ABSTRACT
Background COVID-19 affected the epidemiology of other infectious diseases and how they were managed. Urinary tract infection (UTI) is one of the most common infections treated in the community in England. We investigated the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on UTI primary care consultations and outcomes in female patients. Methods and findings We analysed General Practice (GP) consultation and hospital admission records using the Whole Systems Integrated Care (WSIC) data in North West London between 2016 and 2021. We quantified the changes in UTI GP consultation rates using time series analysis before and during the pandemic. We assessed the outcomes of UTI, measured by subsequent bacteraemia and sepsis within 60 days, for consultations delivered face-to-face or remotely, with or without diagnostic tests recommended by the national guidelines, and with or without antibiotic treatment. Between January 2016 and December 2021, we identified 375,859 UTI episodes in 233,450 female patients. Before the COVID-19 pandemic (January 2016-February 2020), the UTI GP consultation rate stayed level at 522.8 cases per 100,000 population per month, with a seasonal pattern of peaking in October. Since COVID-19, (March 2020-December 2021), monthly UTI GP consultations declined when COVID-19 cases surged and rose when COVID-19 case fell. During the pandemic, the UTI consultations delivered face-to-face reduced from 72.0% to 29.4%, the UTI consultations with appropriate diagnostic tests, including urine culture and urinalysis, reduced from 17.3% to 10.4%, and the UTI cases treated with antibiotics reduced from 52.0% to 47.8%. The likelihood of antibiotics being prescribed was not affected by whether the consultation was delivered face-to-face or remotely but associated with whether there was a diagnostic test. Regardless of whether the UTI consultation occurred before or during the pandemic, the absence of antibiotic treatment for UTI is associated with a 10-fold increase in the risk of having bacteraemia or sepsis within 60 days, though the patients who consulted GPs for UTI during the pandemic were older and more co-morbid. Across the study period (January 2016-December 2021), nitrofurantoin remained the first-line antibiotic option for UTI. The percentage of non-prophylactic acute UTI antibiotic prescriptions with durations that exceeded the guideline recommendations was 58.7% before the pandemic, and 49.4% since. This led to 830,522 total excess days of treatment, account for 63.3% of all non-prophylactic acute antibiotics prescribed for UTI. Before the pandemic, excess antibiotic days of UTI drugs had been reducing consistently. However, this decline slowed down during the pandemic. Having a diagnostic test was associated with 0.6 less excess days of antibiotic treatment. Conclusions This analysis provides a comprehensive examination of management and outcomes of community-onset UTI in female patients, considering the changes in GP consultations during the COVID-19 pandemic. Our findings highlighted the importance of appropriate urine testing to support UTI diagnosis in symptomatic patients and initiation of antibiotic treatment with appropriate course duration. Continued monitoring is required to assess the overall impact on patients and health systems from the changed landscape of primary care delivery.
Subject(s)
Urinary Tract Infections , Sepsis , Communicable Diseases , COVID-19ABSTRACT
A cross-sectional survey was performed among the adult population of participating countries, India and South Africa. The purpose of this study was to explore perceptions and awareness of SARS-CoV-2-related risks in the relevant countries. The main outcome measures were the proportion of participants aware of SARS-CoV-2, and their perception of infection risks. Self-administered questionnaires were used to collect data via a web- and paper-based survey over three months. For data capturing, Microsoft Excel was employed, and descriptive statistics used for presenting data. Pearsons Chi-squared test was used to assess relationships between variables, and a p-value less than 0.05 was considered significant. There were 844 respondents (India: n=660, South Africa: n=184; response rate 87.6%), with a 61.1% vs 38.3% female to male ratio. Post-high-school or university education was the lowest qualification reported by most respondents in India (77.3%) and South Africa (79.3%). Sources of information about the pandemic were usually media and journal publications (73.2%), social media (64.6%), family and friends (47.7%) and government websites (46.2%). Most respondents correctly identified infection prevention measures (such as physical distancing, mask use), with 90.0% reporting improved hand hygiene practices since the pandemic. Hesitancy or refusal to accept the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine was reported among 17.9% and 50.9% of respondents in India and South Africa, respectively. Reasons cited included rushed vaccine development and the futility of vaccines for what respondents considered a self-limiting flu-like illness. Respondents identified public health promotion measures for SARS-CoV-2. Reported hesitancy to the up-take of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines was much higher in South Africa. Vaccination campaigns should consider robust public engagement and contextually fit communication strategies with multimodal, participatory online and offline initiatives to address public concerns, specifically towards vaccines developed for this pandemic and general vaccine hesitancy.
ABSTRACT
Correspondence to Dr Raheelah Ahmad, Health Sciences, City University of London, London EC1V 0HB, UK;raheelah.ahmad@city.ac.uk Biography Maureen Luba is the Africa Region Advocacy Advisor at AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition (AVAC) where she helps lead capacity building efforts around strategy development, data analytics and use for advocacy for Civil Society Organizations in Zimbabwe, Tanzania and Malawi to effectively engage in Global Fund, PEPFAR and national policy decision-making processes. First and foremost, are there any key leadership messages you want to get out to our readership? Researchers, policy-makers, funders and programme implementers must first find out what that reality is from the front line and take this into consideration when making decisions. Since a lot remains unknown about this virus, leaders need to also continue investing in education and capacity building of communities to support and enable involvement of the broader community in the COVID-19 response. First of all, I did not expect coronavirus to spread this rapidly across the globe.
ABSTRACT
Studies have identified a greater reluctance for members of the Black, Asian, and minority ethnic communities to be vaccinated against COVID-19 despite a higher probability of greater harm from COVID-19. We conducted an anonymised questionnaire-based study of students (recruiting primarily before first reports of embolic events) at two London universities to identify whether economic or educational levels were primarily responsible for this reluctance: a postgraduate core group (PGCC) n=860 and a pilot study of undergraduate medical and nursing students (n=103). Asian and Black students were 2.0 and 3.2 times (PGCC) less likely to accept the COVID vaccine than White British students. Similar findings were noted in the pilot study students. As students were studying for Masters or PhD degrees and voluntarily paying high fees, educational and economic reasons were unlikely to be the underlying cause, and wider cultural reservations were more likely. Politicians exerted a strong negative influence, suggesting that campaigns should omit politicians.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , EmbolismABSTRACT
Background: Variation in the approaches taken to contain the SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) pandemic at country level has been shaped by economic and political considerations, technical capacity, and assumptions about public behaviours. To address the limited application of learning from previous pandemics, this study aimed to analyse perceived facilitators and inhibitors during the pandemic and to inform the development of an assessment tool for pandemic response planning.Methods: A cross-sectional electronic survey of health and non-healthcare professionals (5 May - 5 June 2020) in six languages, with respondents recruited via email, social media and website posting. Participants were asked to score inhibitors (-10 to 0) or facilitators (0 to +10) impacting country response to COVID-19 from the following domains – Political, Economic, Sociological, Technological, Ecological, Legislative, and wider Industry (the PESTELI framework). Participants were then asked to explain their responses using free text. Descriptive and thematic analysis was followed by triangulation with the literature and expert validation to develop the assessment tool, which was then compared with four existing pandemic planning frameworks.Findings: 928 respondents from 66 countries (57% healthcare professionals) participated. Political and economic influences were consistently perceived as powerful negative forces and technology as a facilitator across high- and low-income countries. The 103-item tool developed for guiding rapid situational assessment for pandemic planning is comprehensive when compared to existing tools and highlights the interconnectedness of the 7 domains.Interpretation: The tool developed and proposed addresses the problems associated with decision making in disciplinary silos and offers a means to refine future use of epidemic modelling.Funding Statement: This study did not receive any external funding.Declaration of Interests: None to declare. Ethics Approval Statement: The study was approved by the Joint Research Compliance Office, Imperial College London (ICREC reference: 20IC5947).