COVID-19 in Bangladesh: A systematic review of the literature from march 2020 to march 2021
Rattachement africain : bd. Niveau de preuve : code pays fourni par la source.
Le résumé fourni par la source
COVID-19 has undoubtedly absorbed the global public's angst. It has quickly disturbed global life and will have long-term and short-term consequences on several sectors. This comprehensive review study's goal is to discover what research has been done in a year since the beginning of coronavirus in Bangladesh. Consequently, the current study examined the pervasiveness and affiliation of social and economic issues, health and psychological issues and individual perceptions, key challenges, strategies and policy systems, public health, online education, agriculture and food security, criminal activities related to outbreaks, Rohingya refugee issues, and the quality of domestic violence behaviors. The review used electronic databases such as Web of Science, PubMed, PubMed Central, and Scopus to find published material. This study reviewed chosen papers, removing redundancies and including 43 pertinent articles. Among the 43 study items, fourteen were qualitative (32.56%), six mixed (13.95%), and the rest were quantitative (53.49 %). This study helps to identify the issues with current documentation by focusing on interconnected factors and studying COVID-19 events and scenarios. Thus, governments and other stakeholders should reassess these controversial issues to formulate a policy that takes into consideration the situation in Bangladesh and other COVID-19 affected countries.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Le contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- COVID-19 in Bangladesh: A systematic review of the literature from march 2020 to march 2021
- Date Crossref
- 01/03/2023
- Éditeur
- University of South Florida Libraries
- Type
- journal-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude, et il ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.
Les institutions déclarées
Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.