Introduction
Sars-CoV-2 is a new coronavirus with growing variations that causes COVID-19. It is a multisystem illness that has killed millions. Societies and healthcare systems confront the problem of millions of people needing better sleep due to lifestyle disturbance and the possibility of sickness.
This summary shows how sleep problems were handled during the COVID-19 epidemic. It focuses on sleeplessness problems, which are becoming increasingly common among frontline healthcare employees. Most research has investigated insomnia concerns concerning other mental symptoms using varying standardized methods. The management of mental problems is left to other sources because this overview concentrates on sleep. Sleep apnea and reclaimed drugs will also be explored briefly.
The dilemma, therefore, becomes how to treat sleep disorders during and after the epidemic. During epidemic limitations, anxiety and depression are common concerns. In patients recovering from COVID-19 infection, insomnia symptoms and exhaustion persist even as mood improves (Aughterson et al., 2021). Disrupted sleep and mental health management are essential for frontline healthcare professionals. The summary summarizes 53 papers on disrupted sleep during the epidemic, treatment research on COVID -hair related sleep disruption, and the necessity to rely on existing treatment recommendations for common sleep disturbances as of February 2021.
In the first year of COVID-19, existing research people have realized the symptoms of poor sleeping rather than discussing treatment techniques. It addresses digital cognitive behavioral therapy treatment for insomnia (CBT-i) for the general public and operational workers, acknowledging the need for increased acceptance and efficacy of CBT-controlled trials for afflicted populations. Recommendations are given based on a stratified public health paradigm.
PICO(T) Question
In nurses working with COVID-19 patients (P), does irregular sleep patterns (I) relative to regular sleep patterns (C) increase the risk of insomnia (O) during three months?
The research study is a component of a series of case studies involving individuals who received comparable therapy, according to the Evidence Pyramid. Case series reports often provide comprehensive data on patient needs (Polit & Beck, 2021). It comprises demographic information such as age, sex, and ethnic background, as well as information on diagnoses, therapy, treatment response, and post-treatment follow-up.
Problem of Interest
In 2020, the developing new coronavirus illness 2019 (COVID-19) will be one of the leading causes of mortality globally. The current meta-analysis and comprehensive review quantified the extent of sleep disorders during the COVID-19 epidemic and their link with psychological discomfort. Various things might contribute to sleep disorders. Although the reasons vary, the ultimate effect of all sleep problems is a disruption or exaggeration of the body’s regular cycle of sleeping and daytime waking. The challenge of sleep disorder is easy to identify, as outlined in the case study.
The researcher has justified using qualitative research because quantitative approaches cannot be used to solve some research topics. One Australian research, for example, investigated why individuals from Aboriginal communities frequently appear late or not at all to specialty treatments provided by tertiary care facilities. It was discovered that one of the most critical access hurdles is a lack of transportation, with specific towns and localities simply lacking a bus service to the hospital. The study aims to investigate the psychology of caregivers caring for COVID-19 patients.
Literature Review
A literature review examines books, academic papers, and other materials related to a subject, field of research, or concept. It gives a description, synopsis, and critical assessment of these works concerning the study problem under consideration (Polit & Beck, 2021). The present assessment of the influence of COVID-19 is thorough since the researchers drew results from recent publications and articles. The report adequately summarized the information on COVID-19 and sleeping complications among patients. The idea development could have been more straightforward because research on COVID-19 is an undergoing study with various turns that becomes a big challenge for researchers to focus on a clear path.
Method
Protection of Human Rights
The ethics review board did not review the study, even though its design was meant to maximize benefits and minimize risks to the participants. The research allows them direct access to medication and frequent consultations to help record every slight change in their health status. Making guarantees to participants about how their private details will be secured is one of the most critical components of protecting those participating in research. It involves safeguarding participants’ confidentiality, maintaining information private, and allowing them to stay anonymous.
Engaging in research may expose the researcher to the risk of breaching confidentiality. The research locked computer-based data, secured papers, signed consent forms in a closed file cabinet, and deleted personal identifiers from the research records to safeguard participants’ confidentiality. One of the most critical functions of review is to guarantee that a subject’s decision to engage in research is voluntary. A proposal that is difficult to refuse is primarily coercive. These incentives can be problematic because they can blind potential subjects to the dangers or impair their ability to exercise appropriate judgment. They can stimulate participants to hide details that, if identified, would dismiss them from participating in the research project.
Research Design & Research Tradition
The research tradition is not identified, but it is a well-thought-out research design because it ensures that the procedures meet the study objectives through the acquisition of high-quality data, the use of the appropriate sort of analysis to respond to the questions, and the use of reputable sources. It enables the researcher to get meaningful and reliable findings. Quality data implies that the researcher took enough time in the field, which results in concrete conclusions. The design has evidence of reflexivity because it was performed by medical professionals that applied their intuition to make certain conclusions.
Sample and Setting
The sample selection was random, with a target to get unstructured research results. Random sampling was not appropriate because it is meant for small population sizes. It is also effective when the researchers have much time, unlike when the time is limited. One of the most critical functions of review is to guarantee that a subject’s decision to engage in research is voluntary. A proposal that is difficult to refuse is primarily coercive. These incentives can be problematic because they can blind potential subjects to the dangers or impair their ability to exercise appropriate judgment. They can stimulate participants to hide details that, if identified, would dismiss them from participating in the research project.
Data Collection Procedures
The data was collected through interviews and observations, which was the best. There would be no need for supplementary data collection since it would have made the research lose credibility and fail to achieve its primary goal. Of course, data collection through interviews was appropriate and supported by expert observation in the field. The report stated that observation was meant to monitor how COVID-19 patients reacted to varying medical approaches. The researchers assumed the roles of an observer and a researcher interchangeably to meet the goal within the set timeframe.
Enhancement of Trustworthiness
The report employs regular contact with data, direct observation, and referential sufficiency to strengthen the credibility of the qualitative investigation. Accuracy and completeness were used to ensure quality. When performing qualitative research, the researcher is both a participant and a research tool. The qualitative researcher accepts the ontological presupposition of various truths and numerous realities. People see reality in different ways based on their distinct viewpoints.
Results
The research study applied a narrative design. Its benefits are that it is simple to encourage individuals to tell their stories; it collects in-depth data. Participants are eager to expose self and account introspection, the disclosure of truth, and the creation of a platform for participants. SPSS was used for computerized indexing and organizing data using a constructivist data analysis approach.
Findings
The study attempted to resolve this fundamental question by investigating the influence of COVID-19. According to its mission statement, it is devoted to delivering excellent publications that assist in the growth of research. It consistently strives to retain the researchers’ position as the region’s most extensive publication of scholarly works.
Discussion
Interpretation of the Findings
The findings underwent interpretation within the social context in what is already known based on previous research findings. The report thoroughly discusses the applicability and transferability of the findings for use by subsequent researchers.
Recommendations
The researchers suggest a combination of ideas from researchers across the globe because the virus it was suggested that the virus responds differently across races. Subsequent research can only ascertain this allegation by combining thoughts and discussions going forward.
Conclusion
The findings appear trustworthy because they have collected and analyzed all the data. Procedures Evidence-based research involves the information utilized to make patient care decisions founded on solid research. It entails searching multiple data sources, findings, and conclusions from credible, trustworthy studies. A significant restriction is that researchers must learn new skills for obtaining and evaluating evidence, which requires time and effort. Practitioners who lack these abilities are vulnerable to confirmation bias.
References
Aughterson, H., McKinlay, A. R., Fancourt, D., & Burton, A. (2021). Psychosocial impact on frontline health and social care professionals in the UK during the COVID-19 pandemic: A qualitative interview study. BMJ Open, 11(2), e047353. Web.
Polit, D. & Beck, C. (2008). Nursing research: Generating and assessing evidence for nursing practice. Wolters Kluwer Health/Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.