Key Findings While chest x-ray is readily available and may precede RT-PCR test, chest x-ray has low sensitivity early in the COVID-19 disease and shows non-specific lung abnormalities in COVID-19 patients. Chest x-ray is part of the initial diagnostic tool used on COVID-19 patients in some hospitals as it yields fast results compared with reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). Chest Computed Tomography (CT) has been reported to be more sensitive than chest x-ray in determining the presence of COVID-19. Chest x-ray findings in confirmed COVID-19 patients show: Normal lung findings early in the illness and in mildly symptomatic patients. Typical ground-glass opacities and consolidation in the lung periphery. Lung abnormalities are non-specific and may likewise be present in other infections and coronavirus-types of pneumonia. The American College of Radiology (ACR), Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Canadian Association of Radiologists (CAR), Canadian Society of Thoracic Radiology (CSTR), and British Society of Thoracic Imaging do not recommend the use of chest x-ray to diagnose COVID-19. The Fleisher Society, composed of radiologists and pulmonologists in ten countries, does not recommend a chest x-ray for patients suspected of mild COVID-19. A chest x-ray is recommended for patients with moderate to severe COVID-19 needing immediate triage and patients at high risk for disease progression. Despite presence of chest x-ray findings suggesting COVID-19, RT-PCR test remains the standard diagnostic procedure.
Covid-19

Introduction: COVID-19 infection spreads through respiratory droplets, contact, and airborne transmission. During aerosol-generating procedures (AGPs), the risk of spreading SARS-CoV-2 via aerosols is increased significantly. This rapid review determined the association between using personal protective equipment (PPE) during AGPs, including those during surgery, among confirmed or suspected patients with COVID-19 and the risk of infection among healthcare workers. Method: A systematic search of electronic databases MEDLINE, EBSCO, Science Direct, Google Scholar, and Cochrane CENTRAL base was performed last March 21, 2021, using the Boolean combination of keywords for SARS-CoV-2, PPE, and surgery. Two reviewers screened the articles for relevance and extracted the data from the included studies. We critically appraised the included studies using criteria from the Painless Evidence-Based Medicine Evaluation of Articles on Harm. We used RevMan for data pooling, with a 40% heterogeneity cut-off score. GRADEpro guideline development tool determined the quality of evidence of the included studies. Results: Five observational studies investigated the effectiveness of PPE use in reducing SARS-CoV-2 transmission among healthcare workers during any AGPs. The use of N95 masks (OR 0.37 [95% CI 0.21, 0.67], 1 study, n=195), surgical gown (OR 0.59 [95% CI 0.46, 0.77] I2= 0%, 2 studies, n= 941) and gloves (OR 0.42 [95% CI 0.43, 0.55] I2=34%, 3 studies, n=978) versus their non-use significantly reduced the odds of SARS-COV-2 transmission among healthcare workers involved in AGP. Albeit inconclusive due to the very low quality of evidence, using face shields or goggles was not associated with a significant reduction in the odds of SARS-CoV-2 transmission (OR 0.70 [95% CI 0.31, 1.59]) than the non-use of face shields or goggles. The certainty of the overall body of evidence on PPE use in reducing SARS-CoV-2 transmission during AGP procedures was rated very low. In addition, confounders in the assessment could have been using individual PPE with the other standard PPE, compliance of healthcare worker on properly wearing it, and observing other preventive measures. Conclusion There were lower odds of COVID-19 infection among healthcare workers using appropriate PPE, including N95 respirators, surgical gowns, and gloves during AGPs in suspected or confirmed COVID-19 patients. Several guidelines recommended using enhanced PPE among healthcare workers during surgery despite limited and low-quality evidence. The findings should help in developing recommendations in reducing SARS-CoV-2 transmission in the Philippines. The findings should provide the information needed for healthcare policy decision-making.
Personal Protective Equipment ; Methods ; COVID-19 ; SARS-CoV-2

Background and Objective: Mindfulness-based interventions (MBI), a novel treatment, and cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), the standard treatment, are both effective in treating anxiety in adolescents. This study determined the effectiveness of mindfulness-based interventions versus cognitive behavioral therapy in reducing symptoms of anxiety among adolescents experiencing social anxiety through a systematic review and meta-analysis. Methods: A systematic approach was used to identify eligible studies. Electronic databases, reference lists of relevant articles, and gray literature were searched. Data was analyzed using RevMan to calculate standard mean differences with 95% confidence intervals and subgroups. Heterogeneity was measured using visual assessment, the I2 statistic, and chi-square test. Results: Randomized controlled trials comparing MBI to CBT for adolescents diagnosed with social anxiety or social phobia disorder were analyzed, with non-randomized studies being excluded. Structured searches in electronic databases, reference lists, and gray literature were conducted by four independent reviewers who initially identified potential articles through title and abstract screening. After a comprehensive review of full-text articles and a consensus-building process, the selection of included articles was finalized. Data was analyzed using RevMan to calculate standard mean differences with 95% confidence intervals and to examine subgroups, with heterogeneity being assessed through visual evaluation, the I² statistic, and chi-square tests. Total number of participants was 255; 101 were male and 158 were women. Mean age was 27.5 years old, and diagnosed with Social Anxiety Disorder, Social Phobia, or DSM-IV-Defined-Anxiety-Disorder. They were divided into two groups: 125 participated in 8- to 12-week MBI sessions lasting 2 hours each, while 130 underwent 2-hour CBT sessions spanning 8, 12, or 14 weeks. There is moderate quality of evidence reporting non-significant difference on MBI vs CBT's effectiveness in alleviating symptoms of social anxiety [mean (95% CI) = -0.04 (-0.58, 0.51)]. Conclusion Study found that there were no significant differences between Mindfulness-Based Interventions and Cognitive Behavioral Therapy in reducing social anxiety in adolescents. Mindfulness interventions have advantages in terms of cost-effectiveness for reducing symptoms of anxiety. Future research should include larger sample sizes and longer follow-up periods to further assess long-term effects of these interventions.
Adolescent ; Mindfulness ; Anxiety ; Cognitive Behavioral Therapy ; Occupational Therapy

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

The Oswestry Disability Index (ODI)–English is a valid and reliable instrument for disability measurement in low back pain (LBP) patients. There is no existing ODI–Ilokano that evaluates LBP patients. This study aimed to cross-culturally adapt the ODI–English into Ilokano.

The ODI–English was cross-culturally adapted into Ilokano through a process that included forward translation, synthesis of the translations, back translation, expert committee review, and testing of the pre-final version.

Forward translation focused on capturing the essence of terms related to pain intensity, personal care, and daily activities, achieving consensus on phrases that accurately mirrored the original English meanings. Subsequent synthesis refined these translations, emphasizing idiomatic and conceptual equivalence over literal interpretations, particularly in nuanced areas like sleep disturbance and social life activities. Backward translation processes aligned Ilokano and English terms, especially for pain intensity and personal care, ensuring consistency across languages. The expert committee review addressed spelling, word choice, and sentence structure, making strategic adjustments for cultural relevance. Pilot testing with participants from Ilocos Norte and Ilocos Sur, Philippines highlighted comprehension challenges with specific terms, leading to adaptations like replacing 'milya' and 'yarda' with metric units and retaining culturally sensitive terms with supplementary English explanations.

This study refined the ODI–English into a culturally adapted Ilokano version, focusing on semantic, idiomatic, and cultural equivalence. Incorporating pilot testing feedback, such as modifying measurement units and addressing sensitive terms, highlighted the thorough adaptation process. The collaborative translation efforts and diverse patient input ensured a culturally resonant ODI version for Ilokano speakers. This adaptation enhances physical therapy practices by improving patient assessments and advocates for adapting patient-reported outcomes to diverse cultures, advancing patient-centered care.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Mindfulness-based interventions (MBI), a novel treatment, and cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), the standard treatment, are both effective in treating anxiety in adolescents. This study determined the effectiveness of mindfulness-based interventions versus cognitive behavioral therapy in reducing symptoms of anxiety among adolescents experiencing social anxiety through a systematic review and meta-analysis.

A systematic approach was used to identify eligible studies. Electronic databases, reference lists of relevant articles, and gray literature were searched. Data was analyzed using RevMan to calculate standard mean differences with 95% confidence intervals and subgroups. Heterogeneity was measured using visual assessment, the I2 statistic, and chi-square test.

Randomized controlled trials comparing MBI to CBT for adolescents diagnosed with social anxiety or social phobia disorder were analyzed, with non-randomized studies being excluded. Structured searches in electronic databases, reference lists, and gray literature were conducted by four independent reviewers who initially identified potential articles through title and abstract screening. After a comprehensive review of full-text articles and a consensus-building process, the selection of included articles was finalized. Data was analyzed using RevMan to calculate standard mean differences with 95% confidence intervals and to examine subgroups, with heterogeneity being assessed through visual evaluation, the I² statistic, and chi-square tests. Total number of participants was 255; 101 were male and 158 were women. Mean age was 27.5 years old, and diagnosed with Social Anxiety Disorder, Social Phobia, or DSM-IV-Defined-Anxiety-Disorder. They were divided into two groups: 125 participated in 8- to 12-week MBI sessions lasting 2 hours each, while 130 underwent 2-hour CBT sessions spanning 8, 12, or 14 weeks. There is moderate quality of evidence reporting non-significant difference on MBI vs CBT's effectiveness in alleviating symptoms of social anxiety [mean (95% CI) = -0.04 (-0.58, 0.51)].

Study found that there were no significant differences between Mindfulness-Based Interventions and Cognitive Behavioral Therapy in reducing social anxiety in adolescents. Mindfulness interventions have advantages in terms of cost-effectiveness for reducing symptoms of anxiety. Future research should include larger sample sizes and longer follow-up periods to further assess long-term effects of these interventions.

Background. The use of face shield in addition to face mask is thought to reduce the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 by blocking respiratory droplets and by preventing one from touching facial orifices.

Objective. To determine the effectiveness of face mask with face shield, compared to face mask alone, in reducing transmission of SARS-CoV-2.

Methods. We searched MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, as well as trial registers, preprint sites and COVID-19 living evidence sites as of 30 September 2021. We included studies that used face shield with face mask versus face mask alone to prevent COVID-19. We screened studies, extracted data, assessed the risk of bias and certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach. Review Manager 5.4 was used to estimate pooled effects.

Results. There is no available direct evidence for face shield plus face mask versus face mask alone in the general public. Five (5) observational studies with very low certainty of evidence due to serious risk of bias and indirectness were included. Participants in all the studies were health care workers (HCWs) who used the face shield with their standard personal protective equipment (PPE). Four (4) of the studies were in the hospital setting (three case control studies, one pre- and post-surveillance study); one was done in the community (one pre- and post-surveillance study) in which HCWs visited the residence of the contacts of SARS-CoV-2 positive patients. The case control studies done in the hospital setting showed a trend toward benefit with the use of face shield or goggle but this was inconclusive (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.68-1.08) while the pre- and post-surveillance study showed significant benefit when face shield (OR 0.28, 95% CI 0.22-0.37) use became a requirement for HCWs upon hospital entry. In the study done in the community setting, significant protection for HCWs was noted with the use of face shield (OR 0.04, 95% CI 0.00-0.69) but the results were limited by serious risk of bias and imprecision.

Conclusion. In the hospital setting, there was a lower likelihood of COVID-19 infection in HCWs who used a face shield or goggles on top of their PPE. For the general public in the community, there is presently no study on the use of face shield in addition to the face mask to prevent COVID-19 infection.

BACKGROUND

Due to the COVID-19 outbreak, schools had to switch online. The sudden transition to blended teaching and learning (BTL) poses challenges for students and teachers, especially for health science programs that require hands-on practical experience. The validity, reliability, and responsiveness of these self-report questionnaires (SRQs) should be established to ensure the accuracy of the results as intended by the SRQ.

This study critically appraised, compared, and summarized the psychometric properties of SRQ evaluating BTL among health science university students. This review determined the SRQ’s reliability, internal consistency, various forms of validity (content, criterion, construct), and responsiveness.

Following a 10-step procedure based on COSMIN guidelines, we conducted a systematic review of SRQs used by health science university students to evaluate blended teaching and learning. Studies were eligible if they reported psychometric properties of SRQs related to blended learning among university health science students; exclusions included studies focusing on perceptions, attitudes, self-efficacy, and satisfaction, as well as articles such as biographies, editorials, and conference materials. Searches covered multiple electronic databases until April 26, 2023, including PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, MEDLINE (OVID), PsycInfo, CINAHL, EBSCOHOST, ERIC, Scopus, Science Direct, Google Scholar, JSTOR, Acta Medica Philippina, Philippine Journal of Health Research and Development, and HERDIN, managed through Zotero. Two independent reviewers performed database searches, title and abstract screening, and full-text evaluations, with a third reviewer resolving any disputes. The COSMIN Risk of Bias Checklist was employed to evaluate included studies on the development and various measurement properties of SRQs. The reviewers assessed SRQ standards, including validity, reliability, internal consistency, measurement error, responsiveness, interpretability, and feasibility. Data extraction and result tabulation were independently completed, with content comparison by two health education experts. This evaluation categorized the SRQs into three quality and validity levels.

The study examined five articles; four were rated as 'doubtful' and one as 'inadequate' in the overall development of SRQ. All four 'doubtful' studies demonstrated questionable content validity when university students were asked about the questionnaire's relevance, comprehensiveness, and comprehensibility. Only half of these studies achieved an 'adequate' rating for content validity based on expert opinions on relevance and comprehensiveness. All but one study scored from 'very good' to 'adequate' in structural validity. Three out of the four studies scored a very good rating for internal consistency, while one was deemed 'inadequate' in internal consistency, cross-cultural validity, and reliability. Three out of four studies scored 'very good' on construct validity, but all overlooked criterion validity and responsiveness. Conducted in various locations, including Australia, Romania, Turkey, and Taiwan, these studies highlighted both common characteristics and limitations in questionnaire development according to the COSMIN guidelines. Four studies were deemed reliable and valid for BTL constructs (Category A); Wu et al. requires further validation (Category B). Study limitations included heterogeneity in populations, settings, and questionnaire versions, potential subjective bias in SRQ content comparison, and the evolving nature of SRQs in blended learning contexts.

The systematic review reports the development and evaluation of SRQs for BTL while identifying gaps in their applicability to health science programs. The Blended Learning Scale (BLS) of Lazar et al. and the Blended Learning Questionnaire (BLQ) of Ballouk et al. showed an ‘adequate' rating for content validity. BLS revealed very good structural validity, internal consistency, and adequate content validation. Although the BLQ lacked Confirmatory Factor Analysis, it yielded valuable constructs for evaluating health sciences students' experiences in BTL. Both tools require improvements on recall period, completion time, interpretability, and feasibility. The review underscores the necessity for cont inuous assessment and enhancement of such instruments in BTL, advocating a rigorous scale development process. Furthermore, it encourages the customization of teaching and learning evaluation tools to suit specific institutional contexts while promoting further validation of these questionnaires across different populations in future research.