ArticleBMJ open2022
Experiences and well-being of healthcare professionals working in the field of ultrasound in obstetrics and gynaecology as the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic were evolving: a cross-sectional survey study.
Article in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- "It has been the most difficult time in my career": A qualitative exploration of UK obstetric sonographers' experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic.Radiography (London, England : 1995) · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveAssess experience of healthcare professionals (HCPs) working with ultrasound in obstetrics and gynaecology during the evolving SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, given the new and unprecedented challenges involving viral exposure, personal protective equipment (PPE) and well-being.
designProspective cross-sectional survey study.
settingOnline international survey. Single-best, open box and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) questions.
participantsThe survey was sent to 35 509 HCPs in 124 countries and was open from 7 to 21 May 2020. 2237/3237 (69.1%) HCPs from 115 countries who consented to participate completed the survey. 1058 (47.3%) completed the HADS. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Overall prevalence of SARS-CoV-2, depression and anxiety among HCPs in relation to country and PPE availability. ANALYSES: Univariate analyses were used to investigate associations without generating erroneous causal conclusions.
resultsConfirmed/suspected SARS-CoV-2 prevalence was 13.0%. PPE provision concerns were raised by 74.1% of participants; highest among trainees/resident physicians (83.9%) and among HCPs in Spain (89.7%). Most participants worked in self-perceived high-risk areas with SARS-CoV-2 (67.5%-87.0%), with proportionately more trainees interacting with suspected/confirmed infected patients (57.1% vs 24.2%-40.6%) and sonographers seeing more patients who did not wear a mask (33.3% vs 13.9%-7.9%). The most frequent PPE combination used was gloves and a surgical mask (22.3%). UK and US respondents reported spending less time self-isolating (8.8 days) and lower satisfaction with their national pandemic response (37.0%-43.0%). 19.8% and 8.8% of respondents met the criteria for moderate to severe anxiety and depression, respectively.
conclusionsReported prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 in HCPs is consistent with literature findings. Most respondents used gloves and a surgical mask, with a greater SARS-CoV-2 prevalence compared with those using 'full' PPE. HCPs with the least agency (trainees and sonographers) were not only more likely to see high-risk patients but also less likely to be protected. A fifth of respondents reported moderate to severe anxiety.
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.