Surapon Nochaiwong

Dr. Surapon Nochaiwong

Faculty of Pharmacy, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai, Thailand
orcid

Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

11Years (2016-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
13 May 2021 in Scientific Reports
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
SNSurapon Nochaiwong
Surapon Nochaiwong
CRChidchanok Ruengorn
Chidchanok Ruengorn
KTKednapa Thavorn
Kednapa Thavorn
BHBrian Hutton
Brian Hutton
RARatanaporn Awiphan
Ratanaporn Awiphan
Tinakon WongpakaranTinakon Wongpakaran
Tinakon Wongpakaran
To provide a contemporary global prevalence of mental health issues among the general population amid the coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. We searched electronic databases, preprint databases, grey literature, and unpublished studies from January 1, 2020, to June 16, 2020 (updated on July 11, 2020), with no language restrictions. Observational studies using validated measurement tools and reporting data on mental health issues among the general population were screened to identify all relevant studies. We have included information from 32 different countries and 398,771 participants. The pooled prevalence of mental health issues amid the COVID-19 pandemic varied widely across countries and regions and was higher than previous reports before the COVID-19 outbreak began. The global prevalence estimate was 28.0% for depression; 26.9% for anxiety; 24.1% for post-traumatic stress symptoms; 36.5% for stress; 50.0% for psychological distress; and 27.6% for sleep problems. Data are limited for other aspects of mental health issues. Our findings highlight the disparities between countries in terms of the poverty impacts of COVID-19, preparedness of countries to respond, and economic vulnerabilities that impact the prevalence of mental health problems. Research on the social and economic burden is needed to better manage mental health problems during and after epidemics or pandemics. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO CRD 42020177120.

1 February 2017 in Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
SNSurapon Nochaiwong
Surapon Nochaiwong
CRChidchanok Ruengorn
Chidchanok Ruengorn
RARatanaporn Awiphan
Ratanaporn Awiphan
KKKiatkriangkrai Koyratkoson
Kiatkriangkrai Koyratkoson
CCChayutthaphong Chaisai
Chayutthaphong Chaisai
KTKednapa Thavorn
Kednapa Thavorn
Existing epidemiological studies illustrate that proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) may be related to adverse kidney outcomes. To date, no comprehensive meta-analysis has been conducted to evaluate and quantify this association. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies to assess the association between PPI use and the risk of adverse kidney outcomes. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, SCOPUS, Web of Science, CINAHL, Cochrane Library and grey literature with no language restrictions (through 31 October 2016). Adverse kidney outcomes were acute interstitial nephritis (AIN), acute kidney injury (AKI), chronic kidney disease (CKD) and end-stage renal disease (ESRD). The risk ratios (RRs) and confidence intervals (CIs) were pooled using a random effects model. The strength of evidence (SOE) for each outcome was assessed using the Grading of Recommended Assessment, Development and Evaluation system. Of 2037 identified studies, four cohort and five case–control studies with ∼2.6 million patients were included. Of these, 534 003 (20.2%) were PPI users. Compared with non-PPI users, PPI users experienced a significantly higher risk of AKI [RR 1.44 (95% CI 1.08–1.91); P = 0.013; SOE, low] and CKD [RR 1.36 (95% CI 1.07–1.72); P = 0.012; SOE, low]. Moreover, PPIs increased the risk of AIN [RR 3.61 (95% CI 2.37–5.51); P < 0.001; SOE, insufficient] and ESRD [RR 1.42 (95% CI 1.28–1.58); P < 0.001; SOE, insufficient]. PPI usage was associated with adverse kidney outcomes; however, these findings were based on observational studies and low-quality evidence. Additional rigorous studies are needed for further clarification.

10 April 2020 in Scientific Reports
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
JJJanjira Jitraknatee
Janjira Jitraknatee
CRChidchanok Ruengorn
Chidchanok Ruengorn
SNSurapon Nochaiwong
Surapon Nochaiwong
This cross-sectional study aimed to investigate the prevalence and risk factors of chronic kidney disease (CKD) among 1,096 primary care type 2 diabetes (T2DM) patients in northern Thailand between October 2016 and September 2017. CKD was defined as estimated glomerular rate filtration values of 7.5 mg/dL. A relatively high prevalence of CKD, especially in older patients and those with diabetic complications-related to poor glycaemic control, was encountered in this primary care practice. Early identification may help to target optimise care and prevention programs for CKD among T2DM patients.

1 April 2021 in Depression and Anxiety
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
CRChidchanok Ruengorn
Chidchanok Ruengorn
RARatanaporn Awiphan
Ratanaporn Awiphan
Nahathai WongpakaranNahathai Wongpakaran
Nahathai Wongpakaran
Tinakon WongpakaranTinakon Wongpakaran
Tinakon Wongpakaran
SNSurapon Nochaiwong
Surapon Nochaiwong
F(for the Health Outcomes and Mental Health Care Evaluation Survey Research Group (HOME‐Survey)
for the Health Outcomes and Mental Health Care Evaluation Survey Research Group (HOME‐Survey)
Background Economic crises during the coronavirus disease (COVID‐19) pandemic severely impacted mental health outcomes. However, there is limited evidence on this issue in Thailand. We aimed to evaluate the association of economic burden during the first phase of the pandemic and the risk of adverse mental health outcomes in the Thai population. Methods We recruited 2,303 participants aged 18 years or above with employment/full‐time jobs before the national lockdown in April–May 2020. The measures of economic burden were job loss, income loss, and financial problems related to the outbreak. The outcomes included depressive symptoms, anxiety, and perceived stress. The association between economic burden and adverse mental health outcomes was evaluated using multivariable logistic regression models. Results Individuals who lost their jobs during the COVID‐19 pandemic had a higher risk of perceived stress compared to those who maintained their job (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 2.40; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.28–4.51; p = .006). A higher risk of anxiety was observed in individuals with a monthly income loss of 50% (adjusted OR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.03–1.99; p = .035; individuals without income loss, reference group) or over. Self‐reported financial problems were significantly associated with adverse mental health outcomes (nonexperienced financial problems, reference group): Adjusted ORs of 1.84 (95% CI, 1.34–2.51; p < .001) for depressive symptoms, 2.00 (95% CI, 1.48–2.71; p < .001) for anxiety, and 2.12 (95% CI, 1.51–2.95; p < .001) for perceived stress. Conclusions Economic burden, especially self‐reported financial problems, was associated with adverse mental health outcomes. However, long‐term studies are needed to address the mental health consequences of COVID‐19 and economic downturns.

27 December 2021 in Annals of Medicine
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
SNSurapon Nochaiwong
Surapon Nochaiwong
CRChidchanok Ruengorn
Chidchanok Ruengorn
RARatanaporn Awiphan
Ratanaporn Awiphan
CCChatree Chai-Adisaksopha
Chatree Chai-Adisaksopha
ATApichat Tantraworasin
Apichat Tantraworasin
KTKednapa Thavorn
Kednapa Thavorn
Serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SRI) antidepressants are implicated in increasing the risk of bleeding among users; however, the comparative increase in bleeding risk with concurrent antithrombotic t...

26 June 2020 in Medicine
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
SNSurapon Nochaiwong
Surapon Nochaiwong
CRChidchanok Ruengorn
Chidchanok Ruengorn
RARatanaporn Awiphan
Ratanaporn Awiphan
YRYongyuth Ruanta
Yongyuth Ruanta
WBWaraporn Boonchieng
Waraporn Boonchieng
Tinakon WongpakaranTinakon Wongpakaran
Tinakon Wongpakaran
Background: After the spread of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) globally, upgraded quarantine and physical distancing strategy, strict infection measures, and government's strict lockdown have been abided to confront the spread of the COVID-19 in Thailand. During the COVID-19 pandemic, concerns about the mental health and psychosocial problems among health care workers and the general population are now arising. Yet, information on mental health and psychosocial problems among health care workers and the general population have not been comprehensively reported in Thailand. As such, we conduct a cross-sectional study, a national online survey to describe the short- and long-term consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic on mental health and psychosocial problems among health care workers and the general population in Thailand. Methods: This study is a repeated cross-sectional study, an open online voluntary national-based survey during the wave I (April 21–May 4, 2020) follow-up in the wave II (August 3–16, 2020), wave III (November 15–28, 2020), and a 1-year follow-up survey (wave IV: April 21–May 4, 2021) in Thailand. Health care workers at the hospitals and the adult general population will be invited to participate in the online survey via the SurveyMonkey that limits one-time participation per unique internet protocol address. The target sample size of at least 1182 health care workers and 1310 general populations will be required to complete the online survey for each wave of the survey. Sociodemographic characteristics and a set of measurement tools for mental and psychosocial problems for each subcohort including depression, anxiety, stress, resilient copings, neuroticism, perceived social support, wellbeing, somatic symptoms, insomnia, burnout (for healthcare workers), and public stigma toward COVID-19 infection (for the general population) will be collected. For all estimates of prevalence, we will weigh data for all wave analyses under the complex design of the survey. Subgroup analyses stratified by key characteristics will also be done to analyze the proportion differences. For the repeated cross-sectional survey, we will combine the data from the wave I to wave IV survey to analyze changes in the mental health status. We will perform multilevel logistic regression models with random intercepts to explore associations with individual-level and region-level/hospital-level predictors. We also plan to perform an ancillary systematic review and meta-analysis by incorporating data from our findings to all available evidence. Results: Our findings will provide information on the short- and long-term mental health status as well as the psychosocial responses to the COVID-19 outbreak in a national sample of health care workers and the general population in Thailand. Conclusion: This prospective, nationally based, a repeated cross-sectional study will describe the mental health status and psychosocial problems among health care workers and the general population in Thailand during the COVID-19 pandemic. Ethics and dissemination: Ethical approval for the study was obtained from the Faculty of Public Health and Faculty of Pharmacy, Chiang Mai University. The findings will be disseminated through public, scientific, and professional meetings, and publications in peer-reviewed journals. Thai Clinical Trials Registry (TCTR) registration number: TCTR20200425001.