The burnout rate among physicians is expected to be higher during COVID-19 period due to the additional sources of physical and emotional stressors. Throughout the current COVID-19 pandemic, numerous studies have evaluated the impacts of COVID-19 on physicians’ burnout, but the reported results have been inconsistent. This current systematic review and meta-analysis aims to assess and estimate the epidemiology of burnout and the associated risk factors during the COVID-19 pandemic among physicians. A systematic search for studies targeting physicians’ burnout was conducted using PubMed, Scopus, ProQuest, Cochrane COVID-19 registry, and pre-print services (PsyArXiv and medRχiv) for English language studies published within the time period of 1 January 2020 to 1 September 2021. Search strategies resulted in 446 possible eligible studies. The titles and abstracts of these studies were screened, which resulted in 34 probable studies for inclusion, while 412 studies were excluded based on the predetermined inclusion criteria. These 34 studies went through a full-text screening for eligibility, which resulted in 30 studies being included in the final reviews and subsequent analyses. Among them, the prevalence of physicians’ burnout rate ranged from 6.0–99.8%. This wide variation could be due to the heterogeneity among burnout definitions, different applied assessment tools, and even cultural factors. Further studies may consider other factors when assessing burnout (e.g., the presence of a psychiatric disorders, other work-related and cultural factors). In conclusion, a consistent diagnostic indices for the assessment of burnout is required to enable consistent methods of scoring and interpretation.

To identify the outcome of prediabetes and the interventions that have been implemented for prediabetic patients at primary healthcare centers (PHCs) affiliated with King Abdulaziz Medical City, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. This retrospective chart-review study was carried out using the BestCare electronic health records (EHRs) system. Data from the PHCs of King Abdulaziz Medical City, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia were extracted. Inclusion criteria were patients with prediabetes who were diagnosed between January 2015 and December 2016, with at least one follow-up visit. Variables included demographics, comorbidities, blood sugar lab results, and lipid profile measurements at each visit and intervention at the time of the initial diagnosis. Fisher's Exact test, sign test, and Kruskal-Wallis test were used to assess the differences for non-normally-distributed variables, while a paired t-test was conducted for paired and normally distributed continuous variables. Data were analyzed using the statistical program SAS, version 9.4 (SAS Institute Inc. Cary, NC). Of the 92 patients followed up with for three years, 76.08% remained in the prediabetic range, while 16.4% regressed to a normal glycemic state (NGS) and 7.6% progressed to the diabetic range after intervention and follow-up for three years. Metformin use was not significant in the glycemic outcome. In comparison to the baseline, there was a considerable reduction in fasting blood sugar (FBS) and glycosylated hemoglobulin A1c (HbA1c) at the end of the follow-up. We found that most of the patients remained in the prediabetic range after the three-year follow-up, with or without intervention. A commonly prescribed pharmacological intervention like metformin showed no regression benefit in most patients. More extensive prospective studies are needed to evaluate the outcome and adherence to different interventions.

Background: Skin is the largest and the outermost body organ. It is directly affected by the external environment. The biomechanical differences in wheelchair users compared to healthy people make them prone to different risk factors of skin problems. Nevertheless, these patients are under-represented in the dermatologic literature. Objective: The primary objective was to determine the frequency of different skin problems among wheelchair users. The secondary objective is to determine the different precautions they are taking to prevent these problems. Methods: The prospective study followed a cross-sectional design, conducted during the period of the coronavirus disease 2019 curfew between May and June 2020. The survey’s link was distributed among adult wheelchair users in Saudi Arabia. The questionnaire was administered using google forms. All statistical analyses were performed using SPSS version 22. Results: The results show that the vast majority of wheelchair users (85%) experienced skin problems. Pressure ulcer (PU) is the most frequently reported skin condition (54%), followed by traumatic wounds, fungal infections, and hand skin dryness and thickening. The commonest preventive measure was using cushions to avoid PUs. Conclusion: Most of wheelchair users reported having a history of skin complaints, of which PU was the most common followed by traumatic wounds and fungal infections. Thus, spreading awareness of the risk factors and preventive methods would help them avoid its development and prevent its negative impact on quality of life. Assessing the different kinds of wheelchairs and cushions to avoid PUs would be an interesting area for future studies.

Objective: Cancer screening programs exist in Saudi Arabia for some types of cancers. However, data on primary healthcare center (PHC) physicians’ practices in referring patients for screening tests or procedures remain unclear. Methodology: A cross-sectional study was conducted with a self-reported survey that included 141 PHC physicians affiliated with the Ministry of Health in the Al-Qassim region of Saudi Arabia. The primary outcome was the practice of recommending to average-risk patients screening tests for different types of cancers including breast, colorectal, cervical, prostate, and lung, and testing if sociodemographic, specialty, job level, years of experience, a family history of cancer, and patients encountered per day affect their decisions. Secondary outcomes were the barriers perceived by physicians to recommending a screening test. p-value <0.05 was considered significant. Results: The study included 141 respondents, of which 60.3% were males, and the mean age of the entire population was 35.7 ± 8.3 years. The rate of recommending cancer screening varied by the type of cancer, with screening for colorectal cancer being the most prominent (64.5%), followed by breast cancer (51.8%). Fear of finding cancer, poor patient compliance, and difficulty in scheduling the test were the most common patient, physician, and system-related barriers as perceived by PHC physicians. Male physicians were less likely to recommend patients for breast (0.10, 95%CI 0.04-0.23, p < 0.001) and cervical (0.26, 95%CI 0.08-0.78, p = 0.017) cancer screening. However, they were 3.74 times more likely to recommend prostate cancer screening (95%CI 1.20-11.68, p = 0.023) and 5.79 times more likely to request lung cancer screening (95%CI 1.27-26.39, p = 0.023). Level of education, specialty, and being a senior physician were factors associated with cervical cancer screening. Physicians who work in non-general practice specialties were more likely to recommend cervical cancer screening than those who work in general practice (95%CI 0.04-0.48, p = 0.002). Senior physicians such as registrars/senior registrars and consultants were more likely to request or recommend a patient for breast cancer screening (2.85, 95%CI 1.11-7.35) and cervical cancer screening (6.35, 95%CI 2.10-019.19). Conclusion: Screenings for colorectal and breast cancer were the commonly recommended screening tests. Patients' fear of finding cancer, poor patient compliance, and delays or difficulty in scheduling the procedures were the commonly identified barriers as perceived by physicians that influenced physician decisions in referring patients for cancer screening. Our findings suggest that cancer screening rates may be improved by educating individuals on the benefit of early detection of cancers and providing assurance for them with regard to the availability of effective treatments. More research is needed on ways to overcome the obstacles physicians encounter and the outcomes of these measures with regard to improved screening practices.