Microorganism-mediated biodegradation for effective management and/or removal of micro-plastics from the environment: a comprehensive review.

Micro- plastics (MPs) pose significant global threats, requiring an environment-friendly mode of decomposition. Microbial-mediated biodegradation and biodeterioration of micro-plastics (MPs) have been widely known for their cost-effectiveness, and environment-friendly techniques for removing MPs. MPs resistance to various biocidal microbes has also been reported by various studies. The biocidal resistance degree of biodegradability and/or microbiological susceptibility of MPs can be determined by defacement, structural deformation, erosion, degree of plasticizer degradation, metabolization, and/or solubilization of MPs. The degradation of microplastics involves microbial organisms like bacteria, mold, yeast, algae, and associated enzymes. Analytical and microbiological techniques monitor microplastic biodegradation, but no microbial organism can eliminate microplastics. MPs can pose environmental risks to aquatic and human life. Micro-plastic biodegradation involves fragmentation, assimilation, and mineralization, influenced by abiotic and biotic factors. Environmental factors and pre-treatment agents can naturally degrade large polymers or induce bio-fragmentation, which may impact their efficiency. A clear understanding of MPs pollution and the microbial degradation process is crucial for mitigating its effects. The study aimed to identify deteriogenic microorganism species that contribute to the biodegradation of micro-plastics (MPs). This knowledge is crucial for designing novel biodeterioration and biodegradation formulations, both lab-scale and industrial, that exhibit MPs-cidal actions, potentially predicting MPs-free aquatic and atmospheric environments. The study emphasizes the urgent need for global cooperation, research advancements, and public involvement to reduce micro-plastic contamination through policy proposals and improved waste management practices.

Physicians' Attitudes Towards Treating Patients in the Context of COVID-19 Pandemic in Pakistan.

Background and objectives Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has been the cause of a worldwide outbreak of respiratory illness, which has been declared as coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic by the World Health Organization (WHO). The outbreak has posed a huge challenge to countries around the world and has resulted in a global lockdown. The pandemic has especially overburdened the healthcare sector, resulting in a shortage of personnel and equipment. Along with many other manifestations, it has resulted in stress and anxiety for the physicians as well. Furthermore, many healthcare workers have been reluctant in treating COVID-19 patients. This study aimed to explore the concerns of physicians in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic and to evaluate the reasons for their reluctance to treat the patients. Methodology This descriptive cross-sectional study included 235 physicians from seven hospitals of Pakistan who were actively working amid the COVID-19 pandemic. Data were collected from March 1, 2020, to May 30, 2020, using a structured online questionnaire. Participants were approached via non-probability convenient sampling. Two hundred and eight respondents were included in the data analysis. SPSS Statistics version 23.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY) was used for data entry and analysis. Results A striking 83.7% (n=174) of the respondents expressed their reluctance to treat patients with COVID-19. Concerns they raised included one or more of the following four reasons; lack of proper personal protective equipment (PPE), fear of self-infection, excessive workload, and fear of transmitting the infection to their family members. Of note, 92% (n=161) of the respondents reported a lack of PPE while 74.1% (n=129) reported fear of transmitting the infection to their family members as reasons for their reluctance. The vast majority of the participants reported the need for psychological training to treat the patients' anxiety (95.2%, n=198). Many participants were afraid that their own anxiety might be affecting the quality of care patients were receiving (67.3%, n=140). Hence, most of the participants reported that psychological counseling should be provided (93.3%, n=194). Participants with family members older than 60 years were found to be reluctant to treat patients due to the risk of transmitting the infection to them (69.7%, n=145, p=0.001). Therefore, a major proportion of the participants (96.2%, n=200) felt that the hospitals should provide a place for them to rest and temporarily isolate themselves to avoid coming into contact with their family members. Conclusions We conclude that a major proportion of physicians is reluctant to treat their patients due to multiple factors. The grave situation of the pandemic has taken a toll on their mental health, which could be affecting the quality of care that the patients receive. Their concerns should be addressed to not only provide them with support and improve their working environment but also to ensure that they are fully equipped to provide state-of-the-art care to the patients in these grave times.

Behavioral Pain Assessment Implementation in Long-Term Care Using a Tablet App: Case Series and Quasi-Experimental Design.

BACKGROUND: Pain is often underassessed and undertreated among long-term care (LTC) residents living with dementia. When used regularly, the Pain Assessment Checklist for Seniors With Limited Ability to Communicate (PACSLAC) scales have been shown to have beneficial effects on pain assessment and management practices and stress and burnout levels in frontline staff in LTC facilities. Such scales, however, are not utilized as often as recommended, which is likely to be related to additional record-keeping and tracking over time involved with their paper-and-pencil administration. OBJECTIVE: Using implementation science principles, we assessed the introduction of the PACSLAC-II scale by comparing two methods of administration-a newly developed tablet app version and the original paper-and-pencil version-with respect to the frequency of pain assessment and facility staff feedback. METHODS: Using a case series approach, we tracked pain-related quality indicators at baseline, implementation, and follow-up periods. A quasi-experimental design was used to evaluate the effect of the method of administration (ie, paper-and-pencil only [n=18], tablet only [n=12], paper-and-pencil followed by tablet app [n=31], and tablet app followed by paper-and-pencil [n=31]) on pain assessment frequency and frontline staff stress and burnout levels. Finally, semistructured interviews were conducted with frontline staff to obtain perspectives on each method of administration. RESULTS: The implementation effort resulted in a great increase in pain assessment frequency across 7 independent LTC units, although these increases were not maintained during the follow-up period. Frontline staff reported lower levels of workload in the paper-and-pencil followed by tablet app condition than those in the paper-and-pencil only (P<.001) and tablet app followed by paper-and-pencil (P<.001) conditions. Frontline staff also reported lower levels of workload in the tablet-only condition than those in the paper-and-pencil only condition (P=.05). Similarly, lower levels of emotional exhaustion were reported by frontline staff in the paper-and-pencil followed by tablet app condition than those in the paper-and-pencil only (P=.002) and tablet app followed by paper-and-pencil (P=.002) conditions. Finally, frontline staff reported higher levels of depersonalization in the paper-and-pencil only condition than those in the tablet app only (P=.008), paper-and-pencil followed by tablet app (P<.001), and tablet app followed by paper-and-pencil (P<.001) conditions. Furthermore, narrative data from individual interviews with frontline staff revealed a preference for the tablet app over the paper-and-pencil method of administration. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides support for the use of either the tablet app or the paper-and-pencil version of the PACSLAC-II to improve pain-related quality indicators, but a reported preference for and lower levels of stress and burnout with the use of the tablet app method of administration suggests that the use of the tablet app may have more advantages compared with the paper-and-pencil method of administration.