Background: Traumatic injury remains the leading cause of death, with more than five million deaths every year. Little is known about the comparative effectiveness in reducing mortality of trauma care systems at different stages of development. The objective of this study was to review the literature and examine differences in mortality associated with different stages of trauma system development.Method: A systematic review of peer-reviewed population-based studies retrieved from MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL. Additional studies were identified from references of articles, through database searching, and author lists. Articles written in English and published between 2000 and 2020 were included. Selection of studies, data extraction, and quality assessment of the included studies were performed by two independent reviewers. The results were reported as odds ratio (OR) with 95 % confidence intervals (CI).Results: A total of 52 studies with a combined 1,106,431 traumatic injury patients were included for quantitative analysis. The overall mortality rate was 6.77% (n= 74,930). When patients were treated in a non-trauma centre compared to a trauma centre, the pooled statistical odds of mortality were reduced (OR 0.74 [95% CI 0.69–0.79];p< 0.001). When patients were treated in a non-trauma system compared to a trauma system the odds of mortality rates increased (OR 1.17 [95% CI 1.10–1.24];p< 0.001). When patients were treated in a post-implementation/initial system compared to a mature system, odds of mortality were significantly higher (OR 1.46 [95% CI 1.37–1.55];p< 0.001).Conclusion: The present study highlights that the survival of traumatic injured patients varies according to the stage of trauma system development in which the patient was treated. The analysis indicates a significant reduction in mortality following the introduction of the trauma system which is further enhanced as the system matures. These results provide evidence to support efforts to, firstly, implement trauma systems in countries currently without and, secondly, to enhance existing systems by investing in system development.Systematic review registration number: PROSPEROCRD42019142842.

Background: The current pandemic of COVID-19 impacted the psychological wellbeing of populations globally. Objectives: We aimed to examine the extent and identify factors associated with psychological distress, fear of COVID-19 and coping. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional study across 17 countries during Jun-2020 to Jan-2021. Levels of psychological distress (Kessler Psychological Distress Scale), fear of COVID-19 (Fear of COVID-19 Scale), and coping (Brief Resilient Coping Scale) were assessed. Results: A total of 8,559 people participated; mean age (±SD) was 33(±13) years, 64% were females and 40% self-identified as frontline workers. More than two-thirds (69%) experienced moderate-to-very high levels of psychological distress, which was 46% in Thailand and 91% in Egypt. A quarter (24%) had high levels of fear of COVID-19, which was as low as 9% in Libya and as high as 38% in Bangladesh. More than half (57%) exhibited medium to high resilient coping; the lowest prevalence (3%) was reported in Australia and the highest (72%) in Syria. Being female (AOR 1.31 [95% CIs 1.09-1.57]), perceived distress due to change of employment status (1.56 [1.29-1.90]), comorbidity with mental health conditions (3.02 [1.20-7.60]) were associated with higher levels of psychological distress and fear. Doctors had higher psychological distress (1.43 [1.04-1.97]), but low levels of fear of COVID-19 (0.55 [0.41-0.76]); nurses had medium to high resilient coping (1.30 [1.03-1.65]). Conclusions: The extent of psychological distress, fear of COVID-19 and coping varied by country; however, we identified few higher risk groups who were more vulnerable than others. There is an urgent need to prioritise health and well-being of those people through well-designed intervention that may need to be tailored to meet country specific requirements.