Background: The current study aimed to evaluate the impact of the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic on sleep quality, insomnia, anxiety, stress, fatigue and active coping in the United States. Methods: This was a cross-sectional study using a publicly available database taken from the Boston College COVID-19 Sleep and Well-Being Dataset. We have selected the most recent data that included information about sleep quality and other measures, including insomnia, anxiety, stress, fatigue and coping, collected between 22 February–8 March 2021. Results: A total of 476 subjects were included in the analysis. The mean (SD) age of the study population was 38.8 (17.8) years, and there were more females (85%) than males. The population had a mean (SD) score of the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) of 6 (3.2), with 65% having the prevalence of poor sleep quality (defined as PSQ ≥ 5; n = 311). The mean (SD) score for Insomnia Severity Index (ISI) was 6.9 (5.2), with 55 subjects (11.5%) having clinical insomnia (defined as ISI ≥ 15); of whom 9% had severe clinical insomnia. There were positive correlations between PSQI and ISI (r = 0.76, p < 0.001), PROMIS fatigue scale (r = 0.53, p < 0.001), Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 (GAD-7) (r = 0.46, p < 0.001), and Perceived Stress Scale (PSS) (r = 0.44, p < 0.001). The PSQI was inversely correlated with the John Henryism Active Coping Scale (JHACS) and memory scale. In the multivariate regression model, JHACS, ISI, fatigue, PSS and GAD-7 were significant predictors of PSQI, and these variables accounted for 62% of the variance of PSQI, adjusted for age and gender. Conclusion: An important contribution to the literature is made by this research, which demonstrates the significant prevalence of poor sleep quality and its association with insomnia and other mental and physical well-being. It also underlines the need to prioritise policy and public health efforts to address sleep issues that have substantial health and economic effects for both individuals and the population at large.

Objective: Truck drivers represent a group at a particularly higher risk of motor vehicle accidents (MVAs). Sleepy driving and obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) among truck drivers are major risk factors for MVAs. No study has assessed the prevalence of sleepy driving and risk of OSA among truck drivers in Saudi Arabia. Therefore, this study aimed to assess sleepy driving and risk of OSA among these truck drivers. Methods: This study included 338 male truck drivers working in Saudi Arabia. A validated questionnaire regarding sleepy driving and OSA was used. The questionnaire included sociodemographic assessment, the Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS), the Berlin Questionnaire (BQ), and driving-related items. Results: The drivers had a mean age of 42.9 ± 9.7 years. The majority (94.7%) drove more than 5 h a day. A history of MVAs during the last 6 months was reported by 6.5%. Approximately 95% of the participants reported that they had accidentally fallen asleep at least once while driving over the past 6 months, and 49.7% stated that this had happened more than 5 times during the last 6 months. Based on the BQ score, a high risk of OSA was detected in 29% of the drivers. “Not getting good-quality sleep” (odds ratio [OR] = 2.89; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.08–7.75; P = .014) and driving experience from 6 to 10 years (OR = 3.37; 95% CI, 1.28–8.91; P = .034) were the only independent predictors of MVAs in the past 6 months. Conclusions: Sleepy driving and a high risk of OSA was prevalent among the study population of male truck drivers in Saudi Arabia. Not getting good-quality sleep and driving experience from 6 to 10 years contributes to the accident risk among these truck drivers.

Background: Simulation-based education (SBE) provides a safe, effective, and stimulating environment for training medical and healthcare students. This is especially valuable for skills that cannot be practiced on real patients due to ethical and practical reasons. We aimed to assess medical students’ attitude, perception, and experience of simulation-based medical education in Saudi Arabia. Method: A validated cross-sectional survey, using the KidSIM scale, was conducted to measure the level of perception and experience of students from different health sciences specialties toward integrating simulation as an educational tool. Participants responded to questions investigated the importance of simulation, opportunities for Inter-Professional Education (IPE), communication, roles and responsibilities, and situation awareness. Only students with previous experience of SBE were considered for participation. Result: This survey was completed by 246 participants, of whom 165 (67%) were male students and 228 (93%) were aged between the range of 18–30 years old. Of the respondents, 104 (67%) were respiratory care students, 90 (37%) were anesthesia technology students, and 45 (18%) were nursing students. Most of the participants had previous experience in IPE simulation activities (84%), and more than half of the students (54%) had a grade point average (GPA) ranging between 5.00 and 4.50. Overall, students had positive attitudes toward and beliefs about SBE, with a mean score of 129.76 ± 14.27, on the KidSIM scale, out of 150. Students’ GPA was significantly associated with a better perception to the relevance of simulation (p = 0.005), communication (p = 0.003), roles and responsibilities (p = 0.04), and situation awareness (p = 0.009). GPA is merely the sole predictor for positive attitude toward simulation with coefficient Beta value of 4.285 (p = 0.001). There were no significant correlations between other students’ characteristic variables (gender, specialty, study year, experience in IPE, and prior critical care experience). Conclusion: We found that health sciences students’ perception of SBE in Saudi Arabia is generally positive, and students’ performance is a significant determinant of the positive perception.

Background and Objectives: In both pandemic and non-pandemic situations, nonpharmaceutical public health measures may offer easy, low-cost, and effective means of reducing the spread and impact of acute respiratory infections. It is unknown whether such measures would be acceptable to the Saudi community beyond the current pandemic. Materials and Methods: A validated survey was used to test community acceptance of the measures. Respondents were asked which infection control practices they planned to maintain and which they believed should be policies for the community as a whole after the COVID-19 pandemic has subsided. Results: The survey was completed by 2057 people (95% completion rate), 1486 (72%) of whom were female, 259 (12.5%) of whom were current smokers, and 72 (3.5%) of whom had chronic lung disease. The most prevalent age groups were 18–30 years (933; 45.4%) and 31–40 years (483; 23.5%), with 641 individuals over 40 years old. Of the responses, 93% indicated that they would continue washing their hands more often; 92% wanted both clinicians and patients to wear masks in hospitals; 86% would continue avoiding smoking in indoor and outdoor areas; 73% would continue wearing a face covering on public transportation; 70% indicated that they would continue wearing a face covering in indoor public places. Regarding the respiratory virus infection control measures, 85% (11/13) received significant support (≥70% acceptability level) for continuation as policies in the future. Wearing face coverings outdoors and social distancing outdoors received little support (45% and 66%, respectively). Of the respiratory virus infection control measures, 54% received less support from current smokers than non-smokers (acceptability level < 70%). People with chronic respiratory disease supported 77% of the measures being regarded as policies in the future. Conclusion: The Saudi community supports nonpharmacological respiratory infection control measures that reduce the likelihood of infection. Public health campaigns should target smokers to increase awareness of the importance of these measures in lowering infections. Based on the findings of this study, nonpharmacological treatments should be presented and included in future recommendations for both the public and patients diagnosed with chronic respiratory diseases.