RESUMEN
The aim of the study was to compare the safety profiles (prevalence of both local and systemic side effects) of COVID-19 vaccines (Pfizer−BioNTech, Moderna, Oxford−AstraZeneca) among healthcare workers (doctors, nurses, and pharmacists) administered with a first and a second dose of the vaccines. Another goal of the research was to evaluate potential demographic and clinical risk factors for the frequency and intensity of side effects. A post-marketing, cross-sectional survey-based study was carried out on a sample of 971 respondents (323 doctors, 324 nurses, and 324 pharmacists), all more than 18 years old, who have taken two doses of the following SARS-CoV-2 vaccines: BNT162b2 (Pfizer−BioNTech) (group 1), mRNA-1273 (Moderna) (group 2), and ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (Oxford−AstraZeneca) (group 3). A validated, self-administered questionnaire was developed and delivered online to the target population group of healthcare workers. The survey was conducted during the third wave of the COVID-19 (1 February 2021−1 July 2021) pandemic. It was based on the CAWI (computer-assisted web interview) method. Questionnaires were disseminated using selected social media. The BNT162b2 (Pfizer−BioNTech) vaccine was the most commonly administered COVID-19 vaccine among healthcare professionals in Poland (69.61%). Side effects following a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine were reported by 53.11% of respondents in group 1, 72% in group 2, and 67.59% in group 3. The following were the most common side effects regardless of the type of vaccine administered: pain at the injection site, headache, muscle pain, fever, chills, and fatigue. The number and intensity of reported side effects following administration of a BNT162b2 (Pfizer−BioNTech) vaccine were significantly lower than in the other two study groups (p < 0.00001). Risk factors for side effects following administration of one of the SARS-CoV-2 vaccines subject to the analysis included being female, young, and suffering from a diagnosed allergy. Our results clearly show that the short-term safety profiles of the eligible COVID-19 vaccines (Pfizer−BioNTech, Moderna, Oxford−AstraZeneca) are acceptable. Nevertheless, the two-dose COVID-19 vaccines available in Poland differ significantly in the frequency of both local and systemic side effects and their intensity. Women, young people, and patients diagnosed with allergies are particularly exposed to the risk of side effects. Further studies are needed to determine the long-term safety profile of COVID-19 vaccines.
RESUMEN
The pandemic state has a destructive effect on the human psyche and induces fear for one's own health. By reducing the risk of severe COVID-19, vaccination may indirectly improve the mental state. This study aims to assess the effects of vaccination on respondents' mental well-being, their attitudes towards adherence to government recommendations limiting viral transmission, and to identify factors that may influence the decision to get vaccinated. The survey took the form of the authors' own, fully voluntary, anonymous, online questionnaire. Standardised psychometric tools were used in the survey: Generalised Anxiety Disorder Assessment (GAD-7) and Manchester Short Assessment of Quality of Life (MANSA). The survey involved 1696 respondents, the vast majority of whom were women, and were aged 18-29. The vaccination status was declared by 1677 respondents (98.9%), 430 (25.4%) of whom were vaccinated with at least one dose of vaccine, while 303 (17.9%) respondents were not only unvaccinated at all, and declared no intention to get vaccinated in the future. Fully vaccinated individuals were found to have lower levels of anxiety, higher MANSA scores and lower subjective anxiety about being infected with COVID-19 than those awaiting vaccination or those with an incomplete vaccination regimen (one dose). Those who are not willing to get vaccinated have the lowest sense of anxiety and fear of being infected and they have the lowest adherence to government recommendations limiting SARS-CoV-2 transmission. Conclusions: COVID-19 vaccination reduces the level of anxiety about being infected and anxiety due to COVID-19 disease in people from the immediate environment. Those who are not willing to get vaccinated have extreme attitudes that negate the pandemic as a whole, including the need for COVID-19 vaccination. Fully vaccinated individuals still adhere to the SARS-CoV-2 prevention policies in place.
RESUMEN
There are more than 200 different diseases classed as interstitial lung diseases (ILDs). For epidemiological and practical purposes, ILDs are classified into diseases of known and unknown etiology. The aim of this review is to evaluate our current knowledge about the efficacy and safety of pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) in patients with ILDs. Other issues, such as ILD pathogenesis, prevalence and comorbidity, are also elaborated in the review. Pulmonary rehabilitation is an important part of comprehensive care for patients with ILDs. In comparison to PR for patients with chronic pulmonary obstructive disease (COPD), the number of clinical studies concerning PR for patients with ILDs is small. The majority of trials have been performed in relatively small groups of patients. The principles of PR in this group of patients are the same as for patients with COPD. Exercise-induced desaturation is frequently observed during PR, which is the main source of complications in patients with ILDs. Major differences between ILD and COPD patients include poorer exercise tolerance and faster development of respiratory failure in patients with ILDs.
Asunto(s)
Terapia por Ejercicio , Enfermedades Pulmonares Intersticiales/rehabilitación , Tolerancia al Ejercicio , Humanos , PrevalenciaRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to assess the possibility of implementation of the WHO Green Page as a tool to supplement basic medical interviews with environmental health risk factors for children. METHODS: The WHO Green Page questionnaire was tested on parents of children who visited family practice doctors. RESULTS: A total of 159 parents took part in the study. It was noted that 24.3% of caregivers expressed concern about their children's environment without naming the risk factors. It was also found that 23.7% of the parents demonstrated knowledge and awareness of existing real environmental risks, and 7.0% of them stated that their children had sustained injuries in connection with road traffic prior to the questionnaire study. CONCLUSIONS: The WHO Green Page will provide additional information to the basic medical interview and, if regularly updated, will allow for monitoring of changing environmental conditions of children.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Patients with at least one chronic disease requiring regular contact with their GP, additional tests and systematic use of medicines constitute one of the challenges for the future of primary medical care. To date, no studies have been published describing the most important factors in increasing the quality of care for the chronically ill. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate correlations between patients' characteristics and their assessments of the quality of health care and to identify the primary factors influencing the quality of care for chronically ill patients. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The sample for the current analysis included 232 chronically ill adult patients of primary care clinics in Poland. The patients' opinions regarding subjective and objective examinations, their participation in clinical decision-making processes, psychosocial factors, contact with the doctor in emergency situations and confidence in the doctor were investigated. RESULTS: The strongest correlations defining the quality of care for the chronically ill were identified as the occurrence of hypertension (0.248, p < 0.001), the patient's gender (0.271, p < 0.001), the patient's level of education (0.169, p < 0.01) and the patient's age (0.155, p = 0.018). The results of the ANOVA test were statistically significant (p < 0.05) for the occurrence of myocardial infarction, hypertension, type 2 diabetes, psoriasis, multiple sclerosis, the doctor's gender, the patient's gender, age and education. CONCLUSIONS: The areas that the participants gave the highest ratings to are subjective and objective examinations, kindness and willingness to help. The strongest correlations between high assessments of the quality of care provided for chronically ill patients at primary care clinics were observed in the following variables: gender, age, level of education, frequency of visits, therapy conducted by a doctor at a specialist clinic, arterial hypertension, COPD and/or myocardial infarction.