Although Jordan has applied lockdown in response to COVID-19 pandemic, many people were not adherent to the quarantine. We aimed to examine the attitudes of the Jordanians and how these attitudes can predict their adherence using the health belief model (HBM). A cross-sectional study of 5057 participants using an internet-based questionnaire was conducted during lockdown. Multivariable ordinal regression analyses were used to estimate predictors of adherence to home quarantine. Overall, 646 (12.8%), 2078 (41.2%), and 2317 (46%) of participants showed poor, intermediate, and strict adherence, respectively. Of the HBM constructs, seriousness (β= 0.116, 95% CI 0.027 to 0.205), benefits (β= 0.056, 95% CI 0.002 to 0.110) and barriers (β= -0.025, 95% CI -0.035 to -0.015) were significant predictors. We identified income insecurity (β= -0.096, 95% CI -0.144 to -0.046), social withdrawal (β= -0.062, 95% CI -0.121 to -0.004), religious concerns (β= -0.149, 95% CI -0.202 to -0.096) and health consequences (β= 0.065, 95% CI 0.011 to 0.11) as barriers. Governmental instructions were the only predictive external cue (β= 0.055, 95% CI 0.004 to 0.014). Our findings suggest that a high number of Jordanians are adherent with the quarantine, demonstrating the ability of governmental policies in tackling potential barriers.

Burnout syndrome is common among healthcare professions, including resident physicians. We aimed to assess the prevalence of burnout among resident physicians in Jordan, and a secondary aim was to evaluate the risk factors associated with the development of burnout syndrome in those residents, including gender, working hours, psychological distress, training sector, and specialty. In this cross-sectional study, 481 residents were recruited utilizing multistage stratified sampling to represent the four major health sectors in Jordan. Data were collected using an online questionnaire, where the Copenhagen Burnout Inventory (CBI) was used to assess the prevalence of burnout. The prevalence, group differences, and predictors of burnout were statistically analyzed using STATA 15. Overall, 373 (77.5%) residents were found to have burnout. Factors associated with higher levels of burnout were psychological stress (β = 2.34, CI = [1.88–2.81]), longer working hours (β = 4.07, CI = [0.52–7.62], for 51–75 h a week, β = 7.27, CI = [2.86–11.69], for 76–100 h a week and β = 7.27, CI = [0.06–14.49], for >100 h a week), and obstetrics/gynecology residents (β = 9.66, CI = [3.59–15.73]). Conversely, medical sub-specialty residents, as well as private and university hospital residents, had lower burnout levels. We concluded that decreasing the workload on residents, offering psychological counseling, and promoting a safety culture for residents might help in mitigating burnout consequences.

Vaccines are considered the best approach for countering the COVID-19 pandemic. In this study, we compared early side effects associated with vaccination with the Sinopharm and Pfizer–BioNTech COVID-19 vaccines. Participants of this observational cohort were interviewed based on semi-structured telephone interviews, with enquiries about side effects that developed after vaccination with each dose of these vaccines. Overall, 1004 participants were enrolled, of which 51.1% received Sinopharm vaccine and 48.9% received the Pfizer–BioNTech vaccine. After the first dose, 46.3% of participants had an adverse reaction, with injection site pain most commonly being reported (33.2%). Participants who received the Pfizer–BioNTech vaccine had significantly higher frequencies of all types of adverse reactions (p < 0.01), with no significant differences in the duration of adverse reactions between the two vaccines. Regarding the second dose, 48.6% of participants had adverse reactions, with injection site pain being most commonly reported (29%). Those who received the Pfizer vaccine reported higher frequencies of all adverse reactions (p < 0.01). However, a longer duration of adverse reactions was seen among Sinopharm vaccine recipients as compared to Pfizer–BioNTech vaccine recipients (p = 0.01). In conclusion, early adverse effects are reported following all types of vaccines but these are more likely to be encountered following the administration of new-generation vaccines. These side effects are mostly mild and treatable.

Workplace violence (WPV) against healthcare providers is a serious problem that carries health, safety, and legal consequences. Healthcare providers working in emergency departments (ED) are more susceptible to WPV compared to other healthcare settings. This study aimed to assess the prevalence of physical and verbal violence against ED physicians and nurses in public hospitals in Amman, Jordan, and to explore the relationship between WPV and the socio-demographic characteristics of the participants. A quantitative descriptive cross-sectional study design was used to assess physical and verbal violence against ED physicians and nurses. A self-administered questionnaire was completed by 67 physicians and 96 nurses from three public hospitals in Amman. In the past year, 33% and 53% of the participants experienced physical and verbal violence, respectively. Compared to their female counterparts, males were more frequently physically (43.7% vs. 2.3%, p-value < 0.001) and verbally (61.3% vs. 29.5%, p-value < 0.001) abused. The main perpetrators of physical and verbal violence were the patients’ relatives. Out of 53 physical and 86 verbal abuse incidents, only 15 cases (10.8%) were followed up with legal persecution. In conclusion, there is a widespread occurrence of physical and verbal violence against ED physicians and nurses in the public sector hospitals in Jordan. A collaborative effort by all stakeholders should be instituted to ensure the safety of the physicians and nurses and to improve the quality of the healthcare provided.

Background: Globally, colorectal cancer (CRC) is ranked the third most common cancer among men and the secondin women. The American Cancer Society recommends that starting from the age 50 years, both men and women shouldbe screened for polyps and for early detection of CRC. In Jordan, CRC is the most common cancer among males andthe second most common cancer among females. This study aims to assess the knowledge and practices of CRC earlydetection tests and the barriers and motivators of screening in Jordan. Methods: A semi-structured questionnaire andface-to-face interviews were conducted with 300 males and 300 females recruited using stratified clustered randomsampling technique from four governorates in Jordan. The participants were aged 30 to 65 years, without a previoushistory of CRC. Descriptive and multivariate analyses were used to assess knowledge and practices of CRC early detectiontests. Results: Overall, there were poor knowledge and practices of CRC early detection tests. Better knowledge andpractices were significantly associated with previously consulting a doctor due to symptoms and worries from CRC,receiving a recommendation from a doctor to perform CRC testing, or having more knowledge about CRC signs andsymptoms (p≤ 0.05). Conclusions: This study indicates that there is a need for raising awareness about CRC earlydetection tests in Jordan, especially among those aged 50 years and above, and those who have a family history ofCRC. Additionally, it is important to educate and encourage physicians to recommend CRC screening to patients thatare at higher risk of the disease.

Purpose The outbreak of COVID-19 erupted in December 2019 in Wuhan, China. In a few weeks, it progressed rapidly into a global pandemic which resulted in an overwhelming burden on health care systems, medical resources and staff. Spine surgeons as health care providers are no exception. In this study, we try to highlight the impact of the crisis on spine surgeons in terms of knowledge, attitude, practice and socioeconomic burden. Methods This was global, multicentric cross-sectional study on 781 spine surgeons that utilized an Internet-based validated questionnaire to evaluate knowledge about COVID-19, availability of personal protective equipment, future perceptions, effect of this crisis on practice and psychological distress. Univariate and multivariate ordinal logistic regression analyses were used to evaluate the predictors for the degree of COVID-19 effect on practice. Results Overall, 20.2%, 52% and 27.8% of the participants were affected minimally, intermediately and hugely by COVID-19, respectively. Older ages (β = 0.33, 95% CI 0.11–0.56), orthopedic spine surgeons (β = 0.30, 95% CI 0.01–0.61) and those who work in the private sector (β = 0.05, 95% CI 0.19–0.61) were the most affected by COVID-19. Those who work in university hospitals (β = − 0.36, 95% CI 0.00 to − 0.71) were affected the least. The availability of N95 masks (47%) and disposable eye protectors or face shields (39.4%) was significantly associated with lower psychological stress (p = 0.01). Only 6.9%, 3.7% and 5% had mild, moderate and severe mental distress, respectively. Conclusion While it is important to recognize the short-term impact of COVID-19 pandemic on the practice of spine surgery, predicting where we will be standing in 6–12 months remains difficult and unknown. The COVID-19 crisis will probably have an unexpected long-term impact on lives and economies.