COVID-19: Factors Associated with the Psychological Distress, Fear and Resilient Coping Strategies among Community Members in Saudi Arabia.

(1) Background: COVID-19 caused the worst international public health crisis, accompanied by major global economic downturns and mass-scale job losses, which impacted the psychosocial wellbeing of the worldwide population, including Saudi Arabia. Evidence of the high-risk groups impacted by the pandemic has been non-existent in Saudi Arabia. Therefore, this study examined factors associated with psychosocial distress, fear of COVID-19 and coping strategies among the general population in Saudi Arabia. (2) Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted in healthcare and community settings in the Saudi Arabia using an anonymous online questionnaire. The Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K-10), Fear of COVID-19 Scale (FCV-19S) and Brief Resilient Coping Scale (BRCS) were used to assess psychological distress, fear and coping strategies, respectively. Multivariate logistic regressions were used, and an Adjusted Odds Ratio (AOR) with 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) was reported. (3) Results: Among 803 participants, 70% (n = 556) were females, and the median age was 27 years; 35% (n = 278) were frontline or essential service workers; and 24% (n = 195) reported comorbid conditions including mental health illness. Of the respondents, 175 (21.8%) and 207 (25.8%) reported high and very high psychological distress, respectively. Factors associated with moderate to high levels of psychological distress were: youth, females, non-Saudi nationals, those experiencing a change in employment or a negative financial impact, having comorbidities, and current smoking. A high level of fear was reported by 89 participants (11.1%), and this was associated with being ex-smokers (3.72, 1.14-12.14, 0.029) and changes in employment (3.42, 1.91-6.11, 0.000). A high resilience was reported by 115 participants (14.3%), and 333 participants (41.5%) had medium resilience. Financial impact and contact with known/suspected cases (1.63, 1.12-2.38, 0.011) were associated with low, medium, to high resilient coping. (4) Conclusions: People in Saudi Arabia were at a higher risk of psychosocial distress along with medium-high resilience during the COVID-19 pandemic, warranting urgent attention from healthcare providers and policymakers to provide specific mental health support strategies for their current wellbeing and to avoid a post-pandemic mental health crisis.

Impact of easing COVID-19 lockdown restrictions on traumatic injuries in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: one-year experience at a major trauma centre.

INTRODUCTION: Lockdown restrictions due to the COVID-19 pandemic have reduced the number of injuries recorded. However, little is known about the impact of easing COVID-19 lockdown restrictions on the nature and outcome of injuries. This study aims to compare injury patterns prior to and after the easing of COVID-19 lockdown restrictions in Saudi Arabia. METHOD: Data were collected retrospectively from the Saudi TraumA Registry for the period between March 25, 2019, and June 21, 2021. These data corresponded to three periods: March 2019-February 2020 (pre-restrictions, period 1), March 2020-June 2020 (lockdown, period 2), and July 2020-June 2021 (post easing of restrictions, period 3). Data related to patients' demographics, mechanism and severity of injury, and in-hospital mortality were collected and analysed. RESULTS: A total of 5,147 traumatic injury patients were included in the analysis (pre-restrictions n = 2593; lockdown n = 218; post easing of lockdown restrictions n = 2336). An increase in trauma cases (by 7.6%) was seen in the 30-44 age group after easing restrictions (n = 648 vs. 762, p < 0.01). Motor vehicle crashes (MVC) were the leading cause of injury, followed by falls in all the three periods. MVC-related injuries decreased by 3.1% (n = 1068 vs. 890, p = 0.03) and pedestrian-related injuries decreased by 2.7% (n = 227 vs. 143, p < 0.01); however, burn injuries increased by 2.2% (n = 134 vs. 174, p < 0.01) and violence-related injuries increased by 0.9% (n = 45 vs. 60, p = 0.05) post easing of lockdown restrictions. We observed an increase in in-hospital mortality during the period of 12 months after easing of lockdown restrictions-4.9% (114/2336) compared to 12 months of pre-lockdown period-4.3% (113/2593). CONCLUSION: This is one of the first studies to document trauma trends over a one-year period after easing lockdown restrictions. MVC continues to be the leading cause of injuries despite a slight decrease; overall injury cases rebounded towards pre-lockdown levels in Saudi Arabia. Injury prevention needs robust legislation with respect to road safety measures and law enforcement that can decrease the burden of traumatic injuries.

A state-of-the-art review of factors that predict mortality among traumatic injury patients following a road traffic crash.

BACKGROUND: Traffic related injuries are a major public health problem worldwide with millions of people dying every year. The objective of this state-of-the-art review was to identify the factors reported in the literature as being associated with mortality for trauma patients following road traffic crashes. METHOD: A systematic search was undertaken of PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases to identify articles published in the past two decades (2000-2020). Of 8257 records, 4507 remained for title, abstract and full text screening after duplicates were removed. The level of evidence of selected studies was assessed using The National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) guideline. RESULTS: This review included eighty primary research studies examining mortality risk factors following a road traffic crash. The study identified factors in five categories; (i) demographic factors; (ii) behavioural factors; (iii) crash characteristics; (iv) environmental and timing factors; (v) injury severity and pre-injury/condition. The primary studies are summarised in a matrix. Included studies included level II to level IV levels of evidence based on the NHMRC criteria. CONCLUSION: This study shows that there are a large number of factors associated with increased risk of mortality following diverse types of traffic crashes. Understanding these wide-ranging factors can strengthen injury and mortality prevention by guiding decision makers about where to focus strategy implementation.

Reported effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on the psychological status of emergency healthcare workers: A scoping review.

BACKGROUND: While literature on psychological consequences among frontline healthcare workers (HCWs) flourishes, understanding the psychological burden on this group is particularly crucial, as their exposure to COVID-19 makes them especially at high risk. We explored what is known about psychological effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on emergency HCWs. METHODS: We used a scoping review following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews. RESULTS: The search identified 5432 articles, from which a total of 21 were included in the final review. Anxiety, burnout, depression, inadequate sleep, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms, distress/stress and secondary trauma, were all reportedly experienced by emergency HCWs. Anxiety, burnout, depression and stress levels were higher among physicians and nurses compared to others. Post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms were higher among reserve medics, while Red Cross volunteers developed similar reactions of psychological stress and secondary trauma to other healthcare workers. Male HCWs reported more post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms than females, while stress was higher among females than male HCWs. CONCLUSIONS: Emergency HCWs providing care during the COVID-19 pandemic are at risk from specific psychological impacts, including anxiety, burnout, depression, inadequate sleep, PTSD symptoms, psychological distress/stress and secondary trauma, and stress TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: Emergency healthcare workers are at direct risk of psychological impacts from the COVID-19 pandemic.

COVID-19: Factors associated with psychological distress, fear, and coping strategies among community members across 17 countries.

BACKGROUND: The current pandemic of COVID-19 impacted the psychological wellbeing of populations globally. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to examine the extent and identify factors associated with psychological distress, fear of COVID-19 and coping. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study across 17 countries during Jun-2020 to Jan-2021. Levels of psychological distress (Kessler Psychological Distress Scale), fear of COVID-19 (Fear of COVID-19 Scale), and coping (Brief Resilient Coping Scale) were assessed. RESULTS: A total of 8,559 people participated; mean age (±SD) was 33(±13) years, 64% were females and 40% self-identified as frontline workers. More than two-thirds (69%) experienced moderate-to-very high levels of psychological distress, which was 46% in Thailand and 91% in Egypt. A quarter (24%) had high levels of fear of COVID-19, which was as low as 9% in Libya and as high as 38% in Bangladesh. More than half (57%) exhibited medium to high resilient coping; the lowest prevalence (3%) was reported in Australia and the highest (72%) in Syria. Being female (AOR 1.31 [95% CIs 1.09-1.57]), perceived distress due to change of employment status (1.56 [1.29-1.90]), comorbidity with mental health conditions (3.02 [1.20-7.60]) were associated with higher levels of psychological distress and fear. Doctors had higher psychological distress (1.43 [1.04-1.97]), but low levels of fear of COVID-19 (0.55 [0.41-0.76]); nurses had medium to high resilient coping (1.30 [1.03-1.65]). CONCLUSIONS: The extent of psychological distress, fear of COVID-19 and coping varied by country; however, we identified few higher risk groups who were more vulnerable than others. There is an urgent need to prioritise health and well-being of those people through well-designed intervention that may need to be tailored to meet country specific requirements.

The effectiveness of trauma care systems at different stages of development in reducing mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Traumatic injury remains the leading cause of death, with more than five million deaths every year. Little is known about the comparative effectiveness in reducing mortality of trauma care systems at different stages of development. The objective of this study was to review the literature and examine differences in mortality associated with different stages of trauma system development. METHOD: A systematic review of peer-reviewed population-based studies retrieved from MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL. Additional studies were identified from references of articles, through database searching, and author lists. Articles written in English and published between 2000 and 2020 were included. Selection of studies, data extraction, and quality assessment of the included studies were performed by two independent reviewers. The results were reported as odds ratio (OR) with 95 % confidence intervals (CI). RESULTS: A total of 52 studies with a combined 1,106,431 traumatic injury patients were included for quantitative analysis. The overall mortality rate was 6.77% (n = 74,930). When patients were treated in a non-trauma centre compared to a trauma centre, the pooled statistical odds of mortality were reduced (OR 0.74 [95% CI 0.69-0.79]; p < 0.001). When patients were treated in a non-trauma system compared to a trauma system the odds of mortality rates increased (OR 1.17 [95% CI 1.10-1.24]; p < 0.001). When patients were treated in a post-implementation/initial system compared to a mature system, odds of mortality were significantly higher (OR 1.46 [95% CI 1.37-1.55]; p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The present study highlights that the survival of traumatic injured patients varies according to the stage of trauma system development in which the patient was treated. The analysis indicates a significant reduction in mortality following the introduction of the trauma system which is further enhanced as the system matures. These results provide evidence to support efforts to, firstly, implement trauma systems in countries currently without and, secondly, to enhance existing systems by investing in system development. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION NUMBER: PROSPERO CRD42019142842 .

Effectiveness of trauma care systems at different stages of development in reducing mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis protocol.

INTRODUCTION: The introduction of trauma systems that began in the 1970s resulted in improved trauma care and a decreased rate of morbidity and mortality of trauma patients. Worldwide, little is known about the effectiveness of trauma care system at different stages of development, from establishing a trauma centre, to implementing a trauma system and as trauma systems mature. The objective of this study is to extract and analyse data from research that evaluates mortality rates according to different stages of trauma system development globally. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The proposed review will comply with the checklist of the 'Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis'. In this review, only peer-reviewed articles written in English, human-related studies and published between January 2000 and December 2020 will be included. Articles will be retrieved from MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL. Additional articles will be identified from other sources such as references of included articles and author lists. Two independent authors will assess the eligibility of studies as well as critically appraise and assess the methodological quality of all included studies using the Cochrane Risk of Bias for Non-randomised Studies of Interventions tool. Two independent authors will extract the data to minimise errors and bias during the process of data extraction using an extraction tool developed by the authors. For analysis calculation, effect sizes will be expressed as risk ratios or ORs for dichotomous data or weighted (or standardised) mean differences and 95% CIs for continuous data in this systematic review. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This systematic review will use secondary data only, therefore, research ethics approval is not required. The results from this study will be submitted to a peer-review journal for publication and we will present our findings at national and international conferences. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42019142842.

Self-efficacy of direct care workers providing care to older people in residential aged care settings: a scoping review protocol.

BACKGROUND: Self-efficacy is developed through a person's interaction with his/her physical and social environment. Self-efficacy in caring is an essential attribute of care workers to develop a positive attitude towards their clients, improve work performance, and enhance job satisfaction. Care workers' self-efficacy may vary according to the context in which the care is being provided. Aged care is a multidimensional and challenging setting, and characteristics of aged care services are different from those of acute care services. The objective of this review is to give an overview of the self-efficacy of residential aged care workers in caring for older people and factors influencing their self-efficacy. METHODS: The protocol for this review is based on the Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewer's Manual for Scoping Review. A systematic search of the literature on electronic databases MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, AgeLine, SCOPUS, and ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global will be carried out using predefined search terms to identify relevant studies. This review will include studies that examined the self-efficacy of direct care workers in caring for older people living in residential aged care facilities. All primary studies irrespective of the study design will be included. Studies conducted to develop measures or studies with informal care workers or students as study participants will not be considered. Two reviewers will independently conduct title and abstract screening, full-text screening, and data charting. A third reviewer will resolve discrepancies, while the final decision for conflicting studies will be made by consensus within the review team. Descriptive statistics will be utilized to analyze the quantitative findings, and the result will be presented in narrative form accompanied by tables and charts. Content analysis will be carried to analyze the qualitative findings and will be presented in narrative form supported by illustrative quotations. DISCUSSION: This study will be an important source of knowledge to policymakers and aged care providers to understand the self-efficacy of aged care workers to support and enhance their self-efficacy and thereby improve their caring behaviors towards their clients. SCOPING REVIEW REGISTRATION: Joanna Briggs Institute Systematic Review Register with the title "A scoping review of factors influencing caring efficacy of direct care workers providing care to older people".

Current trauma care system in Saudi Arabia: A scoping literature review.

BACKGROUND: Trauma is one of the leading causes of death worldwide with millions of people dying each year, particularly in low or middle-income countries. This paper describes and evaluates the current trauma system (TS) in Saudi Arabia (SA). METHODS: A scoping literature review was performed, incorporating an extensive search of Medline and Embase databases for refereed literature, as well as a search of grey literature to locate unpublished articles or reports in English or Arabic. All publications were assessed against the World Health Organization (WHO) Trauma System Maturity Index (TSMI) and American College of Surgeon's (ACS) criteria. RESULTS: Despite local injury prevention efforts, Motor Vehicle Crashes (MVC) remain the primary cause of injuries in SA. Prehospital trauma care in SA aligns with level III care as described in the WHO TSMI classification system, based on the presence of formal emergency medical services and universal access to care. With respect to the ACS classification, no clear written guidelines, either for field triage or trauma destination protocols such as trauma bypass, were identified in prehospital trauma care. The role of secondary and tertiary facilities in treating trauma patients is unclear, with no clear referral linkages, suggesting a level I to III grading of SA's trauma care facilities. Currently, there is no national or regional electronic trauma registry, no quality assurance program, and active involvement in research projects related to injuries is limited. CONCLUSION: The current SA TS has strengths but there are key features missing in comparison to other systems globally. As MVCs remain a leading cause of death/ disability, efforts to reduce the prevalence and impact of MVC burden in SA through development of a stronger national TS are warranted.