RESUMO
BACKGROUND: People with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) who experience symptoms for more than 35 weeks are said to have long COVID. Anosmia can occur on its own or in combination with other COVID-19 symptoms. Anosmia may be a significant differential presentation for the suspicion and diagnosis of COVID-19 in patients with asymptomatic-to-mild COVID-19 disease and may disappear in 3 weeks. This study sought to determine the prevalence of persistent loss of taste and smell following COVID-19 in Saudi Arabia. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A population-based cross-sectional study was conducted among Saudi citizens who had been diagnosed with COVID-19 for more than 2 weeks and had experienced a loss of taste and smell. Data was collected using a questionnaire having questions about demographics, long-lasting loss of taste and smell, whether this related to COVID-19 infection, and whether respondents had received the COVID-19 vaccine. SPSS was used for data analysis; statistical significance was determined using Chi-square test. RESULTS: A total of 383 Saudis who had a history of COVID-19 participated in the study. About 43.3% study participants had experienced persistent loss of taste and smell after COVID-19 infection. A significant association was found between loss of smell and the region, Northern region having highest proportion of study participants who had loss of smell and Western region having the lowest prevalence (34%). CONCLUSION: There were permanent changes in the sense of taste or smell in 34.3% of participants. This might add to the growing weight of long COVID.
RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: The quality of care delivered by healthcare practitioners (HCPs) is crucial in promoting optimal health and quality of life (QOL) for a population. To achieve this, understanding the factors that affect the quality of life of healthcare practitioners is essential for governments to develop sustainable healthcare systems. Developed countries have a major role to play in this aspect, as the misallocation of healthcare providers to the wrong geographic regions can significantly impact their performance. Aim: This study aims to evaluate the factors associated with healthcare practitioners' (HCP) quality of life (QOL) and provide workforce planning with knowledge of the level of QOL among HCPs and its factors in Saudi Arabia in 2021. METHODS: This is an observational, descriptive, cross-sectional study conducted in both rural and urban areas of Saudi Arabia. The study population includes all healthcare practitioners practicing in Saudi Arabia. A probability-stratified random sampling technique was used to recruit healthcare practitioners into the study, with a requirement of at least 380 practitioners to achieve 95% confidence and a 5% margin of error. To assess the quality of life of healthcare practitioners in Saudi Arabia, the study used a national online self-administered questionnaire that was designed by the research team. The data collection process took place from June 2021 to October 2021, and responses were obtained randomly. For analysis, the study used descriptive statistics such as frequency, percentages, mean or median, and standard deviation or interquartile range. The statistical significance was set at p<0.05, and independent sample T-tests and Chi-square tests were calculated to determine any significant differences between groups. RESULTS: A total of 439 participants completed the questionnaire and were included in the final analysis. The participants had a mean age of 38.8 years (SD = 10.173), with 232 (52.8%) male and 207 (47.2%) female. Regarding marital status, 28% were single, 68.6% were married, and 3.4% were divorced or widowed. The prevalence of chronic diseases in the cohort was 9.1%, with hypertension being the most commonly reported. Of the participants, 362 (82.5%) were living in a society considered urban, while 77 (17.5%) were living in rural areas. Urban healthcare practitioners expressed higher levels of satisfaction with safety and security, internet availability and speed, and city infrastructure compared to their rural counterparts. However, rural practitioners reported greater satisfaction with the cost of living, and transportation quality was a point of concern for both groups. CONCLUSION: The study shows that people living in urban and rural areas are all satisfied with their living conditions based on many factors mentioned in the results section. This indicates that there is no significant difference. The most important factor that affects satisfaction with living is health status. The rate of satisfaction is very high for all factors, including security and safety, environmental health, city infrastructure, cost of living, internet availability, and sports activity-all of which are related to the city itself. For factors related to the individual, such as emotional support from family and friends, personal relationships, overall health, and body appearance, the rate of satisfaction is also high.
