ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: While there is a substantial body of knowledge about acute COVID-19, less is known about long-COVID, where symptoms continue beyond 4 weeks. AIM: To describe longer-term effects of COVID-19 infection in children and young people (CYP) and identify their needs in relation to long-COVID. DESIGN & SETTING: This study comprises an observational prospective cohort study and a linked qualitative study, identifying participants aged 8-17 years in the West Midlands of England. METHOD: CYP will be invited to complete online questionnaires to monitor incidences and symptoms of COVID-19 over a 12-month period. CYP who have experienced long-term effects of COVID will be invited to interview, and those currently experiencing symptoms will be asked to document their experiences in a diary. Professionals who work with CYP will be invited to explore the impact of long-COVID on the wider experiences of CYP, in a focus group. Descriptive statistics will be used to describe the incidence and rates of resolution of symptoms, and comparisons will be made between exposed and non-exposed groups. Logistic regression models will be used to estimate associations between candidate predictors and the development of long-COVID, and linear regression will be used to estimate associations between candidate predictors. Qualitative data will be analysed thematically using the constant comparison method. CONCLUSION: This study will describe features and symptoms of long-COVID and explore the impact of long-COVID within the lives of CYP and their families, to provide better understanding of long-COVID and inform clinical practice.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Indigenous populations experience higher rates of hepatitis C virus (HCV) infections in Canada. The Extension for Community Health Outcomes+ (ECHO+) telehealth model was implemented in Alberta to support HCV screening and treatment, using Zoom technology to support Indigenous patient access to specialist care closer to home. Our goal was to expand this program to more Indigenous communities in Alberta, using various Indigenous-led or co-designed methods. METHODS: The ECHO+ team implemented a Two-Eyed Seeing framework, incorporating Indigenous wholistic approaches alongside Western treatment. This approach works with principles of respect, reciprocity, and relationality. The ECHO+ team identified Indigenous-specific challenges, including access to liver specialist care, HCV awareness, stigma, barriers to screening and lack of culturally relevant approaches. RESULTS: Access to HCV care via this program significantly increased HCV antiviral use in the past 5 years. Key lessons learned include Indigenous-led relationship building and development of project outputs in response to community needs influences impact and increases relevant changes increasing access to HCV care. Implementation of ECHO+ was carried out through biweekly telehealth sessions, problem solving in partnership with Indigenous communities, increased HCV awareness, and flexibility resulting from the impacts of COVID-19. CONCLUSION: Improving Indigenous patient lives and reducing inequity requires supporting local primary health care providers to create and sustain integrated HCV prevention, diagnosis, treatment, and support services within a culturally safe and reciprocal model. ECHO+ uses telehealth and culturally appropriate methodology and interventions alongside multiple stakeholder collaborations to improve health outcomes for HCV.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: A growing literature describes promising practices for patient-oriented research (POR) generally; however, those for systematic reviews are largely derived through the lens of a researcher. This rapid review sought to understand meaningful engagement in synthesis reviews from the patient partner (PP) perspective. DESIGN: The review team comprised PPs, librarians, SCPOR staff and academic faculty. We searched OVID MEDLINE and EMBASE, ProQuest Nursing and Allied Health, and core POR websites. Documents describing PP reflections on their involvement in synthesis reviews were included. Screening and data extraction were conducted by two independent reviewers. Thematic analysis was employed to identify themes in the data regarding PP perceptions of engagement in synthesis reviews. RESULTS: The literature search yielded 1386 citations. Eight journal articles and one blog post were included. Seven studies focused on conducting systematic reviews on a particular health or patient-related topic to which PP involvement was an important part and two studies focused specifically on the experience of including PP in synthesis reviews. PPs engaged in the review process through a variety of mechanisms, levels and stages of the review process. Three major themes emerged from the data: (1) foster partnerships through team development, (2) provide opportunities for outcomes valued by PP and (3) strengthen the research endeavour. CONCLUSION: Fostering partnerships through team development is foundational for meaningful engagement in synthesis reviews. It requires sensitively balancing of various needs (eg overburdening with contributions). Meaningful involvement in reviews has both personal and research benefits. PATIENT INVOLVEMENT: Patient partners were equal collaborators in all aspects of the review.