Sunil Kumar Raina

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic continues to bring in its wake not only morbidity and mortality but also an unprecedented challenge to public health, food systems, human dignity, and work across the world. The availability and possible delivery of a safe and effective vaccine to populations across the world are not only being seen as a hope to surmount these challenges but also as a show of human resilience in the face of adversity. Nations need to galvanize their resources and make the availability of vaccines universal, without which the real benefits of its development cannot be realized. Despite its large domestic needs, our country is being looked upon with both hope and expectation to deliver at this crucial juncture in the evolution of human civilization, and India is more than willing to do its part.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19, since its emergence, has become a global health problem with countries adopting unprecedented measures to control the spread of this pandemic. Adherence of the populations to control measures is affected by their knowledge, attitude, and practices (KAP) towards the disease. It was with this aim that the present study was conducted among the residents of UT of J&K to assess their KAP toward COVID-19. METHODOLOGY: May 2020. Survey Monkey tool was used to develop a link and KAP questionnaire was used for data collection. The survey instrument consisted of demographic characteristics, 11 items on knowledge, 5 items on attitudes, and 7 items on practices. Data collected was represented in descriptive statistics, and one-way analysis of variance was the test of significance. RESULTS: Mean knowledge, attitude, and practice scores were 7.69 ± 0.74, 4.70 ± 0.57, and 4.32 ± 0.68, respectively, among the respondents. Majority (99%) knew the sign and symptoms, mode of transmission of the disease and avoided attending large gatherings. Use of mask was almost universal and about 38% were taking supplements like vitamins or herbal medicines. Good knowledge, positive attitude, and appropriate practices among the respondents about COVID-19 suggest that community based health education programs play a key role in containment and mitigation of this disease. CONCLUSION: Sustained messaging and updates from the national and local health authorities on COVID-19 to the public are likely to help control the transmission of the disease.

A person’s state of health is a key resource for living a fulfilling and rewarding life. The term ‘health’ encompasses a person’s physical, mental, and social capabilities. Regardless of age, a person’s health depends on his or her ability to maintain homeostasis, adapt to adverse situations, and maintain relationships. However, many Americans define their own […]

Sir, This is regarding an article entitled, “Efficacy and safety of methylcobalamin, alpha lipoic acid, and pregabalin combination versus pregabalin monotherapy in improving pain and nerve conduction velocity in type 2 diabetes-associated impaired peripheral neuropathic condition. [MAINTAIN]: Results of a pilot study” published in Annals of Indian Academy of Neurology (Ann Indian Acad Neurol 2014; 17:19-24).[1] The authors need to be appreciated for their effort. The authors state that the study was an open, randomized, and controlled parallel group 12-week pilot study conducted at a single centre in Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India for which a total of 30 patients were screened. The authors further elaborate on the methodology adopted for conducting randomization which is commendable. However, I would like to draw the attention of the authors to following points. The term controlled (as used by the authors) scientifically is reserved for randomized controlled trials (RCT). When the term controlled is used, we usually mean a study in which groups receiving the experimental treatment are compared with control groups receiving no treatment (a placebo-controlled study). Furthermore, not all randomized clinical trials are randomized controlled trials (and some of them could never be, in cases where controls would be impractical or unethical to institute). Second, the practical difficulty of conducting randomization on a sample size limits its use in case of a study like the one conducted by the authors. Randomization in its simplest form is like tossing of a coin; therefore, the chance of being equally distributed in two groups in a small sample is rare. Basically, there are two processes involved in randomizing patients to different interventions. First is choosing a randomization procedure to generate an unpredictable sequence of allocations. This may be a simple random assignment of patients to any of the groups at equal probabilities, may be “restricted,” or may be “adaptive.” A second and more practical issue is allocation concealment, which refers to the stringent precautions taken to ensure that the group assignment of patients is not revealed prior to definitively allocating them to their respective groups. Both of these procedures are effective in generating patient distribution capable of yielding unbiased results. Non-random “systematic” methods of group assignment, such as alternating subjects between one group and the other, can cause “limitless contamination possibilities” and can cause a breach of allocation concealment. The authors have done a decent enough job in describing in detail the process of randomization, but an average reader would have been benefited if some details on the points as mentioned above was provided.