Conectar
Diagnostic testing is an important tool to combat the COVID-19 pandemic, yet access to and uptake of testing vary widely 3 years into the pandemic. The WHO recommends the use of COVID-19 self-testing as an option to help expand testing access. We aimed to calculate the cost of providing COVID-19 self-testing across countries and distribution modalities.
We estimated economic costs from the provider perspective to calculate the total cost and the cost per self-test kit distributed for three scenarios that differed by costing period (pilot, annual), the number of tests distributed (actual, planned, scaled assuming an epidemic peak) and self-test kit costs (pilot purchase price, 50% reduction).
We used data collected between August and December 2022 in Brazil, Georgia, Malaysia, Ethiopia and the Philippines from pilot implementation studies designed to provide COVID-19 self-tests in a variety of settings—namely, workplace and healthcare facilities.
Across all five countries, 173 000 kits were distributed during pilot implementation with the cost/test distributed ranging from $2.44 to $12.78. The cost/self-test kit distributed was lowest in the scenario that assumed implementation over a longer period (year), with higher test demand (peak) and a test kit price reduction of 50% ($1.04–3.07). Across all countries and scenarios, test procurement occupied the greatest proportion of costs: 58–87% for countries with off-site self-testing (outside the workplace, for example, home) and 15–50% for countries with on-site self-testing (at the workplace). Staffing was the next key cost driver, particularly for distribution modalities that had on-site self-testing (29–35%) versus off-site self-testing (7–27%).
Our results indicate that it is likely to cost between $2.44 and $12.78 per test to distribute COVID-19 self-tests across common settings in five heterogeneous countries. Cost-effectiveness analyses using these results will allow policymakers to make informed decisions on optimally scaling up COVID-19 self-test distribution programmes across diverse settings and evolving needs.
To analyse the influence of the COVID-19 pandemic and the perception of self-efficacy on the health professionals of the Spanish out-of-hospital emergency services.
Observational, cross-sectional and descriptive with a survey methodology of 1710 participants from Spain (1 February–30 April, 2021).
The mental health of healthcare workers was assesed in terms of stress, anxiety and depression, as well as their self-efficacy. Linear and logistic regression models were fitted to predict these variables. A moderation analysis was conducted to determine the effect of self-efficacy on mental health.
The means of the sample for stress, anxiety, depression and self-efficacy were 20.60, 15.74, 13.07 and 70.87, respectively. In the regression models, being a woman was the most significant factor for severe mental health impairment. Female gender was also a relevant factor for self-efficacy. Self-efficacy had a direct effect on the mental health for working in patient care.
Healthcare workers showed moderate stress, severe anxiety, mild depression and good self-efficacy. Direct patient care was associated with more stress and severe anxiety. Age, female gender, job changes and job adjustment were associated with levels of stress, anxiety and depression. Self-efficacy is a determining factor of mental health in the direct care modality.
The mental health of healthcare workers has been of great importance in the aftermath of the pandemic, but out-of-hospital emergency workers have been neglected in research. The levels of stress, anxiety and depression during the pandemic justify the creation of prevention and early diagnosis programmes, as they are essential in a health disaster. Surprisingly, their high level of perceived self-efficacy directly impact on the mental health of patient helthcare workers, so improving it will reduce the psychological risk.
We have followed the STROBE guidelines. It has been partially funded by the Asistencia Sanitanitaria Interprovincial de Seguros - ASISA Foundation (Spain).
‘No patient or public involvement’.
Standard treatment for patients with intermediate or locally advanced rectal cancer is (chemo)radiotherapy followed by total mesorectal excision (TME) surgery. In recent years, organ preservation aiming at improving quality of life has been explored. Patients with a complete clinical response to (chemo)radiotherapy can be managed safely with a watch-and-wait approach. However, the optimal organ-preserving treatment strategy for patients with a good, but not complete clinical response remains unclear. The aim of the OPAXX study is to determine the rate of organ preservation that can be achieved in patients with rectal cancer with a good clinical response after neoadjuvant (chemo)radiotherapy by additional local treatment options.
The OPAXX study is a Dutch multicentre study that investigates the efficacy of two additional local treatments aiming at organ preservation in patients with a good, but not complete response to neoadjuvant treatment (ie near-complete response or a small residual tumour mass
The trial protocol has been approved by the medical ethics committee of the Netherlands Cancer Institute (METC20.1276/M20PAX). Informed consent will be obtained from all participants. The trial results will be published in an international peer-reviewed journal.
To explore potential areas of low-value home-based nursing care practices, their prevalence and related influencing factors of nurses and nursing assistants working in home-based nursing care.
A quantitative, cross-sectional design.
An online survey with questions containing scaled frequencies on five-point Likert scales and open questions on possible related influencing factors of low-value nursing care. The data collection took place from February to April 2022. Descriptive statistics and linear regression were used to summarize and analyse the results.
A nationwide sample of 776 certified nursing assistants, registered nurses and nurse practitioners responded to the survey. The top five most delivered low-value care practices reported were: (1) ‘washing the client with water and soap by default’, (2) ‘application of zinc cream, powders or pastes when treating intertrigo’, (3) ‘washing the client from head to toe daily’, (4) ‘re-use of a urinary catheter bag after removal/disconnection’ and (5) ‘bladder irrigation to prevent clogging of urinary tract catheter’. The top five related influencing factors reported were: (1) ‘a (general) practitioner advices/prescribes it’, (2) ‘written in the client's care plan’, (3) ‘client asks for it’, (4) ‘wanting to offer the client something’ and (5) ‘it is always done like this in the team’. Higher educational levels and an age above 40 years were associated with a lower provision of low-value care.
According to registered nurses and certified nursing assistants, a number of low-value nursing practices occurred frequently in home-based nursing care and they experienced multiple factors that influence the provision of low-value care such as (lack of) clinical autonomy and handling clients' requests, preferences and demands. The results can be used to serve as a starting point for a multifaceted de-implementation strategy.
STROBE checklist for cross-sectional studies.
No Patient or Public Contribution.
Nursing care is increasingly shifting towards the home environment. Not all nursing care that is provided is effective or efficient and this type of care can therefore be considered of low-value. Reducing low-value care and increasing appropriate care will free up time, improve quality of care, work satisfaction, patient safety and contribute to a more sustainable healthcare system.
FreshRSS 