Explore the vast range of titles available.

Few studies have considered the impact of COVID-19 on the mental health of healthcare workers (HCWs) in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA). We estimated the prevalence and severity of psychological distress and characterized predisposing risk factors among HCWs in KSA during the COVID-19 pandemic. We conducted a cross-sectional online survey of 1,985 HCWs from 6 hospitals across the country designated with caring for COVID-19 patients between April 16 and June 21, 2020. Our data analysis was performed using logistic regressions. Ordered logistic regressions were also performed using forward stepwise model selection to explore the effects of risk factors on psychological distress. The prevalence of psychological distress reported by HCWs in KSA was high, ranging from mild-moderate to severe in severity. Younger HCWs, women, those in contact with COVID-19 patients, and those who either had loved ones affected or who were themselves affected by COVID-19 were the most at-risk of psychological distress. Risk factors such as insomnia, loneliness, fear of transmission, and separation from loved ones most significantly predicted elevated levels of distress among HCWs. Increasing psychological distress was commonly reported by HCWs during the early months of COVID-19 pandemic in KSA. Public health policy makers and mental health professionals must give special attention to risk factors that predispose HCWs in KSA to psychological distress.

Background Institutional review boards (IRBs) are formally designated to review, approve, and monitor biomedical research. They are responsible for ensuring that researchers comply with the ethical guidelines concerning human research participants. Given that IRBs might face different obstacles that cause delays in their processes or conflicts with investigators, this study aims to report the functions, roles, resources, and review process of IRBs in Saudi Arabia. Method This was a cross-sectional self-reported survey conducted from March 2021 to March 2022. The survey was sent to 53 IRB chairpersons and the administration directors (or secretary) across the country through email after receiving verbal consent. The validated survey consisted of eight aspects: (a) organizational aspects, (b) membership and educational training, (c) submission arrangements and materials, (d) minutes, (e) review procedures, (f) communicating a decision, (g) continuing review, and (h) research ethics committee (REC) resources. A total of 200 points indicated optimal IRB functions. Results Twenty-six IRBs across Saudi Arabia responded to the survey. Overall, the IRBs in this study scored a total of 150/200 of the points on the self-assessment tool. Relatively newer IRBs (established less than ten years ago) conducted meetings at least once in a month, had annual funding, had more balanced gender representation, tended to score higher than older IRBs. The organizational aspect score was the lowest among all items in the survey (14.3 score difference, p-value < 0.01). The average turnaround time for expedited research from proposal submission to final decision was 7 days, while it was 20.5 days for the full committee review. Conclusion Saudi IRBs performed generally well. However, there is room for focused improvement with respect to extra resources and organizational issues that require closer evaluation and guidance from the regulatory bodies.

Background The ethics committee has the responsibility to comply with the rules and guidelines regarding oversight of all human research activities, particularly when the research study involves vulnerable people. It also has the role of educating researchers on ethical issues, scientific truthfulness, preventing misconduct and conflicts of interest. In our study we evaluate and benchmark the function of the local ethical committees across the country from the researchers point-of-view. Methods We employed an online IRB-RAT survey to measure perspectives of investigators towards IRB functions dealing with fairness issues, services, bias, and competences and upholding the rights of the human participants. Two responses were recorded: first shows how important an IRB function is for the investigator in his work, second shows how researchers rate their IRBs in being descriptive in that specific function. The difference of these two scores represent the outcome. Results We had 179 participants, 166(94%) researchers/research coordinators, and 13(7.2%) IRB members, 94 (53%) participants had been working in the research field for more than 11 years, and the majority 163(90%) revealed that they had IRB contact. The largest gap between actual rating and ideal was observed for the item “An IRB that requires that its chair be an experienced investigator” with a score difference of 1.53. In contrast, the smallest score difference was for the item “Considering the protection of human participants,” which had a score of 0.51. Conclusion According’s to researchers point of view; IRBs respect researchers, view human protections as a primary role, do not allow personal bias, maintain accurate records and take timely action whenever misconduct is reported. Further collaborations are needed to enhance IRB performance and to engage researchers in more productive communication with their IRBs.

Breast cancer is the most common cancer among women in the Saudi Arabia, and over 50% of the cases are detected at a late stage. This study aimed to estimate population attributable risk percentage (PAR%) of modifiable lifestyle risk factors for breast cancer in Saudi Arabia. A secondary analysis of previously published papers was performed . Relative risks (RR) and odds ratios (OR) were obtained from published international epidemiological studies, and the prevalence of each risk factor in Saudi Arabia was obtained from various sources (eg, national surveys and published literature) to calculate PAR%. A nomogram was used to visually translate the RRs/ORs and their prevalence into PAR% using a practical tool. Seven modifiable lifestyle risk factors for breast cancer were identified in Saudi Arabia. The identified risk factors included lack of physical activity (sedentary lifestyle), oral contraception (current use), obesity (postmenopausal), hormone replacement therapy (current use), passive smoking, age at first birth (≥ 35 years), and tobacco smoking (current or daily smoking). The PAR% for these risk factors ranged from 0.5% for tobacco smoking to 23.1% for a lack of physical activity. Few modifiable lifestyle risk factors were excluded from this study, due to limited nor unavailable data in Saudi Arabia (eg, alcohol consumption, breastfeeding patterns and childbearing patterns, obesity according to menopausal status, and night-shift work). Physical inactivity has the most significant modifiable health impact and is a major risk factor for breast cancer. Removing this risk factor would reduce the prevalence of breast cancer in the Saudi population by 23%. There is an immense need to prioritize cancer control strategies based on local needs, current data on cancer risk factors, and the disease burden.

Background Physicians may be an important source of blood donations as they are more likely to be familiar with the importance of donating and the donation process. The aim of this study is to report physicians' knowledge, attitudes, and practices towards voluntary and non‐voluntary blood donations. Study Design and Methods This was a cross‐sectional study conducted at King Faisal Specialist Hospital and Research Centre (KFSH&RC), Saudi Arabia. One‐hundred‐and‐sixteen physicians and dentists responded to an online structured questionnaire sent to their institutional emails. Results Sixty‐eight percent of participants (79% of males and 43% of females) reported previously having donated blood. Eighty‐six percent of donors had previously donated on a voluntary basis, whereas 31% of donors had previously donated for a specific person. A recent donation within 5 years was associated with the younger age group and knowledge of the minimum interval between donations. Fifty‐six percent of participants agreed with using replacement donations. Compared to participants in the youngest age group (25‐35 years), older participants in the age groups (46‐55 years) and (>55 years) were less likely to express intention to donate in the next 6 months (OR 0.289, P = .022 and OR 0.083, P = .004, respectively). Participants reporting poor nutritional status or other medical reasons as a barrier to donating blood were less likely to intend to donate (OR 0.146, P < .001). Among previous donors, intention to donate was associated with a recent donation within 1 year (OR 27.13, P = .002) and having had a pleasant donation experience (OR 14.98, P < .001). Conclusion Blood donation practices are strongly tied to physicians' gender and age and their knowledge of the donation process. The most significant barrier to blood donation was found to be nutritional and medical status.

The spread of COVID-19 has become a significant threat to economic activity throughout the world, and it has made life particularly difficult for research institutions. According to a report published by Spain's largest public research body, Cybermetrics Labs, King Faisal Specialist Hospital and Research Centre (KFSH&RC) is ranked first among the leading hospitals in the Arab world, and it has instituted a wide range of policy changes to accommodate researchers by providing them with additional flexibility. The aim of this project was to highlight the most prevalent COVID-related global challenges facing research institutions and describe how research protocol at KFSH&RC has been adjusted to minimize the disruption experienced by its researchers.

IntroductionFew studies have considered the impact of COVID-19 on the mental health of healthcare workers (HCWs) in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA). We estimated the prevalence and severity of psychological distress and characterized predisposing risk factors among HCWs in KSA during the COVID-19 pandemic.MethodsWe conducted a cross-sectional online survey of 1,985 HCWs from 6 hospitals across the country designated with caring for COVID-19 patients between April 16 and June 21, 2020. Our data analysis was performed using logistic regressions. Ordered logistic regressions were also performed using forward stepwise model selection to explore the effects of risk factors on psychological distress.ResultsThe prevalence of psychological distress reported by HCWs in KSA was high, ranging from mild-moderate to severe in severity. Younger HCWs, women, those in contact with COVID-19 patients, and those who either had loved ones affected or who were themselves affected by COVID-19 were the most at-risk of psychological distress. Risk factors such as insomnia, loneliness, fear of transmission, and separation from loved ones most significantly predicted elevated levels of distress among HCWs.ConclusionsIncreasing psychological distress was commonly reported by HCWs during the early months of COVID-19 pandemic in KSA. Public health policy makers and mental health professionals must give special attention to risk factors that predispose HCWs in KSA to psychological distress.