ArticleCureus2020
Physician Preparedness in Response to the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pandemic: A Cross-Sectional Study From a Developing Country.
Article in Cureus, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Health care providers' preparedness and health care protection against the third wave of COVID-19 pandemics in a resource-limited setting in Southwest Ethiopia: a multi-center cross-sectional study.The Pan African medical journal · 2023Article
- Article
- Investigating The Role of Inflammatory Markers at Admission in Defining the Severity of Moderate-to-Critical COVID-19: A Cross-Sectional Analysis.Journal of community hospital internal medicine perspectives · 2022Article
- Diagnostic Value of High-Resolution Computed Tomography Scan in COVID-19: Do We Need to Think Outside the Box?Cureus · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background December 2019 marked the inception of a global pandemic, with cases being reported worldwide. In the developing nations with scarce healthcare resources, the reliance on healthcare workers who are amply prepared to withstand the prevailing scenario is indispensable. Our study aimed to assess the level of preparedness of doctors working in various hospitals across Pakistan to combat coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Methods We conducted an online questionnaire-based survey in May 2020 to estimate the level of preparedness of doctors working in various departments of various private and public hospitals across Pakistan. The survey comprised 36 questions, with items evaluating the provision of adequate protective equipment, training, mental health resources, and sound collaboration between healthcare workers and the hospital management during the COVID-19 crisis. Results A total of 346 doctors responded to the survey, among whom 56.4% were working in public sector hospitals and 46.5% were working more than five days per week. Of those included, 87.6% were being provided with disposable gloves, but 72.8% and 43.4% of respondents professed to having no access to eye protective equipment and gowns, respectively. Only 35.3% of respondents claimed to be trained regarding the use of personal protective equipment and 28.95% were being tested. Of the physicians, 43.4% claimed to have no proper triage system for the suspected patients and 98.3% were concerned about transmitting the disease to their family members. Of the doctors, 53.5% reported that there was sound collaboration between the hospital management and healthcare staff. Conclusion The survey provided evidence of inadequate delivery of personal protective equipment and training to doctors working in various hospitals across Pakistan. A sound collaboration between the hospital management and departments needs to be addressed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.