Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 6 de 6
Filter
1.
Appl Health Econ Health Policy ; 2023 May 27.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-20232005

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Understanding the physical and mental health needs of the population through evidence-based research is a priority for informing health policy. During the COVID-19 pandemic, population wellbeing dramatically dropped. The relationship between experiences of symptomatic illness episodes and health-related quality of life has been less documented. OBJECTIVE: This study analysed the association between symptomatic COVID-19 illness and health-related quality of life. METHODS: The analyses drew from a cross-sectional analysis of data from a national digital symptoms' surveillance survey conducted in the UK in 2020. We identified illness episodes using symptoms and test results data and we analysed validated health-related quality of life outcomes including health utility scores (indexed on a 0-1 cardinal scale) and visual analogue scale (VAS) scores (0-100 scale) generated by the EuroQoL's EQ-5D-5L measure. The econometric model controlled for respondents' demographic and socioeconomic characteristics, comorbidities, social isolation measures, and regional and time fixed effects. RESULTS: The results showed that the experience of common SARS-CoV-2 symptoms was significantly associated with poorer health-related quality of life across all EQ-5D-5L dimensions of mobility, self-care, usual activities, pain/discomfort and anxiety/depression, a decrement in utility score of - 0.13 and a decrement in the EQ-VAS score of - 15. The findings were robust to sensitivity analyses and restrictive test results-based definitions. CONCLUSION: This evidence-based study highlights the need for targeting of interventions and services towards those experiencing symptomatic episodes during future waves of the pandemic and helps to quantify the benefits of SARS-CoV-2 treatment in terms of health-related quality of life.

2.
Sci Rep ; 13(1): 8257, 2023 05 22.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2321490

ABSTRACT

Understanding the connection between physical and mental health with evidence-based research is important to inform and support targeted screening and early treatment. The objective of this study was to document the co-occurrence of physical and mental health conditions during and after the experience of symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 illness episodes. Drawing from a national symptoms' surveillance survey conducted in the UK in 2020, this study shows that individuals with symptomatic forms of SARS-CoV-2 (identified by anosmia with either fever, breathlessness or cough) presented significantly higher odds of experiencing moderate and severe anxiety (2.41, CI 2.01-2.90) and depression (3.64, CI 3.06-4.32). Respondents who recovered from physical SARS-CoV-2 symptoms also experienced higher odds of anxiety and depression in comparison to respondents who never experienced symptoms. The findings are robust to alternative estimation models that compare individuals with the same socioeconomic and demographic characteristics and who experienced the same local and contextual factors such as mobility and social restrictions. The findings have important implications for the screening and detection of mental health disorders in primary care settings. They also suggest the need to design and test interventions to address mental health during and after physical illness episodes.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Humans , COVID-19/epidemiology , Depression/epidemiology , Depression/diagnosis , SARS-CoV-2 , Anxiety/epidemiology , Anxiety Disorders/epidemiology
3.
J Patient Rep Outcomes ; 7(1): 22, 2023 03 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2274134

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: The EuroQol Group has developed an extended version of the EQ-5D-Y-3L with five response levels for each of its five dimensions (EQ-5D-Y-5L). The psychometric performance has been reported in several studies for the EQ-5D-Y-3L but not for the EQ-5D-Y-5L. This study aimed to psychometrically evaluate the EQ-5D-Y-3L and EQ-5D-Y-5L Chichewa (Malawi) versions. METHODS: The EQ-5D-Y-3L, EQ-5D-Y-5L and PedsQL™ 4.0 Chichewa versions were administered to children and adolescents aged 8-17 years in Blantyre, Malawi. Both of the EQ-5D-Y versions were evaluated for missing data, floor/ceiling effects, and validity (convergent, discriminant, known-group and empirical). RESULTS: A total of 289 participants (95 healthy, and 194 chronic and acute) self-completed the questionnaires. There was little problem with missing data (< 5%) except in children aged 8-12 years particularly for the EQ-5D-Y-5L. Ceiling effects was generally reduced in moving from the EQ-5D-Y-3L to the EQ-5D-Y-5L. For both EQ-5D-Y-3L and EQ-5D-Y-5L, convergent validity tested with PedsQL™ 4.0 was found to be satisfactory (correlation ≥ 0.4) at scale level but mixed at dimension /sub-scale level. There was evidence of discriminant validity (p > 0.05) with respect to gender and age, but not for school grade (p < 0.05). For empirical validity, the EQ-5D-Y-5L was 31-91% less efficient than the EQ-5D-Y-3L at detecting differences in health status using external measures. CONCLUSIONS: Both versions of the EQ-5D-Y-3L and EQ-5D-Y-5L had issues with missing data in younger children. Convergent validity, discriminant validity with respect to gender and age, and known-group validity of either measures were also met for use among children and adolescents in this population, although with some limitations (discriminant validity by grade and empirical validity). The EQ-5D-Y-3L seems particularly suited for use in younger children (8-12 years) and the EQ-5D-Y-5L in adolescents (13-17 years). However, further psychometric testing is required for test re-test reliability and responsiveness that could not be carried out in this study due to COVID-19 restrictions.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Quality of Life , Humans , Adolescent , Child , Psychometrics/methods , Malawi , Reproducibility of Results , Health Status
4.
Lancet ; 401(10373): 281-293, 2023 01 28.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2165973

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The safety, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness of molnupiravir, an oral antiviral medication for SARS-CoV-2, has not been established in vaccinated patients in the community at increased risk of morbidity and mortality from COVID-19. We aimed to establish whether the addition of molnupiravir to usual care reduced hospital admissions and deaths associated with COVID-19 in this population. METHODS: PANORAMIC was a UK-based, national, multicentre, open-label, multigroup, prospective, platform adaptive randomised controlled trial. Eligible participants were aged 50 years or older-or aged 18 years or older with relevant comorbidities-and had been unwell with confirmed COVID-19 for 5 days or fewer in the community. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive 800 mg molnupiravir twice daily for 5 days plus usual care or usual care only. A secure, web-based system (Spinnaker) was used for randomisation, which was stratified by age (<50 years vs ≥50 years) and vaccination status (yes vs no). COVID-19 outcomes were tracked via a self-completed online daily diary for 28 days after randomisation. The primary outcome was all-cause hospitalisation or death within 28 days of randomisation, which was analysed using Bayesian models in all eligible participants who were randomly assigned. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, number 30448031. FINDINGS: Between Dec 8, 2021, and April 27, 2022, 26 411 participants were randomly assigned, 12 821 to molnupiravir plus usual care, 12 962 to usual care alone, and 628 to other treatment groups (which will be reported separately). 12 529 participants from the molnupiravir plus usual care group, and 12 525 from the usual care group were included in the primary analysis population. The mean age of the population was 56·6 years (SD 12·6), and 24 290 (94%) of 25 708 participants had had at least three doses of a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. Hospitalisations or deaths were recorded in 105 (1%) of 12 529 participants in the molnupiravir plus usual care group versus 98 (1%) of 12 525 in the usual care group (adjusted odds ratio 1·06 [95% Bayesian credible interval 0·81-1·41]; probability of superiority 0·33). There was no evidence of treatment interaction between subgroups. Serious adverse events were recorded for 50 (0·4%) of 12 774 participants in the molnupiravir plus usual care group and for 45 (0·3%) of 12 934 in the usual care group. None of these events were judged to be related to molnupiravir. INTERPRETATION: Molnupiravir did not reduce the frequency of COVID-19-associated hospitalisations or death among high-risk vaccinated adults in the community. FUNDING: UK National Institute for Health and Care Research.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Adult , Humans , Middle Aged , SARS-CoV-2 , COVID-19 Vaccines , Bayes Theorem , Prospective Studies , Treatment Outcome
5.
PLoS One ; 17(6): e0265354, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1933209

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Child and family social workers in the UK work closely with other agencies including schools and the police, and typically they are based in local authority offices. This study will evaluate the effectiveness of placing social workers in schools (SWIS) on the need for social care interventions. SWIS was piloted in three local authorities in 2018-2020, and findings from a feasibility study of the pilots suggests SWIS may operate through three key pathways: (1) by enhancing schools' response to safeguarding issues, (2) through increased collaboration between social workers, school staff, and parents, and (3) by improving relationships between social workers and young people. METHODS: The study is a two-arm pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial building on three feasibility studies which found SWIS to be promising. Social workers will work within secondary schools across local authorities in England. 280 mainstream secondary schools will be randomly allocated with a 1:1 ratio to SWIS or a comparison arm, which will be schools that continue as normal, without a social worker. The primary outcome will be the rate of Child Protection (Section 47) enquiries. Secondary outcomes will comprise rate of referrals to children's social care, rate of Child in Need (Section 17) assessments, days spent in care, and educational attendance and attainment. The study also includes an economic evaluation, and an implementation and process evaluation. Social care outcomes will be measured in July 2022, and educational outcomes will be measured in July 2023. Days in care will be measured at both time points. DISCUSSION: Findings will explore the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of SWIS on the need for social care interventions. A final report will be published in January 2024. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was registered retrospectively with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number registry on 13.11.2020 (ISRCTN90922032).


Subject(s)
Schools , Social Work , Adolescent , Child , Cost-Benefit Analysis , Feasibility Studies , Humans , Parents , Pragmatic Clinical Trials as Topic , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , Retrospective Studies
6.
BMJ Open ; 12(5): e063505, 2022 05 17.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1846526

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Long COVID, a new condition whose origins and natural history are not yet fully established, currently affects 1.5 million people in the UK. Most do not have access to specialist long COVID services. We seek to optimise long COVID care both within and outside specialist clinics, including improving access, reducing inequalities, helping self-management and providing guidance and decision support for primary care. We aim to establish a 'gold standard' of care by systematically analysing current practices, iteratively improving pathways and systems of care. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This mixed-methods, multisite study is informed by the principles of applied health services research, quality improvement, co-design, outcome measurement and learning health systems. It was developed in close partnership with patients (whose stated priorities are prompt clinical assessment; evidence-based advice and treatment and help with returning to work and other roles) and with front-line clinicians. Workstreams and tasks to optimise assessment, treatment and monitoring are based in three contrasting settings: workstream 1 (qualitative research, up to 100 participants), specialist management in 10 long COVID clinics across the UK, via a quality improvement collaborative, experience-based co-design and targeted efforts to reduce inequalities of access, return to work and peer support; workstream 2 (quantitative research, up to 5000 participants), patient self-management at home, technology-supported monitoring and validation of condition-specific outcome measures and workstream 3 (quantitative research, up to 5000 participants), generalist management in primary care, harnessing electronic record data to study population phenotypes and develop evidence-based decision support, referral pathways and analysis of costs. Study governance includes an active patient advisory group. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: LOng COvid Multidisciplinary consortium Optimising Treatments and servIces acrOss the NHS study is sponsored by the University of Leeds and approved by Yorkshire & The Humber-Bradford Leeds Research Ethics Committee (ref: 21/YH/0276). Participants will provide informed consent. Dissemination plans include academic and lay publications, and partnerships with national and regional policymakers. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05057260, ISRCTN15022307.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , COVID-19/complications , COVID-19/therapy , Humans , Locomotion , State Medicine , United Kingdom , Post-Acute COVID-19 Syndrome
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL