Background: Despite improvements in techniques and management of liver transplant patients, numerous perioperative complications that contribute to perioperative mortality remain. Models to predict intraoperative massive blood transfusion, prolonged mechanical ventilation, or in-hospital mortality in liver transplant recipients have not been identified. In this study we aim to identify preoperative factors associated with the above mentioned complications. Methods: A retrospective observational analysis was conducted on data collected from 124 orthotopic liver transplants performed at a single institution between 2014 and 2017. A multivariable logistic regression using backwards elimination was performed for three defined outcomes (massive transfusion ≥ 10 units packed red blood cells (PRBC), prolonged mechanical ventilation > 24 h, and in-hospital mortality) to identify associations with preoperative characteristics. Results: Statistically significant (P < 0.05) associations with massive transfusion ≥ 10 units PRBC were hepatocellular carcinoma and preoperative transfusion of PRBC. Significant associations with prolonged mechanical ventilation > 24 h were hepatitis C, alcoholic hepatitis, elevated preoperative ALT, and hepatorenal syndrome. Male gender was protective for requiring prolonged mechanical ventilation. End-stage renal disease and hepatitis B were significantly associated with increased in-hospital mortality. Conclusions This study identified risk factors associated with common perioperative complications of liver transplantation. These factors may assist practitioners in risk stratification and may form the basis for further investigations of potential interventions to mitigate these risks.

Introduction: In order to suppress the COVID-19 virus, several vaccines have been developed. The administration of COVID-19 vaccines entails its acceptance. However, misinformation and vaccine uncertainty are main factors that affect vaccine acceptance. This study aimed to determine the most trusted health information source, the most frequently accessed health information source, and health literacy of older adults within Metro Manila. Methods: This study employed a quantitative non-experimental design utilizing correlational and descriptive approaches. Convenience sampling was utilized via Facebook to recruit participants. The survey was adapted from four different questionnaires and went through reliability testing and expert validation. Results The researchers collected responses from a total of 123 participants. The participants were noted to have an overall high level of acceptance for the COVID-19 vaccine ( 4.10, SD ± 0.22). The study revealed that doctors were the highly trusted health information source (( =3.69, SD ± 1.30), followed by government health agencies (( =3.18, SD ± 0.73), whereas religious organizations and leaders (( =2.45, SD ± 0.48) were the least trusted sources. However, despite being the least trusted source, religious organizations and leaders were shown to be positively related (p=0.049) and highly predictive of COVID-19 vaccine acceptance. The most frequently accessed health information source, health workers, have a weak correlation (r=.323) and were found to be significantly positively related (p=0.008) and highly predictive of the acceptance of the COVID-19 vaccine. The credibility of health information sources is likely to influence their selection, influencing decisions and behaviors.
SARS-CoV-2 ; Geriatrics

Introduction: Literature shows that infant distress and care-giving can be sources of stress of primary care givers, especially for first-time mothers. This study aimed to determine the efficacy of Dunstan baby Language in decreasing parenting stress among first time mothers compared with those receiving standard newborn care alone. Methods: This research utilized a quasi-experimental approach, where 18 first-time mothers with babies 0-2 months old were allocated to receive standard care plus Dunstan baby language training or standard care alone. Maternal stress was measured at baseline and after the intervention period with the Parental Stress Scale. The scores were compared within and between the two study arms. A repeated measures mixed model was used for the Parental Stress Scale (PSS) results. Results: A total of 27 participants were enrolled in the study. The Dunstan baby language group had 18 participants, while the control group had 9 participants. An apparent decrease was noted in the week 1 to week 2 and the week 2 to week 3 Parental Stress Scale scores in the Dunstan baby language group compared with the control group which had minimal changes in their mean scores. The mean difference between the two groups was not significant. Conclusion The use of Dunstan baby language in addition to standard care may decrease stress among first time mothers with 0-2 month old babies.
Parenting

Bones are the third most common location for solid tumor metastasis affecting up to 10% of patients with solid tumors. When the spine is involved, thoracic and lumbar vertebrae are frequently affected. Access to spinal lesions can be through minimally invasive surgery (MIS) or traditional open surgery (OS). This study aims to determine which method provides an advantage. Following the PRISMA (Preferred Inventory for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis) guidelines, a systematic review was conducted to identify studies that compare MIS with OS in patients with spinal metastatic disease. Data were analyzed using Review Manager ver. 5.3 (RevMan; Cochrane, London, UK). Ten studies were included. Operative time was similar among groups at -35.23 minutes (95% confidence interval [CI], -73.36 to 2.91 minutes; p=0.07). Intraoperative bleeding was lower in MIS at -562.59 mL (95% CI, -776.97 to -348.20 mL; p<0.00001). OS procedures had higher odds of requiring blood transfusions at 0.26 (95% CI, 0.15 to 0.45; p<0.00001). Both approaches instrumented similar numbers of levels at -0.05 levels (95% CI, -0.75 to 0.66 levels; p=0.89). We observed a decreased need for postoperative bed rest at -1.60 days (95% CI, -2.46 to -0.74 days; p=0.0003), a shorter length of stay at -3.08 days (95% CI, -4.50 to -1.66 days; p=0.001), and decreased odds of complications at 0.60 (95% CI, 0.37 to 0.96; p=0.03) in the MIS group. Both approaches revealed similar reintervention rates at 0.65 (95% CI, 0.15 to 2.84; p=0.57), effective rates of reducing metastasis-related pain at -0.74 (95% CI, -2.41 to 0.94; p=0.39), and comparable scores of the Tokuhashi scale at -0.52 (95% CI, -2.08 to 1.05; p=0.41), Frankel scale at 1.00 (95% CI, 0.60 to 1.68; p=1.0), and American Spinal Injury Association Scale at 0.53 (95% CI, 0.21 to 1.37; p=0.19). MIS appears to provide advantages over OS. Larger and prospective studies should fully detail the role of MIS as a treatment for spine metastasis.

INTRODUCTION: Student volunteers in COVID-19 vaccination activities help augment the health care workforce. However, there is a lack of literature that explores student volunteerism in the Philippines. This paper analyses the shared meanings of the lived experiences of volunteer nursing students during a pandemic. METHODS: Student nurses who had joined Red Cross vaccination activities were recruited by purposive sampling and interviewed online using a pilot-tested interview guide with open-ended questions. Participants were recruited until data saturation. The data collected was analyzed using Colaizzi’s Seven-Step Method. RESULTS: The study has identified two main themes that describe the phenomenon of student- nurse volunteerism during COVID-19 vaccination programs: 1) personal motivation and 2) perceived benefits and outcomes. There were four sub-themes under personal motivation - desire for personal growth, intrinsic altruism, past experiences and involvement in volunteer work, and opportunity for advocating against vaccine hesitancy. Perceived benefits and outcomes had two sub-themes - sense of fulfillment in the act of volunteering and opportunity for actual nurse-patient interaction. CONCLUSION The findings from the study suggest that, despite the lack of experience of working as frontliners during the COVID-19 vaccination programs, nursing students volunteered due to personal motivations and perceived benefits and outcomes.
Volunteers

Introduction. In the attempt to control the spread of the disease and the pandemic, numerous COVID-19 vaccines are in development. A review of the evidence on their efficacy and safety are critical. Methods. A search for trials was done using the COVID-19 Living OVerview of Evidence (L·OVE) platform. We also searched for relevant authorization documents and trial reports for COVID-19 vaccines of the US-Food and Drug Authority (US-FDA), the European Medicines Agency (EMA), the United Kingdom Medicines and Health Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), and the WHO website. We included studies that fulfilled the following inclusion criteria: population – humans; intervention – COVID-19 vaccines; comparison – control or placebo; outcomes – efficacy and adverse events; methods – phase 3 randomized trials. Two reviewers independently screened the reports, assessed the methodological quality, and extracted the data on the trial characteristics and results on vaccine efficacy and safety. The date of last search was March 11, 2021. Results. Interim results of trials investigating five vaccines were identified and included in the review. All five vaccines demonstrated satisfactory vaccine efficacy (VE) against symptomatic COVID-19 infection among adults in the short term with moderate certainty of evidence: BNT162b2, VE 95% (95% CI 90.3, 97.6); mRNA-1273, VE 93.6% (95% CI 88.6, 96.5); ChAdOx1, VE 66.7% (95% CI 57.4, 74.0), Gam-COVID-Vac, VE 91.1% (95% CI 83.6, 95.1); and Ad26.CoV2.S, VE 67.2% (95% CI 59.3, 73.7). Data on the efficacy against severe COVID-19 infection and asymptomatic COVID-19 infection are still inconclusive, except for Ad26.CoV2.S, which demonstrated good efficacy in preventing moderate and/or severe COVID-19 infection and acceptable protection against asymptomatic COVID-19 infection 28 days after vaccination (moderate certainty of evidence). Efficacy data on preventing death from COVID-19 infection are still inconclusive. Very limited phase 3 trial data is available to inform vaccine efficacy against the different variants of SARS-CoV-2. Vaccination with these five vaccines was associated with higher adverse reactions compared to control. These adverse events, due to reactions to the vaccines, were mild to moderate and of short duration. Available evidence on vaccine efficacy and safety is limited, mainly due to the short follow up and the small sample size of specific populations. Conclusion. BNT162b2, mRNA-1273, ChAdOx1, Gam-COVID-Vac and Ad26.CoV.S vaccines demonstrated satisfactory vaccine efficacy against symptomatic COVID-19 infection among adults in the short term with moderate certainty of evidence. Data on the efficacy against severe COVID-19 infection, asymptomatic COVID-19 infection, and death from COVID-19 infection are still inconclusive. Long-term efficacy and safety data, and data on the efficacy against variant strains of SARS-CoV-2 are still lacking.
Humans ; COVID-19 Vaccines ; COVID-19

INTRODUCTION: Hypertension was identified by the CDC to be one of underlying medical conditions that might pose an increased risk for severe illness from COVID-19. This study aimed to determine the effect of hypertension on the morbidity of COVID-19 patients to help physicians in adjusting the management plans for a better prognosis. METHODS: Participants included all COVID-19 patients with hypertension as a pre-existing medical condition. Studies were selected based study design, participants, exposure, outcome, timing, setting and language. MEDLINE and CINAHL, ScienceDirect, Clinical Key, OVID database, Wiley Online library, and UpToDate were searched. The risk of bias in selection, comparability and outcomes were evaluated. All information gathered were collated and evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale and CEBM. RESULTS: There was a statistically significant positive association between mortality and hypertension as a prognostic factor (OR = 5.25, 95% CI 2.42, 11.40; HR = 2.21, 95% CI 1.75, 2.80). Individual studies all showed a significant relationship between hypertension and mortality in COVID-19 patients with OR ranging from 1.75 to 28.88, and HR of 1.49 to 3.32. CONCLUSION Hypertension as a comorbid condition is a significant prognostic factor in the prediction of mortality in hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

Background: The Philippine Primary Care Studies (PPCS) is a network of pilot studies that developed, implemented, and tested strategies to strengthen primary care in the country. These pilot studies were implemented in an urban, rural, and remote setting. The aim is to use the findings to guide the policies of the national health insurance program (PhilHealth), the main payor for individualized healthcare services in the country. Objective: The objective of this report is to compare baseline outpatient benefit utilization, hospitalization, and health spending, including out-of-pocket (OOP) expenses, in three health settings (urban, rural, and remote). These findings were used to contextualize strategies to strengthen primary care in these three settings. Methods: Cross-sectional surveys were carried out using an interviewer-assisted questionnaire on a random sample of families in the urban site, and a stratified random sample of households in the rural and remote sites. The questionnaire asked for out-patient and hospitalization utilization and spending, including the OOP expenses. Results: A total of 787 families/households were sampled across the three sites. For outpatient benefits, utilization was low in all sites. The remote site had the lowest utilization at only 15%. Unexpectedly, the average annual OOP expenses for outpatient consults in the remote site was PhP 571.92/per capita. This is 40% higher than expenses shouldered by families in the rural area, but similar with the urban site. For hospital benefits, utilization was lowest in the remote site (55.7%) compared to 75.0% and 78.1% for the urban and rural sites, respectively. OOP expenses per year were highest in the remote site at PhP 2204.44 per capita, probably because of delay in access to healthcare and consequently more severe conditions. Surprisingly, annual expenses per year for families in the rural sites (PhP 672.03 per capita) were less than half of what families in the urban sites spent (PhP 1783.38 per capita). Conclusions Compared to families in the urban site and households in the rural sites, households in remote areas have higher disease rates and consequently, increased need for outpatient and inpatient health services. When they do get sick, access to care is more difficult. This leads to lower rates of benefit utilization and higher out-of-pocket expenses. Thus, provision of “equal” benefits can inadvertently lead to “inequitable” healthcare, pushing disadvantaged populations into a greater disadvantage. These results imply that health benefits need to be allocated according to need. Families in poorer and more remote areas may require greater subsidies.

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.