Conectar
Quantify disparities and identify correlates and predictors of ‘wellness’ supplement use among nurses during the first year of the pandemic.
Longitudinal secondary analysis of Nurses' Health Studies 2 and 3 and Growing Up Today Study data.
Sample included 36,518 total participants, 12,044 of which were nurses, who completed surveys during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic (April 2020 to April 2021). Analyses were conducted in March 2023. Modified Poisson models were used to estimate disparities in ‘wellness’ supplement use between nurses and non-healthcare workers and, among nurses only, to quantify associations with workplace-related predictors (occupational discrimination, PPE access, workplace setting) and psychosocial predictors (depression/anxiety, county-level COVID-19 mortality). Models included race/ethnicity, gender identity, age and cohort as covariates.
Nurses were significantly more likely to use all types of supplements than non-healthcare workers. Lacking personal protective equipment and experiencing occupational discrimination were significantly associated with new immune supplement use. Depression increased the risk of using weight loss, energy and immune supplements.
Nurses' disproportionate use of ‘wellness’ supplements during the COVID-19 pandemic may be related to workplace and psychosocial stressors. Given well-documented risks of harm from the use of ‘wellness’ supplements, the use of these products by nurses is of concern.
‘Wellness’ supplements promoting weight loss, increased energy, boosted immunity and cleansing of organs are omnipresent in today's health-focused culture, though their use has been associated with harm. This is of added concern among nurses given their risk of COVID-19 infection at work. Our study highlighted the risk factors associated with use of these products (lacking PPE and experiencing occupational discrimination). Findings support prior research suggesting a need for greater public health policy and education around the use of ‘wellness’ supplements.
STROBE guidelines were followed throughout manuscript.
No patient or public contribution was involved.
The poor usability of electronic health records contributes to increased nurses' workload, workarounds, and potential threats to patient safety. Understanding nurses' perceptions of electronic health record usability and incorporating human factors engineering principles are essential for improving electronic health records and aligning them with nursing workflows. This review aimed to synthesize studies focused on nurses' perceived electronic health record usability and categorize the findings in alignment with three human factor goals: satisfaction, performance, and safety. This systematic review was guided by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis. Five hundred forty-nine studies were identified from January 2009 to June 2023. Twenty-one studies were included in this review. The majority of the studies utilized reliable and validated questionnaires (n = 15) to capture the viewpoints of hospital-based nurses (n = 20). When categorizing usability-related findings according to the goals of good human factor design, namely, improving satisfaction, performance, and safety, studies used performance-related measures most. Only four studies measured safety-related aspects of electronic health record usability. Electronic health record redesign is necessary to improve nurses' perceptions of electronic health record usability, but future efforts should systematically address all three goals of good human factor design. No abstract available No abstract available Personal recovery is an important aspect for many individuals diagnosed with schizophrenia, as people can live rich, fulfilling lives despite ongoing symptoms. Prior reviews have found several factors to be associated with personal recovery, but a comprehensive overview of the psychosocial interventions aimed at improving personal recovery in schizophrenia is needed.
Key terms relating to personal recovery and psychosocial interventions to promote personal recovery will be searched for in the following databases: PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, MEDLINE, Google Scholar, Web of Science Core Collection and Cochrane. Additionally, a simple search for grey literature will be conducted in The Networked Digital Library of Theses and Dissertations. Two reviewers will individually screen and extract the data, and the selection of sources will be documented in a Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses flow chart. A content analysis will be conducted on the data, and the findings will be presented in tables, and narratively synthesised. Lastly, research gaps will be identified, and recommendations for future research will be proposed.
Ethics approval was not required for the development or publishing of this protocol. Findings will be disseminated through conferences, meeting with patient organisations and consumers, and published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.
No abstract available Wound care is a complex procedure and the related research may include many variables. Deficiencies in the sample inclusion and exclusion criteria may limit the generalizability of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for wound patients in the real world. This study aimed to evaluate deficiencies in reporting the inclusion and exclusion criteria and the characteristics of patients in RCTs of pressure injuries (PI) therapeutic interventions. We conducted a systematic methodological review in which 40 full text RCTs of PI treatment interventions published in English, from 2008 to 2020, were identified. Data on the general characteristics of the included RCTs and data about inclusion/exclusion criteria and characteristics of patients were collected. The inclusion/exclusion criteria were categorized into five domains (definition of disease, precision, safety, ethical/legal and administrative). Study duration (in weeks) was 8.0 (quartile 1: 2.0; quartile 3: 48.0); only 5.0% of the trials mentioned race, skin colour or ethnicity, and 37.5% reported the duration of the wound. Only 9 (22.5%) studies reported the drugs that the included patients were using and 10 (25.0%) RCTs reported adverse events. The presence of the five domains was observed only in 12.5% of RCTs and only 12 (30.0%) had the precision domain. Much more research is required in systematic assessments of the external validity of trials because there is substantial disparity between the information that is provided by RCTs and the information that is required by clinicians. We concluded that there are deficiencies in reporting of data related to inclusion/exclusion criteria and characteristics of patients of RCTs assessing PI therapeutic interventions.
FreshRSS 