The question, “what does life mean?" used to be considered as a paradigm of philosophical investigation. As a researcher, life is meaningless without paradigm and perspective. These are indispensable in peoples' lives as we encounter research in our daily lives. According to James Tartaglia (Veal, 2017), when properly defined, the topic of life's purpose is "the keystone of philosophy," serving to "lock its traditional preoccupations in place" and "allow them to bear weight in an intellectual culture dominated by science." He also contends that we should consider this idea as he rejects the premise of the question and draw the conclusion that "life is meaningless." More precisely, James Tartaglia is one philosopher who is not at all happy about it; in fact, he appears to be absolutely furious about it, as readers who have read this journal's recent symposium on Thaddeus Metz's book Meaning in Life: An Analytic Study would be aware. What enrages Tartaglia the most, it seems, is that the "traditional" topic of life's meaning has been completely disregarded by what he refers to as the "new paradigm" in analytic philosophy, which is purportedly devoted to exploring this question. He further states that the conventional question of life's purpose is not only the only genuine, legitimately philosophical inquiry of life's meaning, but it is also the most important one.
COVID-19

Introduction: Globally, COVID – 19 (SARS COV -2) became an enormous challenge with serious threat to the healthcare workers. This study aimed to provide the psychological coping mechanisms among healthcare workers in tertiary hospital during the COVID-19 pandemic in the locale of Eastern Visayas. Objective: This study was conducted to determine the psychological coping mechanisms among healthcare workers in tertiary hospital during the COVID-19 pandemic. The secondary objectives were to determine the demographic profile of health care workers as to: age, sex, civil status, profession and area of assignment, to identify the issues of concern that contribute to the mental or psychological stress affecting the healthcare workers, to identify the psychological coping mechanisms of healthcare workers to ease their stress and to determine the correlation between issues of concern and coping mechanisms to the demographic profile of the healthcare workers. Methods: Utilized a cross-sectional descriptive study with analytical component. Sample size of 142 was computed using the Epi Info 7 software with confidence interval of 95% and the margin of error of 5%. Descriptive analysis was utilized to identify the socio- demographic profile of HCWs and Pearson r tests in SPSS used in correlation to issues of concern and psychological coping mechanisms. Results: One hundred forty two healthcare workers were included in the study. Of these, almost all respondents belong to aged 20-39 (92.3%). Majority were female and single. As to profession, many were physicians and nurses while as to area of assignments, some in the COVID Ward (24.6%). As to issues of concern, the results showed moderately in physical issues (2.55), mental and emotional issues (2.12). With regards to coping mechanisms, appraisal- focused (adaptive –cognitive) (3.55), emotion- focused (3.50) and problem- focused (adaptive – behavioral) coping mechanisms (3.18) were all very important. The correlational analysis showed that issues of concern and psychological coping mechanisms experienced by HCWs were not significantly related or associated to their demographics profile. Conclusion Based on the findings, the appraisal- focused (adaptive – cognitive), emotion- focused and problem- focused (adaptive – behavioral) coping mechanisms were all very important coping mechanisms among HCWs. Demographic profiles were not significantly associated with issues of concern and psychological coping mechanisms of HCWs in a tertiary hospital during COVID-19 pandemic.
COVID-19

OBJECTIVES: Healthcare workers are at the center of the pandemic, dealing with cases while being at risk of acquiring the infection themselves, causing work-related stress. Despite this, they continue reporting for duty. This paper aims to determine the factors that affect resilience of pediatric healthcare-workers in close contact with patients suspected with COVID infection and its association to sleeping disturbance during the first two years of COVID – 19 pandemic in a tertiary hospital in the Philippines. METHODOLOGY: This is a cross-sectional study. Healthcare-workers who render bedside patient care for those suspected or with COVID-19 infection, not diagnosed with any mental health illness, and fit the inclusion criteria were chosen through purposive sampling and asked to answer questionnaires with demographic survey, BRS and PSQI tool. RESULTS: Among 89 participants, females were predominant (60.67% ). Majority were in the 30- 39 age group (44.94%) and are nurses (40.45%) or doctors (39.33%) who were single (76.40%). Many have normal resilience as measured from their BRS scores with an average PSQI per category equal to or exceeded 5.00. The correlation coefficient was at -0.338 (p-value 0.001) between the BRS and PSQI scores, indicating that a significant negative correlation exists between the two scores. CONCLUSION Normal resilience was reported in the majority of the healthcare workers. All study participants had poor sleep quality as determined in the overall average PSQI score. A negative correlation between resilience and sleep quality was observed, denoting that poor sleep quality can be associated with lower resilience, and vice versa. However, temporality cannot be assumed with this study.
COVID-19

Background: Telemedicine has proven essential during COVID-19. However, concerns remain about the rural municipalities in the country such as those from the Cordillera Administrative Region (CAR), wherein perceived barriers by Municipal Health Officers (MHOs) include poor internet connectivity and inadequacy of the current telemedicine service. Objective: This study aimed to assess the extent of Telemedicine use and perspectives in terms of perception, attitudes and perceived barriers among MHOs in CAR during COVID-19. Methods: This is an analytical cross-sectional study that used a validated online questionnaire to 62 MHOs and DTTBs in CAR. Logistic regression analysis was employed to determine the effect of sociodemographic factors and physician perceptions and attitudes on the extent of Telemedicine use. Results: Most MHOs use Telemedicine frequently in their practice for 0-1 year during COVID-19. There is no significant effect of sociodemographic factors to the extent of Telemedicine use except for IT expertise which had a negative influence on the extent of use [prevalence (p=0.011), frequency (p=0.013), length of use (p=0.044)]. Generally, MHOs agree that telemedicine is beneficial for them in performing consults with a positive effect on frequency (p=0.004) and length of use (p=0.009). There is positive attitude towards telemedicine, however, with no significant effect on extent of use (p=0.352, p=1.00, p=0.484). Compromised decision-making and network issues are the most prevalent perceived barriers that limit MHOs to practice Telemedicine. Conclusion and Recommendation This study showed that during COVID-19, there is good utilization of Telemedicine among MHOs in CAR. MHOs perceive Telemedicine as beneficial in their work and positive attitude remains. However, presence of barriers makes them apprehensive to fully incorporate it in their practice. Study results can contribute to policy-making on telemedicine as it is a key player in e- health to improve access to healthcare services in the attainment of the goal of Universal Healthcare.
COVID-19

Background: The global economy has been severely affected by the COVID-19 pandemic which proved to be more than a public health crisis. Volume and gross income have also declined in the health service sector including the diagnostic imaging and radiotherapy divisions of the radiology departments in other countries. Objective: This study determined the change in volume and gross income of the Radiology Department of a tertiary hospital which was designated as a COVID-19 referral center in the Philippines. Methodology: Monthly records of the profit centers of the Radiology Department were reviewed noting the volume and gross income one year before and during the first year of the pandemic. Results: Records were successfully retrieved for the volume of procedures and revenue for each profit center from one year before the pandemic (from March 1, 2019 to February 28, 2020) and the first year of the pandemic (from March 1, 2020 to February 28, 2021). There was a total reduction of 120,046 procedures conducted and Php 84,837,614.16 in revenues generated between the two periods. This is equivalent to a 61.98% (range: 47.92% to 83.37%) decrease in the volume of procedures and a 45.02% (range: 31.08% to 77.86%) decrease in revenue. These changes were found to be statistically significant. Conclusion The COVID-19 pandemic caused a decline of all profit centers in the Radiology Department. The decline was associated with changes in quarantine restrictions. Data from this study may help the administration of the institution or other institutions to conduct their own studies and cope with future pandemics of similar magnitude or further surges of the current pandemic on decisions regarding budget and resource allocation.
COVID-19

The Philippine COVID-19 Living Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPG) is a set of guidelines that provides up-to-date evidence-based recommendations on COVID-19 treatment, diagnosis, infection prevention and control. This living guideline follows the Department of Health’s Manual for Clinical Practice Guideline Development1 and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) Approach.2 The diagram below is a summary of the treatment regimens gathered from the Philippine COVID-19 Living Recommendations website. The recommendation for each drug regimen is based on the assessment and literature review done by the Living CPG Task Force (LCTF).3 The LCTF follows the classification of quality of evidence enumerated and described in Box 1.
COVID-19

The Republic Act No. 11494, also known as the "Bayanihan to Recover as One Act," mandates the allocation of funds and provides guidance for the procurement of COVID-19 vaccines.1 However, with the limited availability of COVID-19 vaccines, the Department of Health (DOH) established different policies and guidelines for the selection, access, and deployment of these vaccines throughout the country.2 3 4 5 To date, the Philippine Food and Drugs Authority (FDA) has granted emergency use authorizations for eight COVID-19 vaccines, namely: Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine, COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca, CoronaVac, Sputnik V, Janssen COVID-19 Vaccine, Covaxin, COVID-19 Vaccine Moderna, and COVID-19 Vaccine BIBP/Sinopharm.6 One of the guidelines established by the DOH is the implementation of a prioritization scheme, wherein citizens are categorized into different prioritization groups based on risk of exposure to the virus and risk of mortality from COVID-19.4 In Davao City, the COVID-19 vaccination roll out started last 5 March 2021 among health care workers at Southern Philippines Medical Center. 7 Aiming to vaccinate 1,200,000 individuals in Davao City,8 the City Government of Davao, DOH Davao Region, and other participating sectors established 59 vaccination sites throughout the city.9 We gathered online data posted in the official facebook pages of DOH Davao Region and the City Government of Davao. According to the DOH Davao Region reports, as of 27 July 2021, a total of 742,710 doses of COVID-19 vaccines were allotted for Davao City. From the total allotted doses, the City Government of Davao City has successfully administered a total of 330,954 first doses, and 149,122 second doses of COVID-19 vaccines.10 According to the City Government of Davao, as of 25 July 2021, Davao City has administered a total of 85,260 doses (1st dose - 47,332 doses, 2nd dose - 37,928 doses) of COVID-19 vaccine among individuals in the A1 prioritization group, 103,837 doses (1st dose - 76,472 doses, 2nd dose - 27,365 doses) among those in the A2 prioritization group, 179,479 (1st dose - 101,833 doses, 2nd dose - 77,646 doses) among those in the A3 prioritization group, 98,502 doses (1st dose - 97,446 doses, 2nd dose - 1,056 doses) among those in the A4 prioritization group, and 12,998 doses (1st dose - 7,871 doses, 2nd dose - 5,127 doses) among those in the A5 prioritization group.11 All in all, as of 27 July 2021, 149,122 individuals out of Davao City's target of 1,200,000 individuals (12.43%) have received complete COVID-19 vaccination. In addition, 181,832 individuals have already received the first dose of a two-dose COVID-19 vaccine.8
COVID-19

As the biggest COVID-19 facility in Mindanao, Davao City’s Southern Philippines Medical Center (SPMC) rolled out its first doses of COVID-19 vaccines to some of its frontline health care workers (HCW) last March 5, 2021. The COVID-19 vaccination program in the Philippines is an extensive and comprehensive immunization campaign to help curb the spread of SARS-CoV-2 and protect the people against severe COVID-19. To expedite the vaccine procurement and administration process, the Republic Act 11525 or the “COVID-19 Vaccination Program Act of 2021” was enacted into law on February 26, 2021.1 The Department of Health (DOH) and the National Task Force against COVID-19 (NTF), in partnership with local governments, have been tasked to implement, facilitate, and monitor the COVID-19 vaccination program.2
COVID-19

In the Philippines, the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has accorded a tremendous challenge to health care in terms of protecting frontline staff from contracting the virus and providing optimal medical management to patients with or without COVID-19. Across the globe, even countries with well-developed healthcare systems are battling COVID-19 with great difficulty. In terms of local response, on March 15, 2020, Davao City was placed under community quarantine1 to limit the movement of people and curb the spread of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. Further restrictions on work, businesses, transportation, and other daily activities were imposed during an enhanced community quarantine (ECQ) from April 4, 2020 to May 15, 2020,2 3 4 5 followed by a 15-day general community quarantine (GCQ).6 7 Patients from Davao City who are suspected of having COVID-19 began to be referred to the Southern Philippines Medical Center (SPMC) starting in early March 2020. The SPMC Laboratory Unit also started processing reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) tests for the diagnosis of COVID-19 as a subnational laboratory late in March. Being the only subnational laboratory in the southern Philippines during the first few weeks of community quarantine, SPMC processed most of Mindanao's COVID-19 RT-PCR tests.
COVID-19

Due to the long quarantine, with several levels of intensity and degrees of implementation, we all have, more or less, similar experiences with the COVID-19 pandemic. Starting early this year, we stayed home for a long time, we had ourselves tested, our friends or relatives had themselves tested, and some of us may even have tested positive for the infection. We listened to, or read, or watched the news, about the statistics of COVID-19 morbidity and mortality, lockdowns, reopenings, resurgence and reinfections. And then, we received all sorts of information—true, fake, inaccurate, anecdotal—and some were derived from systematically produced knowledge, i.e., properly conducted research or ongoing research.
COVID-19