Nudging healthcare professionals to improve treatment of COVID-19: a narrative review.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Vilhelmsson A
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8662583 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundHealthcare organisations are in constant need of improvement and change. Nudging has been proposed as a strategy to affect people's choices and has been used to affect patients' behaviour in healthcare settings. However, little is known about how nudging is being interpreted and applied to change the behaviour of healthcare professionals (HCPs). The objective of this review is to identify interventions using nudge theory to affect the behaviour of HCPs in clinical settings.MethodsA scoping review. We searched PubMed and PsycINFO for articles published from 2010 to September 2019, including terms related to "nudging" in the title or abstract. Two reviewers screened articles for inclusion based on whether the articles described an intervention to change the behaviour of HCPs. Two reviewers extracted key information and categorized included articles. Descriptive analyses were performed on the data.ResultsSearch results yielded 997 unique articles, of which 25 articles satisfied the inclusion criteria. Five additional articles were selected from the reference lists of the included articles. We identified 11 nudging strategies: accountable justification, goal setting, suggested alternatives, feedback, information transparency, peer comparison, active choice, alerts and reminders, environmental cueing/priming, defaults/pre-orders, and education. These strategies were employed to affect the following 4 target behaviours: vaccination of staff, hand hygiene, clinical procedures, prescriptions and orders. To compare approaches across so many areas, we introduced two independent dimensions to describe nudging strategies: synchronous/asynchronous, and active/passive.ConclusionThere are relatively few studies published referring to nudge theory aimed at changing HCP behaviour in clinical settings. These studies reflect a diverse set of objectives and implement nudging strategies in a variety of ways. We suggest distinguishing active from passive nudging strategies. Passive nudging strategies may achieve the desired outcome but go unnoticed by the clinician thereby not really changing a behaviour and raising ethical concerns. Our review indicates that there are successful active strategies that engage with clinicians in a more deliberate way. However, more research is needed on how different nudging strategies impact HCP behaviour in the short and long term to improve clinical decision making.
| S-EPMC8170624 | biostudies-literature
Project description:In the recent two decades, three global viral infectious diseases, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), middle east respiratory syndrome (MERS), and coronavirus disease (COVID-19), have occurred worldwide. SARS occurred in November 2002, causing 8096 infected cases, as well as 774 deaths. MERS occurred in June, 2012, causing 2519 confirmed cases, along with 866 associated deaths. COVID-19 occurred in December 2019, as of 30 April 2020, a total of 3,024,059 clinical cases have been reported, including 208,112 deaths. Healthcare workers (HCWs) need to be in close contact with these virus-infected patients and their contaminated environments at work, thus leading to be infected in some of them, even a few of them are died in line of duty. In this review, we summarized the infection status of HCWs during the outbreak of SARS, MERS and COVID-19, with in-depth discussion, hoping to provoke sufficient attention to the HCWs infection status by more people.
| S-EPMC7250777 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is ongoing and many drugs have been studied in clinical trials. From a pathophysiological perspective, anti-viral drugs may be more effective in the early stage while immunomodulators may be more effective in severe patients in later stages of infection. While drugs such as lopinavir-ritonavir, hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin have proved to be ineffective in randomized controlled trials, corticosteroids, neutralizing monoclonal antibodies, remdesivir, tocilizumab and baricitinib have been reported to benefit certain groups of patients with COVID-19. In this review, we will present the key clinical evidence and progress in promising COVID-19 therapeutics, as well as summarize the experience and lessons learned from the development of the current therapeutics.
| S-EPMC8446994 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-BSST563 | biostudies-other
Project description:RNA was extracted from whole blood of subjects collected in Tempus tubes prior to COVID-19 mRNA booster vaccination. D01 and D21 correspond to samples collected at pre-dose 1 and pre-dose 2 respectively. RNA was also extracted from blood collected at indicated time points post-vaccination. DB1, DB2, DB4 and DB7 correspond to booster day 1 (pre-booster), booster day 2, booster day 4 and booster day 7 respectively. The case subject experienced cardiac complication following mRNA booster vaccination. We performed gene expression analysis of case versus controls over time.
2023-03-20 | E-MTAB-12829 | biostudies-arrayexpress
Project description:The immunological and pathophysiological response to COVID-19 can cause severe respiratory impairment affecting gas exchange and lung mechanics. Such was the scale of the respiratory support needed during the first wave of the pandemic, that recruitment of non-respiratory clinical staff was essential to help deal with the growing number of cases. It quickly became apparent that it was vital to rapidly equip these healthcare professionals with appropriate physiological knowledge and practical skills if therapies were to be applied effectively. Furthermore, the unravelling of unusual clinical features of COVID-19, further highlighted a need for knowledge of long-established principles of respiratory physiology. An online digital educational resource, or "respiratory learning tool kit" was developed with interactive material including visualisations, animations, and pathophysiological examples to facilitate understanding. The learning outcomes were centred on physiological principles, essential for understanding the pathophysiology relating to COVID-19, and management and treatment. Topics included principles of gas exchange, gas transport, homeostasis and central control of respiration. These basic physiological principles were linked to pathophysiology and clinical skills around oxygen administration and non-invasive supports such as Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP). From the degree of engagement and evaluation comments, it was clear that the resource successfully achieved its aim-to increase physiological knowledge and its practical understanding, enabling healthcare professionals to practice with confidence in such an uncertain environment.
| S-EPMC8093387 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The COVID-19 pandemic as a public health issue has spread to the rest of the world. Although the wellbeing and emotional resilience of healthcare professionals are key components of continuing healthcare services during the COVID-19 pandemic, healthcare professionals have been observed in this period to experience serious psychological problems and to be at risk in terms of mental health. Therefore, this study aims to probe psychological resilience of healthcare workers. The findings of this study showed that in order to raise psychological resilience of healthcare professionals working during the COVID-19 pandemic their quality of sleep, positive emotions and life satisfaction need to be enhanced. Psychological resilience levels of healthcare workers in their later years were found to be higher. Doctors constitute the group with the lowest levels of psychological resilience among healthcare workers. The current study is considered to have contributed to the literature in this regard. Primary needs such as sleep which are determinants of quality of life, life satisfaction and psychological resilience should be met.
| S-EPMC7557235 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionPatients suffering from coronavirus infection have an increased risk of venous thromboembolic disease (VTE) associated with COVID-19, which confers a higher risk of mortality. For this reason, it is necessary to analyze the knowledge and the different actions in the management of thromboprophylaxis in work environments.Material and methodsObservational, descriptive and cross-sectional study with data collection through a Google® form with 19 questions for professionals involved in the care of COVID-19. 414 surveys were received. The quantitative variables were represented with means and standard deviation and the qualitative variables with percentages and confidence intervals.Results414 surveys analyzed. 58.2% were women. The most participatory age group was 56-65 years. 95.2% stated that COVID-19 patients had a higher risk of VTE and peripheral arterial microthrombosis. 93.6% considered that outpatient COVID-19 patients should receive thromboprophylaxis. 60.5% of the physicians did not know any protocol for the evaluation of thrombotic risk in these patients. Low molecular weight heparin was considered the main treatment for thromboprophylaxis.ConclusionsThe majority of doctors consider that COVID-19 patients have a higher risk of suffering VTE and peripheral arterial microthrombosis than the general population, however more than a third do not assess the thrombotic risk and a significant percentage claim not to know protocols to evaluate said risk. The survey highlights the training needs of our professionals in thromboprophylaxis so that our patients receive healthcare with the highest possible quality.
| S-EPMC7938737 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The COVID-19 pandemic has shaken the world since early 2020 and its health, social, economic, and societal negative impacts at the global scale have been catastrophic. Since the early days of the pandemic, development of safe and effective vaccines was judged to be the best possible tool to minimize the effects of this pandemic. Drastic public health measures were put into place to stop the spread of the virus, with the hope that vaccines would be available soon. Thanks to the extraordinary commitments of many organizations and individuals from around the globe and the collaborative effort of many international scientists, vaccines against COVID-19 received regulatory approval for emergency human use in many jurisdictions in less than a year after the identification of the viral sequence. Several of these vaccines have been in use for some time; however, the pandemic is still ongoing and likely to persist for the foreseeable future. This is due to many reasons including reduced compliance with public health restrictions, limited vaccine manufacturing/distribution capacity, high rates of vaccine hesitancy, and the emergence of new variants with the capacity to spread more easily and to evade current vaccines. Here we discuss the discovery and availability of COVID-19 vaccines and evolving issues around mass vaccination programs.
| S-EPMC8779282 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The 2019 novel coronavirus (COVID-19) has quickly become one of the most dire international pandemic crises since the 1918 Spanish flu. Evidence for COVID-19 pharmacological therapies has shown rapid growth and a diverse array of results, but an assessment of the value of each piece of evidence must be reinforced. This article aims to review utilized therapies, the evidence level supporting these therapies, as well as drugs under investigation for the treatment of COVID-19. Primary scrutinized therapies include antiviral regimens, such as remdesivir, hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine, lopinavir/ritonavir, immunomodulating drugs, such as corticosteroids and interleukin (IL) inhibitors, and other therapies including convalescent plasma. Only one therapy, dexamethasone, has shown a mortality benefit in randomized controlled trials and summarized evidence for other therapies show limited positive results. Reviewing these therapies in a historical way shows how limited evidence can drive therapy decisions. A broad summary of available evidence can assist clinicians in a return to hierarchical assessments of evidence which can lead to safer patient outcomes, improved distribution of resources, and better targets for appropriate therapy decisions.
| S-EPMC7831619 | biostudies-literature