Abstract
Migration, as an important social determinant in the field of health, plays a crucial role in the non-eradication of tuberculosis worldwide. Therefore, it is essential to identify the factors related to tuberculosis treatment in immigrants to effectively combat this disease. However no comprehensive study has focused on this issue. Therefore, this study was conducted using an ecological approach to identify the barriers and facilitators of tuberculosis treatment in immigrants. This qualitative study utilized an integrative literature review. Studies were searched without time restrictions in database such as MEDLINE, Institute for Scientific Information (ISI), Google Scholar, Scopus, and EMBAS, as well as internal databases like Scientific Information Database and Magiran. The findings of 100 studies that met the inclusion criteria were analyzed using the conventional content analysis method based on the ecological approach. In general, the aforementioned codes were placed into four main categories, including individual factors (i.e., biological factors, psychological factors, behavioral factors, patient knowledge, factors related to tuberculosis, and  economic factors), interpersonal factors (i.e., communication with the treatment team and family-related factors), factors related to health service provider centers (i.e., medical  facilities), and extra-organizational factors (i.e., social factors and health policies). The findings of the present study show that treating tuberculosis in immigrants is a complex phenomenon influenced by several factors. Therefore policymakers and healthcare providers should take a more comprehensive look at the factors affecting treatment in this group of patients to plan and implement more effective interventions.

Abstract
The COVID-19 pandemic, resulting in approximately seven million deaths globally, underscores the urgent need for effective treatment. Ivermectin, among several repurposed drugs, has garnered interest owing to its antiviral properties. However, conflicting evidence from observational studies and randomised controlled trials raises questions regarding its efficacy and safety.This systematic review and meta-analysis followed MOOSE and PRISMA guidelines. Comprehensive searches were conducted in databases, including Scopus, Embase, PubMed, and Web of Science up to April 2024. Data were extracted independently by two reviewers and analysed using the Comprehensive Meta-Analysis V3 software.  Across 33 studies encompassing 15,376 participants, ivermectin showed no significant impact on critical outcomes such as mortality [risk ratio (RR) 0.911, 95% confidence intervals (CI) 0.732–1.135], mechanical ventilation (RR 0.727, 95% CI 0.521–1.016), polymerase chain reaction conversion (RR 1.0 24, 95% CI 0.936–1.120), ICU admissions (RR 0.712, 95% CI, 0.274–1.850), and hospitalisation rates (RR 0.735, 95% CI 0.464–1.165) compared with controls. However, it significantly reduced the time to symptom alleviation (standardised mean difference, −0.302; 95% CI, −0.587 to −0.018) and sustained symptom relief (RR 0.897, 95% CI, 0.873–0.921). The adverse event (AE) rates were similar between the ivermectin and control groups (RR 0.896, 95% CI, 0.797–1.007). Meta-regression indicated older age and diabetes as predictors of AEs. Despite its benefits in symptom management, ivermectin did not significantly influence critical clinical outcomes in COVID-19 patients. These findings highlight the importance of continued research to identify effective treatments for COVID-19, emphasising the need for high-quality studies with robust methodology to effectively inform clinical practice and public health policy.

Abstract
The global annual number from falls incidents is quite concerning. In England and Wales alone, over 250,000 falls are reported annually. Aside a record of global estimate of over 684 000 deaths reportedly caused by falls annually, the quality of life in the elderly population is being threatned by falls incidents. Its financial implication on the healthcares service is enormous.Incidents of falls increases with age and the prevention of its in people with mental health diagnosis is more challenging than in other population group. Older adults living with dementia are more likely to falls compare to people with no cognitive impairment. With the world population ageing rapidly, the number of the people living dementia is expected to increase significantly further increasing the number of annual falls incident. While the risk factors for falls can be categorised as intrinsic and extrinsic, however in people with dementia (PWD), the risk factors are still not fully known. Falls in this population group could be considerd as a signal for bahavioural changes. Although there are several approaches to falls prevention, a multifactorial fall risk assessment that is person-centerd is still the considered the best approach in understanding the fall risk of PWD and in devloping a multifprofessional intervention to prevent falling in people living with demnetia.

Abstract 

The novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a respiratory infection that is spreading
worldwide. Students can be high potential to contribute to the spread of COVID-19 due to their
close contact behaviors. Adherence to COVID-19 preventive measures is crucial for controlling
the spread of the virus. This study aimed to assess the adherence status toward COVID-19
preventive measures and associated factors among high school students. An institutional crosssectional study was employed among 528 high school students. A multistage sampling technique
and a systematic random sampling method were applied.

Result: The overall adherence level of high school students toward COVID-19 prevention
measures was 20.8%. The mean (±SD) age of the respondents was 18 (SD 11±2) years. The
majority of the students 79.2% (95% CI: 75.4, 82.6) had poor adherence to COVID-19 preventive
measures. About 34.7% had poor knowledge, 62.1% had unfavorable attitudes and 73.9% had poor
risk perception to recommended COVID-19 preventive measures. This study revealed that
majority of the high school students did not practice recommended prevention measures such as
89.9% did not maintain a physical distance of 2 meters away, 84.4% had no regular hand washing
practice, 71.4% did not use facemasks and 54% did not use sanitizer or alcohol per
recommendation. This study revealed that sex (AOR: 2.42, 95% CI: 1.46, 4.02), attitude (AOR:
4.04, 95% CI: 2.45, 6.68) and risk perception (AOR: 7.60, 95% CI: 4.62, 12.54) were significantly
associated with poor adherence toward COVID-19 prevention measures.

Conclusion: This study’s findings revealed that adherence to COVID-19 preventive measures
among high school students was very low. This study also found that poor practice to WHO
recommended COVID-19 prevention measures among students.