Perceived Need for Mental Health Services Among Healthcare Workers During the Coronavirus Disease-19 Pandemic in Turkey: A Multicenter Cross-sectional Study

Background: The coronavirus disease-2019 pandemic has contributed to work-related psychosocial risks in healthcare workers. Aims: To evaluate the perceived need for mental health services and related factors in Turkish healthcare workers practicing in pandemic hospitals. Study Design: Cross-sectional study. Methods: Data were collected from face-to-face interviews with healthcare workers at 19 pandemic hospitals in 13 provinces between September and November 2021. The study survey included the evaluation of the perceived need for and utilization of mental health services in the previous year, as well as sociodemographic, health-related, and work-related characteristics, the General Health Questionnaire-12, the World Health Organization Quality of Life-BREF (WHOQoL-BREF) questionnaire, and the Fear of coronavirus disease-2019 scale (FCV-19S). Results: Of 1,556 participants, 522 (33.5%) reported a perceived need for mental health services, but only 133 (8.5%) reported receiving these services. Multiple logistic regression analysis of the perceived need for mental health services revealed significant relationships with lower age, female sex, being a current smoker, having a chronic disease, having a mental disorder, coronavirus disease-2019 contact within the last three months in settings other than the home or workplace, a positive coronavirus disease-2019 vaccination history, being a physician, being a non-physician healthcare professional, and coronavirus disease-2019 contact within the last three months at work. After adjustment for these characteristics, higher General Health Questionnaire-12 and FCV-19S scores and lower WHOQoL-BREF domain scores were related to the perceived need for mental health services in logistic regression analyses. Conclusion: The findings indicate a substantial need for mental health services amongst Turkish healthcare workers during the pandemic and outline participants' characteristics regarding high-priority groups for the intervention. Future research may focus on developing actions and evaluating their efficiency.

COVID-19 Treatment at a Glance.

As coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) spreads across the world, the ongoing clinical trials are leading to a big race worldwide to develop a treatment that will help control the pandemic. Unfortunately, COVID-19 does not have any known effective treatment with reliable study results yet. In this pandemic, there is not a lot of time to develop a new specific agent because of the rapid spread of the disease. The process of developing a vaccine is long and requires hard work. Although the pathophysiology of the disease is not fully understood, some of the proposed treatment alternatives are based on old evidence and some have been used with the idea that they might work owing to their mechanism of action. The efficacy, reliability, and safety of the currently available treatment alternatives are therefore a matter of debate. Currently, the main therapies used in the treatment of COVID-19 are antiviral drugs and chloroquine/hydroxychloroquine. Other proposed options include tocilizumab, convalescent plasma, and steroids, but the mainstay of the treatment in intensive care units remains supportive therapies.

Unclear Issues Regarding COVID-19.

Scientists from all over the world have been intensively working to discover different aspects of Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) since the first cluster of cases was reported in China. Herein, we aimed to investigate unclear issues related to transmission and pathogenesis of disease as well as accuracy of diagnostic tests and treatment modalities. A literature search on PubMed, Ovid, and EMBASE databases was conducted, and articles pertinent to identified search terms were extracted. A snow-ball search strategy was followed in order to retrieve additional relevant articles. It was reported that viral spread may occur during the asymptomatic phase of infection, and viral load was suggested to be a useful marker to assess disease severity. In contrast to immune response against viral infections, cytotoxic T lymphocytes decline in SARS-CoV-2 infection, which can be partially explained by direct invasion of T lymphocytes or apoptosis activated by SARS-CoV-2. Dysregulation of the urokinase pathway, cleavage of the SARS-CoV-2 Spike protein by FXa and FIIa, and consumption coagulopathy were the proposed mechanisms of the coagulation dysfunction in COVID-19. False-negative rates of reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction varied between 3% and 41% across studies. The probability of the positive test was proposed to decrease with the number of days past from symptom onset. Safety issues related to infection spread limit the use of high flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) and continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) in hypoxic patients. Further studies are required to elucidate the challenging issues, thus enhancing the management of COVID-19 patients.