P2/N95 respirators & surgical masks to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection: Effectiveness & adverse effects.

BACKGROUND: Millions of people have acquired and died from SARS-CoV-2 infection during the COVID-19 pandemic. Healthcare workers (HCWs) are required to wear personal protective equipment (PPE), including surgical masks and P2/N95 respirators, to prevent infection while treating patients. However, the comparative effectiveness of respirators and masks in preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection and the likelihood of experiencing adverse events (AEs) with wear are unclear. METHODS: Searches were carried out in PubMed, Europe PMC and the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register to 14 June 2021. A systematic review of comparative epidemiological studies examining SARS-CoV-2 infection or AE incidence in HCWs wearing P2/N95 (or equivalent) respirators and surgical masks was performed. Article screening, risk of bias assessment and data extraction were duplicated. Meta-analysis of extracted data was carried out in RevMan. RESULTS: Twenty-one studies were included, with most having high risk of bias. There was no statistically significant difference in respirator or surgical mask effectiveness in preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection (OR 0.85, [95%CI 0.72, 1.01]). Healthcare workers experienced significantly more headaches (OR 2.62, [95%CI 1.18, 5.81]), respiratory distress (OR 4.21, [95%CI 1.46, 12.13]), facial irritation (OR 1.80, [95%CI 1.03, 3.14]) and pressure-related injuries (OR 4.39, [95%CI 2.37, 8.15]) when wearing respirators compared to surgical masks. CONCLUSION: The existing epidemiological evidence does not enable definitive assessment of the effectiveness of respirators compared to surgical masks in preventing infection. Healthcare workers wearing respirators may be more likely to experience AEs. Effective mitigation strategies are important to ensure the uptake and correct use of respirators by HCWs.

Chronic pain and psychiatric morbidity: a comparison between patients attending specialist orthopedics clinic and multidisciplinary pain clinic.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to examine the associations between chronic pain and psychiatric morbidity using interview-based assessments of psychiatric symptomatology. We compared the prevalence of common mental disorder (CMD; consistent with neurotic and somatic symptoms, fatigue, and negative affect), depression, and anxiety disorder(s), and associated factors with these psychiatric illnesses among Chinese patients with chronic pain attending specialist orthopedics clinic and multidisciplinary pain clinic. METHODS: A total of 370 patients with chronic pain were recruited from an Orthopedics Clinic (N=185) and a Pain Clinic (N=185) in Hong Kong. Psychiatric morbidity was assessed using the Revised Clinical Interview Schedule. Individual scores for neurotic symptoms and neurotic disorders (including depression and four types of anxiety disorders) were also calculated. RESULTS: The reported lifetime prevalence rates of CMD were 35.3% and 75.3% for the Orthopedics and Pain Clinic samples, respectively. Rates of depression and anxiety disorders in the Pain Clinic (57.1% and 23.2%, respectively) were significantly higher than those in the Orthopedics sample (20.2% and 5.9%, respectively) (all P<0.001). Pain characteristics including number of pain sites, pain duration, pain intensity, and pain interference were all significantly associated with psychiatric morbidity after controlling for sociodemographic factors. Pain duration and litigation/compensation status consistently predicted concurrent pain intensity and disability. CONCLUSIONS: Chronic pain is associated with psychiatric morbidity. The higher rate of depression than anxiety disorder(s) among patients with chronic pain is consistent with previous studies that have found depression to be highly prevalent in chronic pain.

Preliminary psychometric properties of the Chinese version of the Chronic Pain Coping Inventory (ChCPCI) in a Hong Kong Chinese population.

UNLABELLED: The Chronic Pain Coping Inventory (CPCI) is a frequently used measure that assesses 8 categories of coping strategies that patients might use to cope with chronic pain. Despite its good psychometric properties and widespread use, the instrument has not been tested for its applicability and validity in non-Western populations, such as among Chinese. This study evaluated the reliability and validity of a Chinese translation of the 42-item CPCI (ChCPCI-42) in a sample of Chinese patients with chronic pain (n = 208). In addition to the ChCPCI-42, the patients were administered the Chronic Pain Grade (CPG) questionnaire, the Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS), the Centre for Epidemiological Studies-Depression Scale (CES-D), and questions assessing sociodemographic characteristics. Results of confirmatory factor analyses revealed that of the ChCPCI-42 8 scales, 6 demonstrated acceptable-to-good data-model fit (CFI >or= 0.90) and 2 demonstrated medium fit (CFI >or= 0.85). The 8 scales demonstrated adequate to good internal consistency (Cronbach alpha, 0.69 to 0.79) and correlated with CES-D, PCS, pain intensity, and disability in expected directions. Results of hierarchical multiple regression analyses showed that the ChCPCI-42 scales predicted concurrent depression (F (8,177) = 3.07, P < .01) and pain disability (F (1, 179) = 4.35, P < .001) scores, the Task Persistence scale being the strongest unique predictor among the 8 scales. The findings support the factorial validity and reliability of a 42-item CPCI that can be used among Chinese patients with chronic pain. PERSPECTIVE: The report outlines the first validation of the CPCI for use in Hong Kong Chinese. This makes available a suitable instrument for chronic pain research in the Southern Chinese population and will help to elucidate similarities and differences in pain coping between Chinese and other ethnic groups.

Fear of movement/(re)injury in Chinese patients with chronic pain: Factorial validity of the Chinese version of the Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the factor structure of the Chinese version of the Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia (TSK). DESIGN: Chinese patients with chronic pain attending either orthopaedic specialist services (n = 216) or multidisciplinary specialist pain services (n = 109) participated in this study. METHODS: Subjects completed the Chinese version of TSK, The Chronic Pain Grade Questionnaire, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, and questions assessing socio-demographic characteristics. Confirmatory factor analyses were used to compare hierarchical and correlated models of 5 different factor solutions previously reported in patients with chronic pain in the West. RESULTS: Confirmatory factor analyses demonstrated inequality of the TSK factor structure, in that the TSK11 for the orthopaedics sample was best represented by a two-factor correlated model (S-Bchi2 = 49.593; comparative fit index (CFI) = 0.93; normed filt index (NFI) = 0.911; root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) = 0.025) comprising 2 first-order factors, Somatic Focus (TSK11-SF) and Activity Avoidance (TSK-AA). The pain clinic sample showed a one-factor structure as best representing the TSK4's underlying dimensions (CFI = 0.971; NFI = 0.912; RMSEA = 0.048). There was no evidence to support a single overarching concept of kinesiophobia. CONCLUSION: The TSK appears to have utility in Chinese chronic pain populations. Elucidation of the TSK's psychometrics properties in other Chinese/Asian pain populations with different diagnoses and presentations of pain problems is warranted.