Background: Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic has spread to 198 countries, with approximately 2.4 million confirmed cases and 150,000 deaths globally as of April 18. Frontline healthcare workers (HCWs) face a substantially higher risk of infection and death due to excessive COVID-19 exposure. This review aimed at summarizing the evidence of the physical and mental health impacts of COVID-19 pandemic on health-care workers (HCWs). Methods: We used the Arksey O’Malley framework to conduct a scoping review. A systematic literature search was conducted using two databases: PubMed and Google Scholar. We found 154 studies, and out of which 10 met our criteria. We collected information on the date of publication, first author’s country, the title of the article, study design, study population, intervention and outcome, and key findings, and divided all research articles into two domains: physical and mental health impact. Results: We reviewed a total of 154 articles from PubMed (126) and Google Scholar (28), of which 58 were found to be duplicate articles and were excluded. Of the remaining 96 articles, 82 were excluded after screening for eligibility, and 4 articles did not have available full texts. Ten full-text articles were reviewed and included in this study. Our findings identified the following risk factors for COVID-19-related health impact: working in a high-risk department, diagnosed family member, inadequate hand hygiene, suboptimal hand hygiene before and after contact with patients, improper PPE use, close contact with patients (≥ 12 times/day), long daily contact hours (≥ 15 h), and unprotected exposure. The most common symptoms identified amongst HCWs were fever (85%), cough (70%), and weakness (70%). Prolonged PPE usage led to cutaneous manifestations and skin damage (97%), with the nasal bridge (83%) most commonly affected site. HCWs experienced high levels of depression, anxiety, insomnia, and distress. Female HCWs and nurses were disproportionately affected. Conclusion: The frontline healthcare workers are at risk of physical and mental consequences directly as the result of providing care to patients with COVID-19. Even though there are few intervention studies, early data suggest implementation strategies to reduce the chances of infections, shorter shift lengths, and mechanisms for mental health support could reduce the morbidity and mortality amongst HCWs.

Out-of-hospital emergency care (OHEC), also known as prehospital care, has been shown to reduce morbidity and mortality from serious illness. We sought to summarize literature for low and low-middle income countries to identify barriers to and key interventions for OHEC delivery. We performed a systematic review of the peer reviewed literature from January 2005 to March 2015 in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, and Web of Science. All articles referencing research from low and low-middle income countries addressing OHEC, emergency medical services, or transport/transfer of patients were included. We identified themes in the literature to form six categories of OHEC barriers. Data were collected using an electronic form and results were aggregated to produce a descriptive summary. A total 1927 titles were identified, 31 of which met inclusion criteria. Barriers to OHEC were divided into six categories that included: culture/community, infrastructure, communication/coordination, transport, equipment and personnel. Lack of transportation was a common problem, with 55% (17/31) of articles reporting this as a hindrance to OHEC. Ambulances were the most commonly mentioned (71%, 22/31) mode of transporting patients. However, many patients still relied on alternative means of transportation such as hired cars, and animal drawn carts. Sixty-one percent (19/31) of articles identified a lack of skilled personnel as a key barrier, with 32% (10/31) of OHEC being delivered by laypersons without formal training. Forty percent (12/31) of the systems identified in the review described a uniform access phone number for emergency medical service activation. Policy makers and researchers seeking to improve OHEC in low and low-middle income countries should focus on increasing the availability of transport and trained providers while improving patient access to the OHEC system. The review yielded articles with a primary focus in Africa, highlighting a need for future research in diverse geographic areas.

Telemedicine refers to the delivery of medical care and provision of general health services from a distance. Telemedicine has been practiced for decades with increasing evidence proving its potential for enhanced quality of care for patients, reduction in hospital readmissions, and increase in savings for both patients and providers. The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in a significant increase in the reliance on telemedicine and telehealth for provision of health care services. Developments in telemedicine should be structured as complements to current health care procedures, not with the goal of completely digitizing the entire health care system, but rather to use the power of technology to enhance areas that may not be working at their full potential. At the same time, it is also clear that further research is needed on the effectiveness of telemedicine in terms of both financial and patient benefits. We discuss the current and rapidly increasing knowledge about the use of telemedicine in the United States, and identify the gaps in knowledge and opportunities for further research. Beginning with telemedicine’s origins in the United States to its widespread use during the COVID-19 pandemic, we highlight recent developments in legislation, accessibility, and acceptance of telemedicine.

Objective There are currently no metrics for measuring population-level burden of emergency medical diseases (EMDs). This study presents an analysis of the burden of EMDs using two metrics: the emergency disease mortality rate (EDMR) and the emergency disease burden (EDB) per 1000 population at the national, regional and global levels. Methods We used the 1990 and 2015 Global Burden of Disease Study for morbidity and mortality data on 249 medical conditions in 195 countries. Thirty-one diseases were classified as ‘emergency medical diseases’ based on earlier published work. We developed two indicators, one focused on mortality (EDMR) and the other on burden (EDB). We compared the EDMR and EDB across countries, regions and income groups and compared these metrics from 1990 to 2015. Results In 2015, globally, there were 28.3 million deaths due to EMDs. EMDs contributed to 50.7% of mortality and 41.5% of all burden of diseases. The EDB in low-income countries is 4.4 times that of high-income countries. The EDB in the African region is 273 disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) per 1000 compared with 100 DALYs per 1000 in the European region. There has been a 6% increase in overall mortality due to EMDs from 1990 to 2015. Globally, injuries (22%), ischaemic heart disease (17%), lower respiratory infections (11%) and haemorrhagic strokes (7%) made up about 60% of EMDs in 2015. Conclusion Globally, EMDs contributed to more than half of all years of life lost. There is a significant disparity between the EDMR and EDB between regions and socioeconomic groups at the global level.

Background: Extreme temperatures have negative consequences on the environment, ecosystem, and human health. With recent increases in global temperatures, there has been a rise in the burden of heat-related illnesses, with a disproportionate impact on low- and middle-income countries. Effective population-level interventions are critical to a successful public health response. Objective: This scoping review aims to summarize the evidence on the effectiveness of population-level heat-related interventions and serve as a potential guide to the implementation of these interventions. Methods: Studies that evaluated the effectiveness of community-based interventions to mitigate or reduce the impact of extreme heat on heat-related mortality and morbidity were sought by searching four electronic databases. Studies published in the English language and those that had quantifiable, measurable mortality, morbidity or knowledge score outcomes were included. Results: The initial electronic search yielded 2324 articles, and 17 studies were included. Fourteen studies were based in high-income countries (HICs) (Europe, US, Canada) and discussed multiple versions of (1) heat action plans, which included but were not limited to establishing a heat monitoring system, informative campaigns, the mobilization of health care professionals, volunteers, social workers and trained caregivers in the surveillance and management of individuals with known vulnerabilities, or stand-alone (2) education and awareness campaigns. Multi-pronged heat action plans were highly effective in reducing heat-related mortality and morbidity, especially among vulnerable populations such as the elderly and those with chronic conditions. Conclusions: The heat action plans covered in these studies have shown promising results in reducing heat-related mortality and morbidity and have included instituting early warning systems, building local capacity to identify, prevent or treat and manage heat-related illnesses, and disseminating information. Nevertheless, they need to be cost-effective, easy to maintain, ideally should not rely on a mass effort from people and should be specifically structured to meet the local needs and resources of the community.