8
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices Regarding COVID-19 prevention among Vietnamese Healthcare Workers in 2020

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Introduction:

          Healthcare workers (HCWs) are at the frontline of COVID-19 control and prevention but also are high-risk groups for COVID-19 infection. The low level of knowledge and negative attitudes toward COVID-19 among HCWs can lead to inappropriate responding, wrong diagnoses, and poor practices for prevention. This research aims to examine the knowledge, attitudes, and practices regarding COVID-19 prevention and factors influencing the practices among HCWs in Daklak province, Vietnam.

          Method:

          A cross-sectional study was conducted among 963 HCWs working at district health centers and commune health stations through an online survey.

          Results:

          Overall, HCWs have good knowledge (91.3%), a positive attitude (71.5%), and appropriate practice (83.1%) regarding COVID-19 prevention. There was 89.6% of HCWs facing difficulties in practicing preventive measures such as felt difficult to change their habits (56.4%), insufficient personal protective equipment (PPE) (40.0%), and inconvenience to practice preventive measures (14.4%). The factors associated with implementing good practices are age group, residence, and knowledge about COVID-19.

          Recommendation:

          The Daklak Department of Health should provide additional training programs and guidelines about COVID-19 prevention and PPE for HCWs. More studies on risk and protective factors, and assessment about KAP regarding COVID-19 prevention at the post of the pandemic are needed.

          Related collections

          Most cited references11

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          “Pandemic fear” and COVID-19: mental health burden and strategies

          In the wake of the September 11 attack in the United States and the Kiss Nightclub fire in Brazil, psychological assistance task forces for victims and their families were quickly organized. However, during pandemics it is common for health professionals, scientists and managers to focus predominantly on the pathogen and the biological risk in an effort to understand the pathophysiological mechanisms involved and propose measures for preventing, containing and treating the disease. In such situations, the psychological and psychiatric implications secondary to the phenomenon, both on an individual and a collective level, tend to be underestimated and neglected, generating gaps in coping strategies and increasing the burden of associated diseases.1,2 Although infectious diseases have emerged at various times in history, in recent years, globalization has facilitated the spread of pathological agents, resulting in worldwide pandemics. This has added greater complexity to the containment of infections, which has had an important political, economic and psychosocial impact, leading to urgent public health challenges.2-6 HIV, Ebola, Zika and H1N1, among other diseases, are recent examples.1 The coronavirus (COVID-19), identified in China at the end of 2019, has a high contagion potential, and its incidence has increased exponentially. Its widespread transmission was recognized by the World Health Organization (WHO) as a pandemic. Dubious or even false information about factors related to virus transmission, the incubation period, its geographic reach, the number of infected, and the actual mortality rate has led to insecurity and fear in the population. The situation has been exacerbated due to the insufficient control measures and a lack of effective therapeutic mechanisms.5,7,8 These uncertainties have had consequences in a number of sectors, with direct implications for the population’s daily life and mental health. This scenario raises a number of questions: is there a fear/stress pandemic concomitant with the COVID-19 pandemic? How can we evaluate this phenomenon? To understand the psychological and psychiatric repercussions of a pandemic, the emotions involved in it, such as fear and anger, must be considered and observed. Fear is an adaptive animal defense mechanism that is fundamental for survival and involves several biological processes of preparation for a response to potentially threatening events. However, when it is chronic or disproportionate, it becomes harmful and can be a key component in the development of various psychiatric disorders.9,10 In a pandemic, fear increases anxiety and stress levels in healthy individuals and intensifies the symptoms of those with pre-existing psychiatric disorders.11 During epidemics, the number of people whose mental health is affected tends to be greater than the number of people affected by the infection.12 Past tragedies have shown that the mental health implications can last longer and have greater prevalence than the epidemic itself and that the psychosocial and economic impacts can be incalculable if we consider their resonance in different contexts.11,12 Since the economic costs associated with mental disorders is high, improving mental health treatment strategies can lead to gains in both physical health and the economic sector. In addition to a concrete fear of death, the COVID-19 pandemic has implications for other spheres: family organization, closings of schools, companies and public places, changes in work routines, isolation, leading to feelings of helplessness and abandonment. Moreover, it can heighten insecurity due to the economic and social repercussions of this large-scale tragedy. During the Ebola outbreak, for example, fear-related behaviors had an epidemiological impact both individually and collectively during all phases of the event, increasing the suffering and psychiatric symptom rates of the population, which contributed to increases in indirect mortality from causes other than Ebola.13 Currently, ease of access to communication technologies and the transmission of sensational, inaccurate or false information can increase harmful social reactions, such as anger and aggressive behavior.14 Diagnostic, tracking, monitoring and containment measures for COVID-19 have been established in several countries.6 However, there are still no accurate epidemiological data on disease-related psychiatric implications or their impact on public health. A Chinese study provided some insights in this regard. Approximately half of the interviewees classified the psychological impact of the epidemic as moderate to severe, and about a third reported moderate to severe anxiety.15 Similar data have been reported in Japan, where the economic impact has also been dramatic.11 Another study reported that patients infected with COVID-19 (or suspected of being infected) may experience intense emotional and behavioral reactions, such as fear, boredom, loneliness, anxiety, insomnia or anger,11 as has been reported about similar situations in the past.16 Such conditions can evolve into disorders, whether depressive, anxiety (including panic attacks and post-traumatic stress), psychotic or paranoid, and can even lead to suicide.17,18 These conditions can be especially prevalent in quarantined patients, whose psychological distress tends to be higher.16 In some cases, uncertainty about infection and death or about infecting family and friends can potentiate dysphoric mental states.11,18 Even among patients with common flu symptoms, stress and fear due to the similarity of the conditions can generate mental distress and worsen psychiatric symptoms.15,19 Despite the fact that the rate of confirmed vs. suspected cases of COVID-19 is relatively low and that the majority of cases are considered asymptomatic or mild, as well as that the disease has a relatively low mortality rate,20,21 the psychiatric implications can be significantly high, overloading emergency services and the health system as a whole. In conjunction with actions to help infected and quarantined patients, strategies targeting the general population and specific groups must be developed, including health professionals who are directly exposed to the pathogen and have high stress rates.22 Although some protocols for clinicians have been established, most health professionals who work in isolation units and hospitals are neither trained to provide mental health assistance during pandemics1,17 nor receive specialized care. Previous studies have reported high rates of anxiety and stress symptoms, as well as mental disorders, such as post-traumatic stress, in this population (especially among nurses and doctors), which reinforces the need for care.22,23 Other specific groups are especially vulnerable in pandemics: older adults, the immunocompromised, patients with previous clinical and psychiatric conditions, family members of infected patients and residents of high-incidence areas. In these groups, social rejection, discrimination, and even xenophobia are frequent.17 Providing psychological first aid is an essential care component for populations that have been victims of emergencies and disasters, but there are no universal protocols or guidelines for the most effective psychosocial support practices.24 Although some reports on local mental health care strategies have been published, more comprehensive emergency guidelines for such scenarios are unknown,1,17,19 since previous evidence refers only to specific situations.24 In Brazil, a large developing country with pronounced social disparity, low education levels and humanitarian-cooperative culture, there are no parameters for estimating the impact of this phenomenon on the population’s mental health or behavior. Will it be possible to implement effective preventive and emergency actions aimed at the psychiatric implications of this biological pandemic in broad spheres of society? Specifically for this new COVID-19 scenario, Xiang et al., suggest that three main factors should be considered when developing mental health strategies: 1) multidisciplinary mental health teams (including psychiatrists, psychiatric nurses, clinical psychologists and other mental health professionals); 2) clear communication involving regular, accurate updates on the COVID-19 outbreak; and 3) establishing safe psychological counseling services (for example, via electronic devices or apps).17 Finally, it is extremely necessary to implement public mental health policies in conjunction with epidemic and pandemic response strategies before, during and after the event.13 Mental health professionals, such as psychologists, psychiatrists and social workers, must be on the front line and play a leading role in emergency planning and management teams.1 Assistance protocols, such as those used in disaster situations, should cover areas relevant to the individual and collective mental health of the population. Recently, the WHO25 and the U.S. Center for Disease Control and Prevention26 published a series of psychosocial and mental health recommendations, several of which are included in Box 1. This is in line with longitudinal data from the WHO demonstrating that psychological factors are directly related to the main causes of morbidity and mortality in the world.25 Thus, increased investment in research and strategic actions for mental health in parallel with infectious outbreaks is urgently needed worldwide.1 Disclosure The authors report no conflicts of interest.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Knowledge, attitude and practice regarding COVID-19 among health care workers in Henan, China

            Summary The study analyzed health care workers’ (HCWs) knowledge, practices, and attitudes regarding COVID-19. A cross-sectional survey was conducted from 4th February to 8th February 2020 involving a total of 1357 HCWs across 10 hospitals in Henan, China. Of those surveyed, 89% of HCWs had sufficient knowledge of COVID-19, more than 85% feared self-infection with the virus, and 89.7% followed correct practices regarding COVID-19. In addition to knowledge level, some risk factors including work experience and job category influenced HCWs’ attitudes and practice concerning COVID-19. Measures must be taken to protect HCWs from risks linked to job category, work experience, working hours, educational attainment, and frontline HCWs.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Variant analysis of SARS-CoV-2 genomes

              Abstract Objective To analyse genome variants of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2). Methods Between 1 February and 1 May 2020, we downloaded 10 022 SARS CoV-2 genomes from four databases. The genomes were from infected patients in 68 countries. We identified variants by extracting pairwise alignment to the reference genome NC_045512, using the EMBOSS needle. Nucleotide variants in the coding regions were converted to corresponding encoded amino acid residues. For clade analysis, we used the open source software Bayesian evolutionary analysis by sampling trees, version 2.5. Findings We identified 5775 distinct genome variants, including 2969 missense mutations, 1965 synonymous mutations, 484 mutations in the non-coding regions, 142 non-coding deletions, 100 in-frame deletions, 66 non-coding insertions, 36 stop-gained variants, 11 frameshift deletions and two in-frame insertions. The most common variants were the synonymous 3037C > T (6334 samples), P4715L in the open reading frame 1ab (6319 samples) and D614G in the spike protein (6294 samples). We identified six major clades, (that is, basal, D614G, L84S, L3606F, D448del and G392D) and 14 subclades. Regarding the base changes, the C > T mutation was the most common with 1670 distinct variants. Conclusion We found that several variants of the SARS-CoV-2 genome exist and that the D614G clade has become the most common variant since December 2019. The evolutionary analysis indicated structured transmission, with the possibility of multiple introductions into the population.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Health Serv Insights
                Health Serv Insights
                HIS
                sphis
                Health Services Insights
                SAGE Publications (Sage UK: London, England )
                1178-6329
                25 May 2021
                2021
                : 14
                : 11786329211019225
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Hanoi University of Public Health, Hanoi, Vietnam
                [2 ]Hatinh Centre for Disease Control and Prevention, Hatinh, Vietnam
                [3 ]Daklak Center for Diseases Control and Prevention, Daklak, Vietnam
                Author notes
                [*]Tran Thi Tuyet-Hanh, Hanoi University of Public Health, 1A Duc Thang Road, Duc Thang Ward, North Tu Liem District, Hanoi 100000, Vietnam. Email: tth2@ 123456huph.edu.vn
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7764-9762
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9191-577X
                Article
                10.1177_11786329211019225
                10.1177/11786329211019225
                8155755
                34103939
                7c448e19-dbf5-43f4-8d8f-9649e6af4db4
                © The Author(s) 2021

                This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 License ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access page ( https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).

                History
                : 9 January 2021
                : 3 May 2021
                Categories
                Critical Issues in Health Services in Vietnam
                Original Research
                Custom metadata
                January-December 2021
                ts1

                knowledge,attitudes,practices,covid-19,healthcare workers,vietnam

                Comments

                Comment on this article