Introduction: Depressive disorders are common. As compared to the general population, healthcare personnel are hypothesized to have an above than average risk to develop this condition. The aim of this study is to assess the prevalence of this condition and its contributing factors amongst primary healthcare personnel. Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted by universally sampling 179 primary healthcare personnel at nine primary healthcare centers across Kuala Lumpur and Selangor in May 2015. Depressive symptoms were screened using self-administered Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) questionnaire. Socio-demographic and work profile data were also assessed. Results: 92.7% of the 179 personnel agreed to participate. Near half of the respondents were staff nurses (49%), followed by doctors (22%), assistant medical officers (10%), attendants (10%) and the remaining were pharmacists, dieticians, and laboratory technicians (9%). Depression was found to be present in 38% of the participants with onethird found to have moderate to severe depression. Bivariate analysis show that males (p=0.043), assistant medical officers (p=0.048), and working more than 10 hours per day (p=0.019) are significant risk factors. Further analysis by logistic regression shows that working more than 10 hours per day increases the odds of depression by 3.1 (OR 3.1, 95% CI 1.1-8.7, p=0.03). Conclusions: A high prevalence of depression was found within the healthcare personnel population at the primary healthcare centres studied. Being a male, employed as an assistant medical officer, and, prolonged hours at the workplace is a significant risk factor for depression.
Healthcare workers

Introduction: Infant hepatitis B vaccination was introduced into the Expanded Programme on Immunisation (EPI) in Malaysia in 1989. This study aimed to investigate seroprevalence of hepatitis B among UKM pre-clinical medical students, born between 1991 and 1995, and had their infant vaccination more than 20 years ago. Materials and Methods: A prospective, cross-sectional study involving 352 students, comprising 109 (31.0%) males and 243 (69.0%) females. Blood specimens were tested for anti-HBs, where levels of ≥10 mIU/mL was considered reactive and protective. Students with non-reactive levels were given a 20 µg HBV vaccine booster. Anti-HBs levels were tested six weeks after the first booster dose. Those with anti-HBs <10 mIU/mL were then given another two booster doses, at least one month apart. Anti-HBs levels were tested six weeks after the third dose. Results: Ninety-seven students (27.6%) had anti-HBs ranging from 10 to >1000 mIU/ mL while 255 (72.4%) had anti-HBs <10 mIU/mL. After one booster dose, 208 (59.1%) mounted anti-HBs ≥10 mIU/mL. Among the remaining 47 (13.3%), all except two students (0.6%) responded following completion of three vaccination doses. They were negative for HBsAg and anti-HBcore antibody, thus regarded as non-responders. Conclusions: Anti-HBs levels waned after 20 years post-vaccination, where more than 70% were within non-reactive levels. For healthcare workers, a booster dose followed by documenting anti-HBs levels of ≥10 mIU/mL may be recommended, to guide the management of post-exposure prophylaxis. Pre-booster anti-HBs testing may not be indicated. Serological surveillance is important in long-term assessment of HBV vaccination programs. No HBV carrier was detected.
serological surveillance ; healthcare workers

Background: Coronavirus disease 2019, otherwise known as COVID-19 is caused by the novel coronavirus. The WHO stated that as of April 24, 2020, no study has evaluated if the antibodies against COVID-19 confer immunity. The aim therefore of this research is to determine the presence of neutralizing antibodies among fully vaccinated Health Care workers and staff of Notre Dame de Chartres Hospital. Methods: This study is a single-center, cross-sectional study conducted at Notre Dame de Chartres Hospital in Baguio City. This study was designed to determine the presence of neutralizing antibodies 6 months after the 2nd dose of COVID-19 vaccine, either with Sinovac (CoronaVac®), an inactivated virus, or Oxford AstraZeneca, a non-replicating viral vector. The study was approved by the Ethics Review Board of the Baguio General Hospital Medical Center. A total of 206 participants enrolled voluntarily in the study. Descriptive statistics such as frequency and percentage were used to determine the baseline characteristics of the research participants. The mean amounts of antibodies after vaccination against COVID-19 were determined. Independent-sample t-test was utilized to determine if there was a significant difference in antibody production when comparing the two brands of vaccine, according to sex, employee status, presence of at least one comorbidity, and history of COVID-19 vaccination. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used for the variable age. All statistical tests were conducted at p<0.05 level of significance. Computations were done using SPSS version 22.0. Results: A total of 236 healthcare workers and staff of Notre Dame de Chartres Hospital were included in the study. Among the study participants given either Sinovac or AstraZeneca, 52.97% belong to the 20-30 years old age group. Most of them were females (69.92%). For employment status, healthcare workers comprised the majority of the study population at 71.61% while the rest (28.36%) were hospital staff. Most did not have any comorbidities, while 26.27% reported having comorbidities, with hypertension and asthma identified as the predominant diseases at 9.75% and 9.32%, respectively; followed by allergic rhinitis (5.32%) and diabetes mellitus (2.97%). Among the participants, 74.6% were never diagnosed with COVID-19, while 25.4% reported to have been infected, with 16.5% having only mild symptoms. Most of the study participants (67.4%) were inoculated with Sinovac® while the rest (32.6%) received AstraZeneca. Conclusion There was no significant difference in the mean amount of antibodies when grouped according to each of the following variables: age, sex, employee status, and comorbidities. These results apply to both SINOVAC and AstraZeneca groups. There was a significantly higher mean amount of antibodies in those who had previously contracted COVID-19 than in those who never had a previous infection. On the other hand, comparing the mean amount of antibodies between the two brands of vaccines, SinovacTM and AstraZenecaTM, those who were vaccinated with AstraZenecaTM developed higher amounts of antibodies than those who were vaccinated with SinovacTM.
Neutralizing antibodies ; COVID-19 vaccine ; healthcare workers

Objectives: To develop our own qualitative fit test kit and protocol for respirators and validate this against the manufacturer-issued kit. Methods: This is a crossover study of 50 healthcare workers in a tertiary government hospital. Some healthcare workers were tested multiple times according to the number of respirators they want tested. Qualitative fit testing was done according to manufacturer protocol for the commercial kits or according to our own protocol for the novel kits. Results: A total of 63 fit tests were analyzed. This novel kit was determined to be noninferior to manufacturer-issued kits in detecting leaks among worn respirators (p=0.005). Conclusion A fit test kit can be successfully created from readily available household and hospital materials. Fit tests with these novel kits using our validated protocol are shown to be noninferior to commercial test kits. This can greatly aid in qualitative fit testing of respirators in a logistically constrained pandemic setting.
healthcare workers ; respirators ; SARS-CoV-2

BACKGROUND

According to the World Health Organization, in 2016, there were more than 1.9 billion adults who were overweight. Of these, over 650 million were obese. Physical inactivity is one of the major risk factors for several non-communicable diseases. Healthcare workers who have direct contact with patients often influence their behaviors. However, health care workers who educate their patients but they themselves do not practice what they recommend, may be one of the barriers that can affect patient education and influence.

This research paper aimed to investigate the motivation to participate in physical activity among healthcare workers and to determine the association between the profile of respondents with the different types of motivation.

There was a total of 250 randomly selected respondents who were included in the study. Data were gathered through a self-administered questionnaire utilizing the International Physical Activity Questionnaire-Short Form (IPAQ-SF) and the Behavioral Regulation in Exercise Questionnaire (BREQ-2). Descriptive statistics was used to summarize sociodemographic information, physical activity levels and BREQ-2 profiles. T-test was used to analyze differences in gender while analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used for levels of physical activity and professional category.

Female healthcare professionals have a higher average in amotivation (mean=0.56) while males have a higher average in intrinsic (mean=2.82) motivation. Nurses and ancillary services have higher average amotivation scores than physicians.

Health care workers who have high classification in physical activity have the highest average scores in terms of relative autonomy index, introjected, identified, and intrinsic scores. This demonstrates a positive association between motivation from internal regulation and increased physical activity.

In the realm of mental health promotion and public mental health, a consistent acknowledgment has prevailed, recognizing the imperative to enhance mental well-being while concurrently preventing mental illnesses. Such recognition extends to the pivotal role that healthcare providers’ overall health plays in their capacity to deliver comprehensive and quality patient care. This study embarked on a journey to illuminate the mental well-being landscape of healthcare workers within the ambit of Chong Hua Hospital, spanning the tumultuous peripandemic period and beyond. Employing a quantitative research design, the standardized Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-Being Scale (WEMWBS) was methodically administered to discern the intricate threads of mental well-being. The study’s findings stand poised to serve as the cornerstone for the crafting of an institutional mental health program, meticulously tailored to the diverse needs of healthcare workers within the hospital. Results revealed that resident doctors and the PGIs while generally reporting a high level of mental well-being in the peripandemic period, a sizeable proportion of these medical healthcare workers still succumbed to manifesting poor mental well-being. The paper also proved that married and those who contracted the infection were a notable cohort who recorded a significantly poorer mental well-being. The need to prioritize well-being immediately and after the pandemic so that services are sustained cannot be overemphasized hence the myriad of recommendations for a comprehensive and sustainable institutional mental health program was proposed in this paper.

INTRODUCTION

Burnout is becoming more common among healthcare professionals, notably during the COVID-19 pandemic. It can result in lower performance and effectiveness at work as well as employment withdrawal, all of which affects the standard of healthcare services provided.

In order to ascertain the effectiveness of mindfulness meditation-based interventions (MMBIs) in reducing burnout among healthcare workers, a systematic review and meta-analysis was done.

Two investigators searched records in CENTRAL, PubMed/MEDLINE, Google Scholar, Preprints, Grey Literature, and cross-referencing to acquire articles using search terms related to “mindfulness meditation”, “healthcare workers”, and “burnout”. Inclusion criteria included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and nonrandomized controlled trials (NRTs) that assessed the effectiveness of MMBIs on burnout as measured by the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI) among healthcare workers in the hospital setting. Study selection, data extraction, risk of bias assessment were done by the investigators independently. Analysis was done using RevMan 5 software, forest plots were generated, and subgroup analyses were done.

Of 25,453 identified records, 28 studies were included. The studies were rated with low to unclear selection bias and high risk of performance bias. MMBIs were associated with significant reduction on the emotional exhaustion, depersonalization and personal accomplishment subscales with pooled mean differences of -2.60 (95% CI = -3.64, -1.55), -0.51 (95% CI = -0.77, -0.26), and 0.82 (95% CI = 0.24, 1.39), respectively. On subgroup analyses, the types of MMBI implemented had no influence in the intervention effect noted on all subscales among RCTs but had significant influence among NRTs. Reduction of burnout was noted to be higher in nurses compared with physicians and mixed healthcare workers. Overall quality of evidence for RCTs was low to moderate and very low to low for NRTs.

The results suggest that MMBIs can reduce the burnout symptoms of healthcare workers. To address the high risk of bias of included studies and improve quality of evidence, future research should be done with high-quality RCTs.

BACKGROUND

Healthcare workers’ (HCWs) willingness to report to work despite personal risk is a requisite for an effective pandemic response. At present, there are no local studies that have examined the factors affecting willingness to report to work during the COVID-19 pandemic.

To determine the factors associated with willingness to report to work during COVID-19 pandemic among healthcare workers in a tertiary government hospital.

This was a cross sectional study among the nursing staff (nursing attendants, nurses), doctors (residents, fellows), medical technologists, radiologic technologists, and respiratory technicians in a tertiary government hospital, who were employed from January 2021 to January 2022. Data was collected through an online questionnaire and was analyzed using SPSS.

A total of 311 participants included in the study. The median age of the respondents was 34 (29-46) years old. More than a third of the workers were nurses (37%) followed by residents and fellows (34%), nursing attendants (19%), radiologic technologists, medical technologists, and respiratory technicians (10%). Over 4 out of 5 were assigned in a non-COVID area while 11% were assigned in the COVID area. The odds of willingness to report to work is 60% lower among males compared to females. On the other hand, the odds of willingness to report to work was 78% lower among nurses and 84% lower among residents and fellows compared to medical technologist, radiologic technologists, and respiratory therapists. The median rating of the staff on willingness to report to work was 80% (60-90), and 73% of respondents were willing to report to work during the entire COVID-19 pandemic.

Factors that were associated with willingness to report to work were female gender and occupation (radiologic technologists, medical technologists, respiratory technicians).

The paper puts forth the need for health care workers safety whilst undertaking their job on a daily basis. Presently there are number of factors that are directly linked to the safety of health care workers. However, Occupational Health is very important and useful for health workers that are exposed to their job hazards. Every year, many lives are lost because of the spread of infections in hospitals. Every hospital’s occupational health departments should ensure that all new staff are vaccinated to protect them against microorganisms carried by other patients, and with vaccinated against preventable diseases. This will help to prevent the health workers from occupational exposure to patients’ blood or any other bodily substances, including injury from sharp objects, and also guarantees that the new employees does not infect the patients with infectious diseases. Furthermore, all the new staff should be screened for blood borne pathogenic diseases.
Occupational Health ; Sharp employment screening ; Healthcare Workers and vaccination.

Background: Baguio General Hospital and Medical Center (BGHMC) and Benguet General Hospital (BeGH) started COVID-19 vaccination among its employees in March 2021. Although there was an observed substantial increase in vaccine acceptance, a better understanding on the factors associated with hesitancy toward COVID-19 vaccine is necessary to further strengthen efforts and focus on the caveats regarding vaccine acceptance. Objective: The study aimed to determine the factors influencing COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among healthcare workers (HCW) in two general hospitals in Benguet. Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted among HCW in BGHMC and BeGH for 1 month. Total enumeration sampling was used which included 222 participants but only 85 responded. A modified questionnaire was used to describe the factors influencing COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. Categorical variables were presented as frequencies and percentages. Pearson’s Chisquare test was used to observe the association between clinicodemographic factors and COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among the HCW in BGHMC and BeGH. Results: The results showed that young, female, non-clinical workers with direct contact with COVID-19 patients, previous COVID-19 infection, and without comorbidities were more likely to be hesitant. The study identified various internal, external, and vaccination-specific factors that influenced vaccine hesitancy, such as concerns about adverse effects, their impending risk in contracting COVID-19 at workplace, and thoughts about yearly booster dose. These findings suggest that vaccine hesitancy among healthcare workers in the Philippines is complex and influenced by a range of factors. Conclusion The study can be used to develop targeted interventions to address concerns about vaccine hesitancy and improve vaccine uptake among healthcare workers. The development of an equitable approach such as an effective and inclusive vaccine policy that does not feel mandatory for this population will foster trust in the healthcare system.
COVID-19 vaccine ; Vaccine hesitancy ; Healthcare workers ; General Hospital