Communication vs evidence: What hinders the outreach of science during an infodemic? A narrative review.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic is placing significant pressure on national and international health organizations and the measures taken to combat it are having many impacts beyond health. At the same time, misleading communication practices and what has been called an "infodemic" by the World Health Organization have been hampering the uptake of coronavirus-related scientific information. Moreover, public awareness about the dangers of the infodemic remains poor, and misinformation may lead to hazardous behaviours. We therefore analysed factors potentially undermining communication of scientific evidence and proposed strategies to counteract this phenomenon. METHODS: We sought official academic and institutional publications of any type, published in English and analyzed their approaches to communication used during the pandemic. RESULTS: The factors that might undermine appropriate communication include but are not limited to (a) the exponential increase of COVID-19-related publications, often including biases in the peer-review and editorial process; (b) the role of traditional media; (c) politicization of the virus; and (d) the impact of social media. We argue that evidence synthesis and knowledge translation are useful tools to communicate accurate scientific evidence to decision-makers. CONCLUSION: Clear and concise messages in this form can help decision-makers to interpret data correctly, take consequent actions, and avoid being compromised by low-quality or even misleading information.

A roadmap to operationalize and evaluate impact in a learning health system.

BACKGROUND: Many health systems invest in initiatives to accelerate translation of knowledge into practice. However, organizations lack guidance on how to develop and operationalize such Learning Health System (LHS) programs and evaluate their impact. Kaiser Permanente Washington (KPWA) launched our LHS program in June 2017 and developed a logic model as a foundation to evaluate the program's impact. OBJECTIVE: To develop a roadmap for organizations that want to establish an LHS program, understand how LHS core components relate to one another when operationalized in practice, and evaluate and improve their progress. METHODS: We conducted a narrative review on LHS models, key model components, and measurement approaches. RESULTS: The KPWA LHS Logic Model provides a broad set of constructs relevant to LHS programs, depicts their relationship to LHS operations, harmonizes terms across models, and offers measurable operationalizations of each construct to guide other health systems. The model identifies essential LHS inputs, provides transparency into LHS activities, and defines key outcomes to evaluate LHS processes and impact. We provide reflections on the most helpful components of the model and identify areas that need further improvement using illustrative examples from deployment of the LHS model during the COVID-19 pandemic. CONCLUSION: The KPWA LHS Logic Model is a starting point for future LHS implementation research and a practical guide for healthcare organizations that are building, operationalizing, and evaluating LHS initiatives.

Epidemiological and cohort study finds no association between COVID-19 and Guillain-Barré syndrome.

Reports of Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) have emerged during the Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. This epidemiological and cohort study sought to investigate any causative association between COVID-19 infection and GBS. The epidemiology of GBS cases reported to the UK National Immunoglobulin Database was studied from 2016 to 2019 and compared to cases reported during the COVID-19 pandemic. Data were stratified by hospital trust and region, with numbers of reported cases per month. UK population data for COVID-19 infection were collated from UK public health bodies. In parallel, but separately, members of the British Peripheral Nerve Society prospectively reported incident cases of GBS during the pandemic at their hospitals to a central register. The clinical features, investigation findings and outcomes of COVID-19 (definite or probable) and non-COVID-19 associated GBS cases in this cohort were compared. The incidence of GBS treated in UK hospitals from 2016 to 2019 was 1.65-1.88 per 100 000 individuals per year. GBS incidence fell between March and May 2020 compared to the same months of 2016-19. GBS and COVID-19 incidences during the pandemic also varied between regions and did not correlate with one another (r = 0.06, 95% confidence interval: -0.56 to 0.63, P = 0.86). In the independent cohort study, 47 GBS cases were reported (COVID-19 status: 13 definite, 12 probable, 22 non-COVID-19). There were no significant differences in the pattern of weakness, time to nadir, neurophysiology, CSF findings or outcome between these groups. Intubation was more frequent in the COVID-19 affected cohort (7/13, 54% versus 5/22, 23% in COVID-19-negative) attributed to COVID-19 pulmonary involvement. Although it is not possible to entirely rule out the possibility of a link, this study finds no epidemiological or phenotypic clues of SARS-CoV-2 being causative of GBS. GBS incidence has fallen during the pandemic, which may be the influence of lockdown measures reducing transmission of GBS inducing pathogens such as Campylobacter jejuni and respiratory viruses.