Ali Hosseinzadeh; Abbas Tavakolian; Vahid Kia; Hossein Ebrahimi; Hossein Sheibani; Ehsan Binesh; Majid Rahmati; Maryam Yarmohammadi; Nazanin Aghayan; Seyed Mohammad Mirrezaie; Moslem Jafarisani; Reza Jafari
Volume 24, Issue 8 , 2022
Abstract
Background: Coronavirus pandemic has affected a large population worldwide. Currently, the standard care for individuals who are exposed is supportive care, symptomatic management, and isolation.
Objectives: This study aimed to evaluate the effects of the combined use of ethanol and dimethyl sulfoxide ...
Read More
Background: Coronavirus pandemic has affected a large population worldwide. Currently, the standard care for individuals who are exposed is supportive care, symptomatic management, and isolation.
Objectives: This study aimed to evaluate the effects of the combined use of ethanol and dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO) as a nasal spray in preventing Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).
Methods: This randomized controlled trial was conducted on volunteer healthcare workers of medical centers who were at the forefront of the fight against COVID-19 in Shahroud, Iran. In total, 232 participants were randomly assigned to intervention and control groups to receive DMSO/ethanol or routine care, respectively. The subjects were followed for four weeks to determine the incidence of COVID-19 infection in each group based on the RT-PCR test. Finally, absolute risk difference and relative risk were calculated to evaluate the effect of DMSO on COVID-19 prevention.
Results: The results showed that the incidence rates of COVID-19 were 0.07 and 0.008 in the control and intervention groups, respectively. The relative risk was obtained at 0.12 (0.02-0.97) according to the incidence rate in the two groups.
Conclusion: Combined administration of DMSO and ethanol by healthcare providers can considerably prevent COVID-19.
Vegar Kazempour; Hossein Ebrahimi; Mohammad Asghari Jafarabadi; Seyyed Gholamreza Nourazar; Hamideh Zamani
Volume 20, s1 , December 2018, , Pages 1-10
Abstract
Background and Objectives: Bipolar disorder (BD) is defined as emotion dysregulation. Since such dysregulation is also present during remission, it may be a risk factor for the development of further affective episodes. Therefore, the current study aimed at examining the impact of group cognitive behavioral ...
Read More
Background and Objectives: Bipolar disorder (BD) is defined as emotion dysregulation. Since such dysregulation is also present during remission, it may be a risk factor for the development of further affective episodes. Therefore, the current study aimed at examining the impact of group cognitive behavioral therapy (GCBT), in comparison to treatment as usual (TAU), on the cognitive emotion regulation strategies of patients with BD. Patients and Methods: The current single-blind, randomized controlled trial (RCT) was performed from 2015 to 2017 in the psychi- atric clinic of a referral hospital affiliated to Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran. A total of 70 adolescents with early- onset BD were selected by the convenience sampling method based on the diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders- fourth edition-text revision (DSM-IV-TR) and allocated into receive either 12 sessions of GCBT (N = 35) or TAU (N = 35). Cognitiveemotion regulation strategies were evaluated by cognitive emotion regulation questionnaire (CERQ) at baseline, after the interven- tion, and at 3-month follow-up. Efforts were made to follow up all randomized participants even if they withdrew from the assigned treatment prior to completion of GCBT sessions. Results: Compliance with treatment was moderate and the mean number of GCBT sessions that the participants attended was 6.97 (2.81). The two groups had significant differences in terms of post-test scores for other-blame (P = 0.001), rumination (P = 0.049),positive refocus (P = 0.008), positive reappraisal (P = 0.005), and putting into perspective (P = 0.001). In the 3-month follow-up, the two groups were significantly different only in other-blame (P = 0.001), positive reappraisal (P = 0.001), and putting into perspective subscales (P = 0.001). Therefore, the effects of the intervention were not effectively sustained after three months and there was room for improvement in terms of both outcome and compliance. Conclusions: The GCBT is more effective when the participants are involved in the study and get instructions on emotion regulation. However, since the effects of the intervention were not sustained for most of the subscales after three months, booster sessions might improve and prolong the impact of psychotherapies.
