Background: Efficacy and safety are fundamental for the development of successful COVID-19 vaccines. Vaccine-associated side effects influence vaccine hesitancy. This study investigated the prevalence, severity, and onset of side effects following the first dose of COVID-19 vaccines among physicians and dentists working in various healthcare settings across India. Methods: A cross-sectional survey collected self-report data from April to June 2021 on side effects following the first dose of the vaccine. An online validated questionnaire using the Google Docs® platform was circulated via email and social media platforms. Results: More than 40% of participants experienced at least one side effect after the first dose of vaccination; the most common were mild and resolved within three days after vaccination. More than 91% of respondents received the Covishield (AstraZeneca) vaccine; the most prevalent adverse effects were soreness of the injected arm (78.9%), tiredness (71.1%), and fever (54.9%). Logistic regression showed that women were almost 60% less likely to report side effects. Conclusion: Findings supported the safety of the first dose of the COVID-19 vaccine based on relatively few self-limiting side effects, mainly soreness of the injected arm and tiredness. Further research is needed to determine the long-term safety of COVID-19 vaccines, especially after booster doses.
Background: Human resources are regarded as a country's most valuable asset, and they play a critical role in economic development and growth. According to national policy, the elderly population is defined as 60 and up. Because of the rising demand for financial and social support due to health and related difficulties, the government is under pressure to adopt social policies for the elderly. Clinical preventive care can assist reduce the risks and expenses of chronic illness treatment and can prevent or delay disease onset. Method: The aged population of either sex who visit a rural health geriatric centre's Outpatient department served as the study participants. Data were collected using a self-designed, pre-structured, and pre-validated questionnaire. The information was gathered in the form of a socio-demographic profile, which included all the necessary information, such as socioeconomic status, Body mass index (BMI), and personal habits. Visual examination, hearing, anaemia, musculoskeletal discomfort, diabetes mellitus, dermatological, hypertension, and female patients' reproductive disorders were all included in the clinical examination. Result: A maximum of 263 (65.75%) of the subjects were in the age group of 60-69 years, 29.25% were labourers, and 38% were in modified BG Prasad class (III) of socioeconomic classification, 184 (46%) people had a BMI of 25-29.99 kg/m2. A total of 102 study participants (25.5%) had a chronic illness. 27.5% of the participants had hypertension, 11.8% had diabetes and coronary heart disease, 20.6% had hypertension and diabetes, and 10.8% had previously suffered from tuberculosis (TB). Hearing loss is a common complaint, and 5.5% reported issues with the genitourinary system, with nocturia accounting for 40.9%. Conclusion: The study participants, who were between the ages of 60 and 69, experienced a variety of chronic illnesses. The majority of the people in the study had hypertension, diabetes, heart disease, hypertension, diabetes, and a TB history.
Introduction: The risk of developing lower extremity arterial diseases (LEAD) increases by 2-4 folds in patients with diabetes mellitus. Diabetic individuals with LEAD are more likely than non-diabetic individuals to have limb amputations, and they have a higher risk of cardiovascular and cerebrovascular problems. The present study sought to assess the efficacy of two pulse oximeters, a high-quality standard digital pulse oximeter and an inexpensive pocket pulse oximeter, to detect LEAD in patients with diabetes mellitus. Material and methods: Qualifying patients were examined with a pocket pulse oximeter and digital pulse oximeter for measuring SpO2 of their index fingers, big toes in the supine position, and at 12-inch elevation. All patients underwent Doppler waveform analysis examination of their lower extremity arteries by an investigator, who was unaware of the pulse oximetry results. Doppler waveform analysis is used as the standard. Sensitivity, specificity, the positive and negative predictive values were compared. Results: Twenty nine of 100 legs examined had a significant LEAD, i.e., monophasic waveform by Doppler waveform analysis. Pocket pulse oximetry showed a sensitivity of 72%, a specificity of 98% and a positive predictive value of 95%, and a negative predictive value of 90%. Digital pulse oximetry showed a sensitivity of 83%, 98%, a positive predictive value of 96%, and a negative predictive value of 93%. Conclusion: Pulse oximetry may be a useful additional tool to screen for LEAD in patients with diabetes mellitus. It has good sensitivity and specificity in detecting LEAD even in the asymptomatic phase, especially in type 2 diabetes mellitus patients. In comparison between two oximeters, digital pulse oximetry showed a sensitivity, and the higher sensitivity is desirable in a screening test.
