean overall score of handover process quality was significantly higher after the intervention (xÌ = 7 ± 1.5) than before it (xÌ = 6.5 ± 0.9) (p < 0.02). In the role of circulating, despite the positive effect of overall score checklist, no significant difference was observed (p < 0.08). The use of checklist significantly increased the handover duration between scrubs (p < 0.03) and circulars (p < 0.00). The overall mean percentage of handover satisfaction increased from 67.5% before the intervention to 85.5% after the intervention (p < 0.00). CONCLUSION: The implementation of a new structured handover checklist had a positive impact on improving the quality of communication between the surgical team, reducing the information omission rate and increasing the satisfaction.
