"You Can Do Better Than That!”: Tweeting Scientists Addressing Politics on Climate Change and Covid‐19

Climate change and the Covid‐19 pandemic are global challenges in which scientists play a crucial role, and immediate political actions are necessary. However, in contrast to climate change, strong governmental actions have been taken during the pandemic. While climate change has been on the public agenda for several decades, the pandemic is a rather new issue. In such cases, social media offer scientists the potential to disseminate scientific results to the public and express calls to action and their personal views towards politics. Thus far, little is known about the extent to which scientists make use of this option. In this study, we investigated the similarities and differences between visible German climate experts and visible German Covid‐19 experts regarding advocacy and assessments of policies and political actors on Twitter. We conducted a manual content analysis of tweets (N = 5,915) from 2021 of the most visible climate experts (N = 5) and the most visible Covid‐19 experts (N = 5). The results show that climate experts addressed politics more often than Covid‐19 experts in their tweets. The selected climate experts more often expressed negative evaluations, the degradation of competence and blaming. The Covid‐19 experts, however, made more political calls for action. We assume that an issue's history and context will affect scientists' public assessments of politics. Our comparative study provides insight into the interrelations between science and politics in digital communication environments and elucidates visible scientists' communication behaviours towards different socio‐scientific issues. © 2023 by the author(s);licensee Cogitatio Press (Lisbon, Portugal). This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY).

Triage-HF plus: 12-month study of remote monitoring pathway for triage of heart failure risk initiated during the Covid-19 pandemic

Background: The Covid-19 pandemic necessitated rapid adoption of remote monitoring across cardiovascular patient cohorts. Most patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) are now able to be remotely monitored using either scheduled, patient- or threshold-triggered transmissions. The validated Triage Heart Failure Risk Score (Triage-HFRS) is a medical algorithm within company-specific CIEDs that can risk-stratify patients as low-, medium- or high-risk of worsening heart failure (WHF) in the next 30 days based on integrated monitoring of physiological parameters. Building on a previous proof-of-concept of the Triage-HF Plus pathway, we integrated remote data with simple 5-question telephone triage within a clinical pathway to identify WHF during the first year of the Covid-19 pandemic. Purpose: Prospective evaluation of clinical remote monitoring pathway integrating Triage-HFRS with protocolised telephone triage (Triage-HF Plus pathway). Methods: Prospective, real-world evaluation of clinical pathway serving a large urban region over a 12-month period, using data from April 2020 to April 2021 (initiated during the first wave of Covid-19 pandemic in the UK). From a population of 435 patients with CIEDs, 87 high Triage-HFRS alerts were received and patients contacted for telephone triage assessment. Screening questions were designed to identify episodes of WHF and non-HF events. Intervention was at discretion of the clinical practitioner and in line with guideline-directed practice. A consecutive sample of 115 medium risk scores received the same triage. Results: Successful contact was made with 72 (82.8%) high-risk patients. Classification for high scoring patients confirmed on triage included isolated heart failure (18.3%), heart failure concurrent to medical problem (5.7%), alternative medical problem (10.3%), and recent hospital admission (8.0%);triage reassured absence of acute cause of high score in 40.2%. The sensitivity and specificity for detection of WHF was 87.9% (0.77-0.99) and 59.4% (0.50-0.69) respectively. Positive and negative predictive values were 40.3% and 94.0%, respectively. Overall accuracy was 66.2%. Conclusions: The Triage-HF Plus pathway served as a useful remote monitoring tool for identifying patients with WHF whose care had been otherwise disrupted by the Covid-19 pandemic, allowing timely intervention and cementing the longer-term role for such models of care delivery. Crucially, in this multimorbid, high-cost population, relevant non-HF issues were also identified. The high negative predictive value further highlights the potential of proactive surveillance over conventional, periodic follow up.

Ischemic stroke in consecutive patients with COVID-19: A case-control study of clinical features, mechanisms and outcome in the swiss stroke registry

Background and Aims: Most case series of patients with ischemic stroke (IS) and COVID-19 are limited to random centers or lack 3-month outcome. The aim of this study is to describe prevalence, clinical, radiological and pathophysiological features and long-term outcome of COVID-19-related IS in a nationwide stroke registry. Methods: From the Swiss Stroke Registry (SSR), we included all consecutive IS patients aged ≥18 years who were admitted to stroke units during the first wave of COVID-19 (25.02.-08.06.2020). We compared baseline features, stroke etiology and 3-month outcome (modified Rankin shift) of COVID PCR+ IS patients with COVID PCR-and/or asymptomatic non-tested IS patients. Results: Of the 2376 IS patients entered in the SSR during the study period, 36 (1.5%) had confirmed COVID-19 infection (details in Figure 1). In multivariate analysis, COVID+ patients had lower admission blood pressure (p=0.004) and more frequently lesions in multiple vascular territories (p=0.09). Stroke seemed more often related to several defined etiologies (p=0.07), and less often to large artery atherosclerotic (p=0.07) and cryptogenic mechanisms (p=0.03). There was a strong trend towards worse outcome in COVID+ patients across the entire Rankin-spectrum (Figure 2) despite adjustment for age, stroke severity and revascularization treatments (OR 1.97, 95%CI 0.92-4.21, p=0.08). Conclusions: In this nationwide analysis of consecutive ischemic strokes, concomitant COVID-19 was relatively rare. COVID+ patients more often had multiple territory involvement and multiple stroke mechanisms, and their 3-month outcome was worse across the entire Rankin spectrum. (Table Presented).

COVID-19 pandemic: Impact on doctors in training

Background: The COVID 19 pandemic is a healthcare crisis leading to unprecedented impact upon healthcare services, notable morbidity and mortality of the public and healthcare professionals, significant psychological effects, and economic repercussions. Junior doctors and those in training are at the forefront of medical care for these patients. We present survey results outlining the concerns of doctors in training. Methods: A questionnaire was developed and delivered via Survey Monkey relevant to doctors in training during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Perceived Stress Scale was incorporated to gauge participant stress in the weeks leading up to the expected surge of COVID-19 patients. Ethical approval was obtained. Results: A total of 285 participants engaged with the survey but 197 (69%) completed all answers. Almost 86% of respondents had been trained in donning and doffing personal protective equipment (PPE) and nearly 85% felt significantly confident in the process. Overall, most respondents felt somewhat prepared (60%) or well prepared (20%) to treat COVID-19 patients. However, 42% of respondents worried that their hospital would struggle, or could not cope at all, with COVID-19 patients. Nearly 91% of respondents were concerned that their hospital might run out of PPE. When asked to report their concerns, family health (86%), personal health (72%) and social life (47%) topped the list. According to the Perceived Stress Scale, the majority of respondents (62%) had moderate stress. Conclusions: This survey is the first known effort to gauge the concerns of doctors in training in Ireland with regard to the COVID-19 pandemic. Our results show that most junior doctors were trained and relatively confident in donning and doffing PPE and managing COVID-19 patients. However, significant percentage of doctors in training worried that their hospital might run out of PPE and would struggle with COVID-19 patients. They reported concerns regarding their personal and family health as well as impact on social life. A significant finding was that a majority of junior doctors had moderate stress at baseline. A follow-up survey to gauge the stress of doctors in training after the surge of COVID-19 patients is planned. Legal entity responsible for the study: The authors. Funding: Has not received any funding. Disclosure: D. Collins: Honoraria (self): Pfizer;Honoraria (self), Travel/Accommodation/Expenses: Genmab;Honoraria (self), Travel/Accommodation/Expenses: Astra Zeneca;Honoraria (self): Eli Lilly;Honoraria (self), Travel/Accommodation/Expenses: Roche;Advisory/Consultancy, Travel/Accommodation/Expenses: MSD;Advisory/Consultancy: Seattle Genetics. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest.