The study aims to determine the level of Knowledge, Attitude, and Practice (KAP) related to COVID-19 preventive health habits and perception of fear towards COVID-19 in subjects living in Bangladesh. Design: Prospective, cross-sectional survey of (n = 2157) male and female subjects, 13–88 years of age, living in Bangladesh. Methods: Ethical approval and trial registration were obtained before the commencement of the study. Subjects who volunteered to participate and signed the informed consent were enrolled in the study and completed the structured questionnaire on KAP and Fear of COVID-19 scale (FCV-19S). Results: Twenty-eight percent (28.69%) of subjects reported one or more COVID-19 symptoms, and 21.4% of subjects reported one or more co-morbidities. Knowledge scores were slightly higher in males (8.75± 1.58) than females (8.66± 1.70). Knowledge was significantly correlated with age (p < .005), an education level (p < .001), attitude (p < .001), and urban location (p < .001). Knowledge scores showed an inverse correlation with fear scores (p < .001). Eighty-three percent (83.7%) of subjects with COVID-19 symptoms reported wearing a mask in public, and 75.4% of subjects reported staying away from crowded places. Subjects with one or more symptoms reported higher fear compared to subjects without (18.73± 4.6; 18.45± 5.1). Conclusion: Bangladeshis reported a high prevalence of self-isolation, positive preventive health behaviors related to COVID-19, and moderate to high fear levels. Higher knowledge and Practice were found in males, higher education levels, older age, and urban location. Fear of COVID-19 was more prevalent in female and elderly subjects. A positive attitude was reported for the majority of subjects, reflecting the belief that COVID-19 was controllable and containable.

Objectives: To determine the level of Knowledge, Attitude, and Practice (KAP) related to COVID-19 preventive health habits and perception of Fear towards COVID-19 in subjects living in Bangladesh. Design: Prospective, cross-sectional survey of (n= 2157) male and female subjects, 13-90 years of age, living in Bangladesh. Methods: Ethical Approval and Trial registration were obtained prior to the commencement of the study. Subjects who volunteered to participate and signed the informed consent were enrolled in the study and completed the “Fear of COVID-19 Scale” (FCS). Results: Twenty-eight percent (28.69%) of subjects reported one or more COVID-19 symptoms and 21.4% of subjects reported one or more comorbidities. Knowledge scores were slightly higher in males (8.75± 1.58) than females (8.66± 1.70). Knowledge was significantly correlated with age (p<.005), an education level (p<.001), Attitude (p<.001), and urban location (p=<.001). Knowledge scores showed an inverse correlation with Fear scores (p=<.001). Eighty-three percent (83.7%) of subjects with COVID-19 symptoms reported wearing a mask in public and 75.4% of subjects reported staying away from crowded places. Subjects with one or more symptoms reported higher Fear compared to subjects without (18.73± 4.6; 18.45± 5.1). Conclusions: Overall, Bangladeshis reported a high prevalence of self-isolation, positive preventive health behaviors related to COVID-19, and moderate to high fear levels. Higher Knowledge and Practice were found in males, higher education levels, older age, and urban location. “Fear” of COVID-19 was more prevalent in female and elderly subjects. Positive “Attitude” was reported for the majority of subjects, reflecting the belief that COVID-19 was controllable and containable. Ethical approval: Ethical permission obtained from the Institutional review board (BPA-IPRR/IRB/29/03/2020/021) of Institute of Physiotherapy, Rehabilitation, and Research (IPRR), the academic organization of the Bangladesh Physiotherapy Association. WHO Trial registry: The trial registration obtained prospectively from a primary trial registry of WHO (CTRI/2020/04/024413). Data Availability: The data are available regarding this study and can be viewed upon request

Expulsion from the Motherland: Association between Depression & Health-Related Quality of Life for Ethnic Rohingya Living with Refugee Status in Bangladesh

[Purpose] The purpose of this study was to compare the effectiveness of the Structural Diagnosis and Management (SDM) approach with Myofascial Release (MFR) in improving plantar heel pain, ankle range of motion, and disability. [Subjects] Sixty-four subjects, aged 30-60 years, with a diagnosis of plantar heel pain, plantar fasciitis, or calcaneal spur by a physician according to ICD-10, were equally allocated to the MFR (n = 32) and SDM (n = 32) groups by hospital randomization and concealed allocation. [Methods] In this assessor-blinded randomized clinical trial, the control group performed MFR to the plantar surface of the foot, triceps surae, and deep posterior compartment calf muscles, while the experimental group performed a multimodal approach utilizing the SDM concept for 12 sessions over 4 weeks. Both groups also received strengthening exercises, ice compression, and ultrasound therapy. Pain, activity limitations and disability were assessed as primary outcomes using the Foot Function Index (FFI) and Range of motion (ROM) assessment of the ankle dorsiflexors and plantar flexors using a universal goniometer. Secondary outcomes were measured using the Foot Ankle Disability Index (FADI) and a 10-point manual muscle testing process for the ankle dorsiflexors and plantar flexors. [Results] Both MFR and SDM groups exhibited significant improvements from baseline in all outcome variables, including pain, activity level, disability, range of motion, and function after the 12-week intervention period (p < .05). The SDM group showed more improvements than MFR for FFI pain (p < .01), FFI activity (p < .01), FFI (p < .01) and FADI (p = <.01). [Conclusion] Both MFR and SDM approaches are effective in reducing pain, improving function, ankle range of motion, and reducing disability in plantar heel pain, however, the SDM approach may be a preferred treatment option.

Background: A diverse spectrum of long COVID symptoms (LCS) have the scope of physical rehabilitation. Due to limited resources, very little is known about the physiotherapy and rehabilitation interventions for LCS and their clinical application. This study aims to explore the role of physiotherapy and rehabilitation interventions in the management of musculoskeletal, neurological, cognitive, cardiorespiratory, mental health, and functional impairments of LCS. Methods: The study was a systematic scoping review of the literature published between April 2020 and July 2022. Results: 87 articles were extracted followed by a standard process of The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and meta-analysis (PRISMA) extension for Scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR). The included studies had a 3223 LCS population. All types of primary and secondary articles were retrieved except for qualitative studies. The evidence was evaluated by an appraisal scoring tool followed by the guidelines of the “Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research ( EQUATOR) network”. The included papers had a mean appraisal score of 0.7807 on a 0 to 1 scale (SD 0.08), the minimum score was for study protocols (0.5870), and the maximum score was for Cohort studies (.8977). Sixty seven (67) evidence-based interventions were documented from 17 clinical categories. The most weighted interventions were treating underlying symptoms of long COVID (Adjusted score 1/1), management of fatigue (Adjusted score 0.963/1), aerobic exercise and balance training (Adjusted score 0.951/1), multidisciplinary rehabilitation (Adjusted score 0.926/1), and low resistance training and aerobic exercise (Adjusted score 0.889/1). Conclusion: We recommend Long COVID rehabilitation in a multidisciplinary approach by treating the individual symptoms, especially fatigue. Physiotherapy interventions play a significant role as most of the recommended interventions were exercise, modalities, patient education, respiratory rehabilitation, and telerehabilitation Scoping reviews do not require protocol registration from PROSPERO.

Background: Osteoarthritis (OA) has become a serious public health exposure because it leads to chronic pain and minimizes physical function and quality of life (QOL). This review aimed to find out the effectiveness of closed kinetic chain exercise (CKCE) on pain, range of motion (ROM), physical function, and QOL in subjects with knee OA. Methods: The design of this study was a narrative review. A computerized electronic search was performed using PEDro, PubMed, CINAHL, and EMBASE Register of controlled trials with keywords including osteoarthritis, knee OA, closed chain exercise, closed kinetic chain exercise, functional exercise, physiotherapy exercise, and therapeutic intervention. The inclusion criteria consisted of studies that were randomized controlled trials, published in English from 2016 to 2023. Here, allotted osteoarthritis was the primary concern, and we identified closed kinetic chain exercise as one of the treatment options. Results: The initial search of the database revealed a total of 91 studies. Of those studies, 11 were selected as potentially meeting the inclusion criteria. Ultimately, six studies were retained for the final review. The evaluations suggested that CKCE has better impacts on pain, capacity, and ROM in knee OA. After reviewing, it has been revealed that at least an 8-week program with 3 sessions per week in 30 min longer might have greater effects on the CKCE program. Conclusion: The results of this narrative review have shown that CKCEs are efficient for relieving pain, promoting function, increasing knee ROM, and enhancing QOL in subjects with knee OA.