Keeping each other safe: A social identity account of Canadian responses to COVID-19

Community mitigation strategies in a pandemic rely largely on individuals' voluntary compliance with public health measures (e.g., social and physical distancing). That these measures are crucial from a societal and community perspective-not just as means of self-protection-suggests that a sense of solidarity encourages their adoption by individuals. We conceptualized Canadians' responses early in the COVID-19 crisis as a form of collective action motivated by the perceived threat of the novel coronavirus, national identification, and efficacy beliefs (e.g., people's sense that their actions would make a difference in "flattening the curve" of infections). Analyses of responses of a cross-sectional sample of Canadians (N = 499) in April 2020 provided support for effects derived from this social identity account: perceived threat predicted Canadian national identification, and both threat and identification were positively associated with efficacy beliefs, which in turn predicted endorsement of public health measures. We highlight the roles of social identification and efficacy beliefs with a focus on how they might be incorporated into public health messaging. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved) (French) Les strategies communautaires d'attenuation des effets d'une pandemie reposent en grande partie sur l'adhesion de la population aux mesures de sante publique (par exemple, la distanciation sociale et physique). Le fait que ces mesures soient cruciales d'un point de vue societal et communautaire-et pas seulement comme moyen d'autoprotection-suggere qu'un sentiment de solidarite favorise leur adoption par les individus. Nous avons conceptualise les reponses des Canadiens au debut de la crise de la COVID-19 comme une forme d'action collective motivee par la menace percue du nouveau coronavirus, l'identification nationale et les sentiments d'auto-efficacite (par exemple, le sentiment des gens que leurs actions feraient une difference pour << aplanir la courbe des infections). Les analyses des reponses d'un echantillon transversal de Canadiens (N = 499) en avril 2020 ont confirme les effets derives de ce concept d'identite sociale : la menace percue a predit l'identification nationale canadienne, et la menace et l'identification ont ete positivement associees aux sentiments d'auto-efficacite, qui a leur tour ont predit l'adoption des mesures de sante publique. Nous soulignons les roles de l'identification sociale et des sentiments d'auto-efficacite en nous concentrant sur la facon dont ils pourraient etre incorpores dans les messages de sante publique. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved) Impact Statement Successful responses to the COVID-19 crisis required widespread acceptance of public health measures such as social distancing. This study showed that Canadians' endorsement of these measures was related to the perceived threat of the novel coronavirus, their national identification, and their sense that their own behaviours would make a difference in "flattening the curve" of infections. Thus, public health messages that highlight solidarity and collective responsibility may be effective means of encouraging compliance. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved)

The Impact of a Mobile App on Participation in Cardiac Rehabilitation and Understanding Barriers to Success: Comparative Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Poor patient uptake of cardiac rehabilitation (CR) remains a challenge for multiple reasons including geographic, time, cultural, cost, and psychological constraints. OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the impact on CR participation rates associated with the addition of the option of mobile app-based CR (Cardihab) for patients declining conventional CR. METHODS: A total of 204 consecutive patients were offered CR following angioplasty; of these, 99 were in cohort 1 (offered conventional CR only) and 105 were in cohort 2 (app-based CR offered to those declining conventional CR). Patients in each cohort were followed throughout a 6-week CR program and participation rates were compared for both groups. Patients in cohort 2 declining both forms of CR were interviewed to assess reasons for nonparticipation. RESULTS: CR participation improved from 21% (95% CI 14%-30%) to 63% (95% CI 53%-71%) with the addition of the app (P<.001). Approximately 25% (9/39) of the group declining the app-based program identified technology issues as the reason for nonparticipation. The remainder declined both CR programs or were ineligible due to frailty or comorbidities. CONCLUSIONS: Providing patients with the additional option of an app-based CR program substantially improved CR participation. Technology and psychological barriers can limit CR participation. Further innovation in CR delivery systems is required to improve uptake.

Risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence following the first pandemic wave in UK healthcare workers in a large NHS Foundation Trust (preprint)

BackgroundWe aimed to measure SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence in a cohort of healthcare workers (HCWs) during the first UK wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, explore risk factors associated with infection, and investigate the impact of antibody titres on assay sensitivity. MethodsHCWs at Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (STH) were prospectively enrolled and sampled at two time points. SARS-CoV-2 antibodies were tested using an in-house assay for IgG and IgA reactivity against Spike and Nucleoprotein (sensitivity 99{middle dot}47%, specificity 99{middle dot}56%). Data were analysed using three statistical models: a seroprevalence model, an antibody kinetics model, and a heterogeneous sensitivity model. FindingsAs of 12th June 2020, 24{middle dot}4% (n=311/1275) HCWs were seropositive. Of these, 39{middle dot}2% (n=122/311) were asymptomatic. The highest adjusted seroprevalence was measured in HCWs on the Acute Medical Unit (41{middle dot}1%, 95% CrI 30{middle dot}0-52{middle dot}9) and in Physiotherapists and Occupational Therapists (39{middle dot}2%, 95% CrI 24{middle dot}4-56{middle dot}5). Older age groups showed overall higher median antibody titres. Further modelling suggests that, for a serological assay with an overall sensitivity of 80%, antibody titres may be markedly affected by differences in age, with sensitivity estimates of 89% in those over 60 years but 61% in those [≤]30 years. InterpretationHCWs in acute medical units working closely with COVID-19 patients were at highest risk of infection, though whether these are infections acquired from patients or other staff is unknown. Current serological assays may underestimate seroprevalence in younger age groups if validated using sera from older and/or more symptomatic individuals. Research in contextO_ST_ABSEvidence before this studyC_ST_ABSWe searched PubMed for studies published up to March 6th 2021, using the terms "COVID", "SARS-CoV-2", "seroprevalence", and "healthcare workers", and in addition for articles of antibody titres in different age groups against coronaviruses using "coronavirus", "SARS-CoV-2, "antibody", "antibody tires", "COVID" and "age". We included studies that used serology to estimate prevalence in healthcare workers. SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence has been shown to be greater in healthcare workers working on acute medical units or within domestic services. Antibody levels against seasonal coronaviruses, SARS-CoV and SARS-CoV-2 were found to be higher in older adults, and patients who were hospitalised. Added value of this studyIn this healthcare worker seroprevalence modelling study at a large NHS foundation trust, we confirm that those working on acute medical units, COVID-19 "Red Zones" and within domestic services are most likely to be seropositive. Furthermore, we show that physiotherapists and occupational therapists have an increased risk of COVID-19 infection. We also confirm that antibody titres are greater in older individuals, even in the context of non-hospitalised cases. Importantly, we demonstrate that this can result in age-specific sensitivity in serological assays, where lower antibody titres in younger individuals results in lower assay sensitivity. Implications of all the available evidenceThere are distinct occupational roles and locations in hospitals where the risk of COVID-19 infection to healthcare workers is greatest, and this knowledge should be used to prioritise infection prevention control and other measures to protect healthcare workers. Serological assays may have different sensitivity profiles across different age groups, especially if assay validation was undertaken using samples from older and/or hospitalised patients, who tend to have higher antibody titres. Future seroprevalence studies should consider adjusting for age-specific assay sensitivities to estimate true seroprevalence rates. Author Contributions O_TBL View this table: org.highwire.dtl.DTLVardef@77acb4org.highwire.dtl.DTLVardef@eb9b35org.highwire.dtl.DTLVardef@1af298org.highwire.dtl.DTLVardef@12cf3e1org.highwire.dtl.DTLVardef@3f6476_HPS_FORMAT_FIGEXP M_TBL C_TBL

Ethics of selective restriction of liberty in a pandemic.

Liberty-restricting measures have been implemented for centuries to limit the spread of infectious diseases. This article considers if and when it may be ethically acceptable to impose selective liberty-restricting measures in order to reduce the negative impacts of a pandemic by preventing particularly vulnerable groups of the community from contracting the disease. We argue that the commonly accepted explanation-that liberty restrictions may be justified to prevent harm to others when this is the least restrictive option-fails to adequately accommodate the complexity of the issue or the difficult choices that must be made, as illustrated by the COVID-19 pandemic. We introduce a dualist consequentialist approach, weighing utility at both a population and individual level, which may provide a better framework for considering the justification for liberty restrictions. While liberty-restricting measures may be justified on the basis of significant benefits to the population and small costs for overall utility to individuals, the question of whether it is acceptable to discriminate should be considered separately. This is because the consequentialist approach does not adequately account for the value of equality. This value may be protected through the application of an additional proportionality test. An algorithm for making decisions is proposed. Ultimately whether selective liberty-restricting measures are imposed will depend on a range of factors, including how widespread infection is in the community, the level of risk and harm a society is willing to accept, and the efficacy and cost of other mitigation options.

Comparison of chest X-ray interpretation by Emergency Department clinicians and radiologists in suspected COVID-19 infection: a retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: We describe the inter-rater agreement between Emergency Department (ED) clinicians and reporting radiologists in the interpretation of chest X-rays (CXRs) in patients presenting to ED with suspected COVID-19. METHODS: We undertook a retrospective cohort study of patients with suspected COVID-19. We compared ED clinicians' and radiologists' interpretation of the CXRs according to British Society of Thoracic Imaging (BSTI) guidelines, using the area under the receiver operator curve (ROC area). RESULTS: CXRs of 152 cases with suspected COVID-19 infection were included. Sensitivity and specificity for 'classic' COVID-19 CXR findings reported by ED clinician was 84 and 83%, respectively, with a ROC area of 0.84 (95%CI 0.77 to 0.90). Accuracy improved with ED clinicians' experience, with ROC areas of 0.73 (95%CI 0.45 to 1.00), 0.81 (95%CI 0.73 to 0.89), 1.00 (95%CI 1.00 to 1.00) and 0.90 (95%CI 0.70 to 1.00) for foundation year doctors, senior house officers, higher speciality trainees and ED consultants, respectively (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: ED clinicians demonstrated moderate inter-rater agreement with reporting radiologists according to the BSTI COVID-19 classifications. The improvement in accuracy with ED clinician experience suggests training of junior ED clinicians in the interpretation of COVID-19 related CXRs might be beneficial. Large-scale survey studies might be useful in the further evaluation of this topic. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: This is the first study to examine inter-rater agreement between ED clinicians and radiologists in regards to COVID-19 CXR interpretation.Further service configurations such as 24-hr hot reporting of CXRs can be guided by these data, as well as an ongoing, nationwide follow-up study.

Why lockdown of the elderly is not ageist and why levelling down equality is wrong.

In order to prevent the rapid spread of COVID-19, governments have placed significant restrictions on liberty, including preventing all non-essential travel. These restrictions were justified on the basis the health system may be overwhelmed by COVID-19 cases and in order to prevent deaths. Governments are now considering how they may de-escalate these restrictions. This article argues that an appropriate approach may be to lift the general lockdown but implement selective isolation of the elderly. While this discriminates against the elderly, there is a morally relevant difference-the elderly are far more likely to require hospitalisation and die than the rest of the population. If the aim is to ensure the health system is not overwhelmed and to reduce the death rate, preventing the elderly from contracting the virus may be an effective means of achieving this. The alternative is to continue to keep everyone in lockdown. It is argued that this is levelling down equality and is unethical. It suggests that in order for the elderly to avoid contracting the virus, the whole population should have their liberty deprived, even though the same result could be achieved by only restricting the liberty of the elderly. Similar arguments may also be applied to all groups at increased risk of COVID-19, such as men and those with comorbidities, the obese and people from ethnic minorities or socially deprived groups. This utilitarian concern must be balanced against other considerations, such as equality and justice, and the benefits gained from discriminating in these ways must be proportionately greater than the negative consequences of doing so. Such selective discrimination will be most justified when the liberty restriction to a group promotes the well-being of that group (apart from its wider social benefits).

Is withdrawing treatment really more problematic than withholding treatment?

There is a concern that as a result of COVID-19 there will be a shortage of ventilators for patients requiring respiratory support. This concern has resulted in significant debate about whether it is appropriate to withdraw ventilation from one patient in order to provide it to another patient who may benefit more. The current advice available to doctors appears to be inconsistent, with some suggesting withdrawal of treatment is more serious than withholding, while others suggest that this distinction should not be made. We argue that there is no ethically relevant difference between withdrawing and withholding treatment and that suggesting otherwise may have problematic consequences. If doctors are discouraged from withdrawing treatment, concern about a future shortage may make them reluctant to provide ventilation to patients who are unlikely to have a successful outcome. This may result in underutilisation of available resources. A national policy is urgently required to provide doctors with guidance about how patients should be prioritised to ensure the maximum benefit is derived from limited resources.