Embedding rapid reviews in health policy and systems decision-making: Impacts and lessons learned from four low- and middle-income countries.

BACKGROUND: Demand for rapid evidence-based syntheses to inform health policy and systems decision-making has increased worldwide, including in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). To promote use of rapid syntheses in LMICs, the WHO's Alliance for Health Policy and Systems Research (AHPSR) created the Embedding Rapid Reviews in Health Systems Decision-Making (ERA) Initiative. Following a call for proposals, four LMICs were selected (Georgia, India, Malaysia and Zimbabwe) and supported for 1 year to embed rapid response platforms within a public institution with a health policy or systems decision-making mandate. METHODS: While the selected platforms had experience in health policy and systems research and evidence syntheses, platforms were less confident conducting rapid evidence syntheses. A technical assistance centre (TAC) was created from the outset to develop and lead a capacity-strengthening program for rapid syntheses, tailored to the platforms based on their original proposals and needs as assessed in a baseline questionnaire. The program included training in rapid synthesis methods, as well as generating synthesis demand, engaging knowledge users and ensuring knowledge uptake. Modalities included live training webinars, in-country workshops and support through phone, email and an online platform. LMICs provided regular updates on policy-makers' requests and the rapid products provided, as well as barriers, facilitators and impacts. Post-initiative, platforms were surveyed. RESULTS: Platforms provided rapid syntheses across a range of AHPSR themes, and successfully engaged national- and state-level policy-makers. Examples of substantial policy impact were observed, including for COVID-19. Although the post-initiative survey response rate was low, three quarters of those responding felt confident in their ability to conduct a rapid evidence synthesis. Lessons learned coalesced around three themes - the importance of context-specific expertise in conducting reviews, facilitating cross-platform learning, and planning for platform sustainability. CONCLUSIONS: The ERA initiative successfully established rapid response platforms in four LMICs. The short timeframe limited the number of rapid products produced, but there were examples of substantial impact and growing demand. We emphasize that LMICs can and should be involved not only in identifying and articulating needs but as co-designers in their own capacity-strengthening programs. More time is required to assess whether these platforms will be sustained for the long-term.

Canadian public perceptions and experiences with information during the COVID-19 pandemic: strategies to optimize future risk communications.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated the spread of misinformation worldwide. The purpose of this study was to explore perceptions of misinformation and preferred sources of obtaining COVID-19 information from those living in Canada. In particular, we sought to explore the perceptions of East Asian individuals in Canada, who experienced stigma related to COVID-19 messaging. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative thematic analysis study. Interviews were offered in English, Mandarin and Cantonese. Interviewers probed for domains related to knowledge about COVID-19, preferred sources of information, perceived barriers and facilitators of misinformation, and preferences for communication during a health emergency. Interviews were recorded, translated, transcribed verbatim and analyzed using a framework approach. Transcripts were independently double-coded until > 60% agreement was reached. This study received research ethics approval. RESULTS: Fifty-five interviews were conducted. The majority of participants were women (67%); median age was 52 years. 55% of participants were of East-Asian descent. Participants obtained information about COVID-19 from diverse English and non-English sources including news media, government agencies or representatives, social media, and personal networks. Challenges to seeking and understanding information included: encountering misinformation, making sense of evolving or conflicting public health guidance, and limited information on topics of interest. 65% of participants reported encountering COVID-19  misinformation. East Asian participants called on government officials to champion messaging to reduce stigmatizing and racist rhetoric and highlighted the importance of having accessible, non-English language information sources. Participants provided recommendations for future public health communications guidance during health emergencies, including preferences for message content, information messengers, dissemination platforms and format of messages. Almost all participants preferred receiving information from the Canadian government and found it helpful to utilize various mediums and platforms such as social media and news media for future risk communication, urging for consistency across all platforms. CONCLUSIONS: We provide insights on Canadian experiences navigating COVID-19 information, where more than half perceived encountering misinformation on platforms when seeking COVID-19 information . We provide recommendations to inform public health communications during future health emergencies.

Exploring Canadian perceptions and experiences of stigma during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has led to stigmatization of individuals based on race/ethnicity, age, gender, and occupation, among other factors. We canvassed Canadian residents to explore perceptions of and experiences with stigma during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: We conducted an online survey between June 10 and December 31 2020. The survey was rooted in the Health Stigma and Discrimination Framework and included multiple choice, Likert and open-ended questions related to perceived and experienced stigma. Residents of Ontario, Canada were eligible to participate and we aimed to recruit a sample that was diverse by race/ethnicity and age. Results: A total of 1,823 individuals participated in the survey (54% women, 39% men; 54% 18-40 years old, 28% 41-60 years old, 12% 61+ years old; 33% White, 26% East/SouthEast Asian, 14% Black, 12% South Asian). Fifty-one percent of participants agreed/strongly agreed that racist views had increased toward certain racial/ethnic groups in Canada during the pandemic. Participants perceived that people in Canada were stigmatized during the pandemic because of race/ethnicity (37%), political beliefs (26%), older age (24%), being a healthcare worker (23%), younger age (22%), being an essential worker (21%), and gender (11%). Thirty-nine percent of respondents feared experiencing and 37% experienced stigmatization during the pandemic. Men, individuals aged 18-40, and racialized participants were more likely to fear or experience stigma. With respect to health behaviors, 74, 68, and 59% of respondents were comfortable masking in public, seeking medical care if they became ill, and getting tested for COVID-19, respectively. Men were less likely to indicate comfort with mask wearing or seeking medical care. Participants aged 18-40 and Black participants were less likely to indicate comfort with all three behaviors compared to those over age 41 and White participants, respectively. South Asian participants were less likely to be comfortable seeking medical care compared to White Participants. Discussion: Participants feared or experienced stigmatization towards various demographic characteristics during the COVID-19 pandemic. It is critical that the factors driving stigma during health emergencies in Canada be better understood in order to develop effective public health messaging and interventions.

Global evidence of gender equity in academic health research: a scoping review.

OBJECTIVES: To chart the global literature on gender equity in academic health research. DESIGN: Scoping review. PARTICIPANTS: Quantitative studies were eligible if they examined gender equity within academic institutions including health researchers. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Outcomes related to equity across gender and other social identities in academia: (1) faculty workforce: representation of all genders in university/faculty departments, academic rank or position and salary; (2) service: teaching obligations and administrative/non-teaching activities; (3) recruitment and hiring data: number of applicants by gender, interviews and new hires for various rank; (4) promotion: opportunities for promotion and time to progress through academic ranks; (5) academic leadership: type of leadership positions, opportunities for leadership promotion or training, opportunities to supervise/mentor and support for leadership bids; (6) scholarly output or productivity: number/type of publications and presentations, position of authorship, number/value of grants or awards and intellectual property ownership; (7) contextual factors of universities; (8) infrastructure; (9) knowledge and technology translation activities; (10) availability of maternity/paternity/parental/family leave; (11) collaboration activities/opportunities for collaboration; (12) qualitative considerations: perceptions around promotion, finances and support. RESULTS: Literature search yielded 94 798 citations; 4753 full-text articles were screened, and 562 studies were included. Most studies originated from North America (462/562, 82.2%). Few studies (27/562, 4.8%) reported race and fewer reported sex/gender (which were used interchangeably in most studies) other than male/female (11/562, 2.0%). Only one study provided data on religion. No other PROGRESS-PLUS variables were reported. A total of 2996 outcomes were reported, with most studies examining academic output (371/562, 66.0%). CONCLUSIONS: Reviewed literature suggest a lack in analytic approaches that consider genders beyond the binary categories of man and woman, additional social identities (race, religion, social capital and disability) and an intersectionality lens examining the interconnection of multiple social identities in understanding discrimination and disadvantage. All of these are necessary to tailor strategies that promote gender equity. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Open Science Framework: https://osf.io/8wk7e/.

Rapid antigen-based and rapid molecular tests for the detection of SARS-CoV-2: a rapid review with network meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy studies.

BACKGROUND: The global spread of COVID-19 created an explosion in rapid tests with results in < 1 hour, but their relative performance characteristics are not fully understood yet. Our aim was to determine the most sensitive and specific rapid test for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2. METHODS: Design: Rapid review and diagnostic test accuracy network meta-analysis (DTA-NMA). ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies assessing rapid antigen and/or rapid molecular test(s) to detect SARS-CoV-2 in participants of any age, suspected or not with SARS-CoV-2 infection. INFORMATION SOURCES: Embase, MEDLINE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, up to September 12, 2021. OUTCOME MEASURES: Sensitivity and specificity of rapid antigen and molecular tests suitable for detecting SARS-CoV-2. Data extraction and risk of bias assessment: Screening of literature search results was conducted by one reviewer; data abstraction was completed by one reviewer and independently verified by a second reviewer. Risk of bias was not assessed in the included studies. DATA SYNTHESIS: Random-effects meta-analysis and DTA-NMA. RESULTS: We included 93 studies (reported in 88 articles) relating to 36 rapid antigen tests in 104,961 participants and 23 rapid molecular tests in 10,449 participants. Overall, rapid antigen tests had a sensitivity of 0.75 (95% confidence interval 0.70-0.79) and specificity of 0.99 (0.98-0.99). Rapid antigen test sensitivity was higher when nasal or combined samples (e.g., combinations of nose, throat, mouth, or saliva samples) were used, but lower when nasopharyngeal samples were used, and in those classified as asymptomatic at the time of testing. Rapid molecular tests may result in fewer false negatives than rapid antigen tests (sensitivity: 0.93, 0.88-0.96; specificity: 0.98, 0.97-0.99). The tests with the highest sensitivity and specificity estimates were the Xpert Xpress rapid molecular test by Cepheid (sensitivity: 0.99, 0.83-1.00; specificity: 0.97, 0.69-1.00) among the 23 commercial rapid molecular tests and the COVID-VIRO test by AAZ-LMB (sensitivity: 0.93, 0.48-0.99; specificity: 0.98, 0.44-1.00) among the 36 rapid antigen tests we examined. CONCLUSIONS: Rapid molecular tests were associated with both high sensitivity and specificity, while rapid antigen tests were mainly associated with high specificity, according to the minimum performance requirements by WHO and Health Canada. Our rapid review was limited to English, peer-reviewed published results of commercial tests, and study risk of bias was not assessed. A full systematic review is required. REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42021289712.

Saving millions of lives but some resources squandered: emerging lessons from health research system pandemic achievements and challenges.

During the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, astonishingly rapid research averted millions of deaths worldwide through new vaccines and repurposed and new drugs. Evidence use informed life-saving national policies including non-pharmaceutical interventions. Simultaneously, there was unprecedented waste, with many underpowered trials on the same drugs. We identified lessons from COVID-19 research responses by applying WHO's framework for research systems. It has four functions-governance, securing finance, capacity-building, and production and use of research-and nine components. Two linked questions focused the analysis. First, to what extent have achievements in knowledge production and evidence use built on existing structures and capacity in national health research systems? Second, did the features of such systems mitigate waste? We collated evidence on seven countries, Australia, Brazil, Canada, Germany, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States, to identify examples of achievements and challenges.We used the data to develop lessons for each framework component. Research coordination, prioritization and expedited ethics approval contributed to rapid identification of new therapies, including dexamethasone in the United Kingdom and Brazil. Accelerated vaccines depended on extensive funding, especially through the Operation Warp Speed initiative in the United States, and new platforms created through long-term biomedical research capacity in the United Kingdom and, for messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA) vaccines, in Canada, Germany and the United States. Research capacity embedded in the United Kingdom's healthcare system resulted in trial acceleration and waste avoidance. Faster publication of research saved lives, but raised challenges. Public/private collaborations made major contributions to vastly accelerating new products, available worldwide, though unequally. Effective developments of living (i.e. regularly updated) reviews and guidelines, especially in Australia and Canada, extended existing expertise in meeting users' needs. Despite complexities, effective national policy responses (less evident in Brazil, the United Kingdom and the United States) also saved lives by drawing on health research system features, including collaboration among politicians, civil servants and researchers; good communications; and willingness to use evidence. Comprehensive health research strategies contributed to success in research production in the United Kingdom and in evidence use by political leadership in New Zealand. In addition to waste, challenges included equity issues, public involvement and non-COVID research. We developed recommendations, but advocate studies of further countries.

An exploration of Canadian government officials' COVID-19 messages and the public's reaction using social media data.

Governments can use social media platforms such as Twitter to disseminate health information to the public, as evidenced during the COVID-19 pandemic [Pershad (2018)]. The purpose of this study is to gain a better understanding of Canadian government and public health officials' use of Twitter as a dissemination platform during the pandemic and to explore the public's engagement with and sentiment towards these messages. We examined the account data of 93 Canadian public health and government officials during the first wave of the pandemic in Canada (December 31, 2019 August 31, 2020). Our objectives were to: 1) determine the engagement rates of the public with Canadian federal and provincial/territorial governments and public health officials' Twitter posts; 2) conduct a hashtag trend analysis to explore the Canadian public's discourse related to the pandemic during this period; 3) provide insights on the public's reaction to Canadian authorities' tweets through sentiment analysis. To address these objectives, we extracted Twitter posts, replies, and associated metadata available during the study period in both English and French. Our results show that the public demonstrated increased engagement with federal officials' Twitter accounts as compared to provincial/territorial accounts. For the hashtag trends analysis of the public discourse during the first wave of the pandemic, we observed a topic shift in the Canadian public discourse over time between the period prior to the first wave and the first wave of the pandemic. Additionally, we identified 11 sentiments expressed by the public when reacting to Canadian authorities' tweets. This study illustrates the potential to leverage social media to understand public discourse during a pandemic. We suggest that routine analyses of such data by governments can provide governments and public health officials with real-time data on public sentiments during a public health emergency. These data can be used to better disseminate key messages to the public.

Comparative-effectiveness research of COVID-19 treatment: a rapid scoping review.

OBJECTIVES: The COVID-19 pandemic has stimulated growing research on treatment options. We aim to provide an overview of the characteristics of studies evaluating COVID-19 treatment. DESIGN: Rapid scoping review DATA SOURCES: Medline, Embase and biorxiv/medrxiv from inception to 15 May 2021. SETTING: Hospital and community care. PARTICIPANTS: COVID-19 patients of all ages. INTERVENTIONS: COVID-19 treatment. RESULTS: The literature search identified 616 relevant primary studies of which 188 were randomised controlled trials and 299 relevant evidence syntheses. The studies and evidence syntheses were conducted in 51 and 39 countries, respectively.Most studies enrolled patients admitted to acute care hospitals (84%), included on average 169 participants, with an average age of 60 years, study duration of 28 days, number of effect outcomes of four and number of harm outcomes of one. The most common primary outcome was death (32%).The included studies evaluated 214 treatment options. The most common treatments were tocilizumab (11%), hydroxychloroquine (9%) and convalescent plasma (7%). The most common therapeutic categories were non-steroidal immunosuppressants (18%), steroids (15%) and antivirals (14%). The most common therapeutic categories involving multiple drugs were antimalarials/antibiotics (16%), steroids/non-steroidal immunosuppressants (9%) and antimalarials/antivirals/antivirals (7%). The most common treatments evaluated in systematic reviews were hydroxychloroquine (11%), remdesivir (8%), tocilizumab (7%) and steroids (7%).The evaluated treatment was in favour 50% and 36% of the evaluations, according to the conclusion of the authors of primary studies and evidence syntheses, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This rapid scoping review characterised a growing body of comparative-effectiveness primary studies and evidence syntheses. The results suggest future studies should focus on children, elderly ≥65 years of age, patients with mild symptoms, outpatient treatment, multimechanism therapies, harms and active comparators. The results also suggest that future living evidence synthesis and network meta-analysis would provide additional information for decision-makers on managing COVID-19.

Characteristics, treatment and delirium incidence of older adults hospitalized with COVID-19: a multicentre retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has affected older adults disproportionately, and delirium is a concerning consequence; however, the relationship between delirium and corticosteroid use is uncertain. The objective of the present study was to describe patient characteristics, treatments and outcomes among older adults hospitalized with COVID-19, with a focus on dexamethasone use and delirium incidence. METHODS: We completed this retrospective cohort study at 7 sites (including acute care, rehabilitation and long-term care settings) in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. We included adults aged 65 years or older, consecutively hospitalized with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, between Mar. 11, 2020, and Apr. 30, 2021. We abstracted patient characteristics and outcomes from charts and analyzed them descriptively. We used a logistic regression model to determine the association between dexamethasone use and delirium incidence. RESULTS: During the study period, 927 patients were admitted to the acute care hospitals with COVID-19. Patients' median age was 79.0 years (interquartile range [IQR] 72.0-87.0), and 417 (45.0%) were female. Most patients were frail (61.9%), based on a Clinical Frailty Scale score of 5 or greater. The prevalence of delirium was 53.6%, and the incidence was 33.1%. Use of restraints was documented in 20.4% of patients. In rehabilitation and long-term care settings (n = 115), patients' median age was 86.0 years (IQR 78.5-91.0), 72 (62.6%) were female and delirium occurred in 17 patients (14.8%). In patients admitted to acute care during wave 2 of the pandemic (Aug. 1, 2020, to Feb. 20, 2021), dexamethasone use had a nonsignificant association with delirium incidence (adjusted odds ratio 1.38, 95% confidence interval 0.77-2.50). Overall, in-hospital death occurred in 262 (28.4%) patients in acute care settings and 28 (24.3%) patients in rehabilitation or long-term care settings. INTERPRETATION: In-hospital death, delirium and use of restraints were common in older adults admitted to hospital with COVID-19. Further research should be directed to improving the quality of care for this population with known vulnerabilities during continued waves of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Comparative-effectiveness research of COVID-19 treatment: a rapid scoping review

Objectives The COVID-19 pandemic has stimulated growing research on treatment options. We aim to provide an overview of the characteristics of studies evaluating COVID-19 treatment. Design Rapid scoping review Data sources Medline, Embase and biorxiv/medrxiv from inception to 15 May 2021. Setting Hospital and community care. Participants COVID-19 patients of all ages. Interventions COVID-19 treatment. Results The literature search identified 616 relevant primary studies of which 188 were randomised controlled trials and 299 relevant evidence syntheses. The studies and evidence syntheses were conducted in 51 and 39 countries, respectively. Most studies enrolled patients admitted to acute care hospitals (84%), included on average 169 participants, with an average age of 60 years, study duration of 28 days, number of effect outcomes of four and number of harm outcomes of one. The most common primary outcome was death (32%). The included studies evaluated 214 treatment options. The most common treatments were tocilizumab (11%), hydroxychloroquine (9%) and convalescent plasma (7%). The most common therapeutic categories were non-steroidal immunosuppressants (18%), steroids (15%) and antivirals (14%). The most common therapeutic categories involving multiple drugs were antimalarials/antibiotics (16%), steroids/non-steroidal immunosuppressants (9%) and antimalarials/antivirals/antivirals (7%). The most common treatments evaluated in systematic reviews were hydroxychloroquine (11%), remdesivir (8%), tocilizumab (7%) and steroids (7%). The evaluated treatment was in favour 50% and 36% of the evaluations, according to the conclusion of the authors of primary studies and evidence syntheses, respectively. Conclusions This rapid scoping review characterised a growing body of comparative-effectiveness primary studies and evidence syntheses. The results suggest future studies should focus on children, elderly ≥65 years of age, patients with mild symptoms, outpatient treatment, multimechanism therapies, harms and active comparators. The results also suggest that future living evidence synthesis and network meta-analysis would provide additional information for decision-makers on managing COVID-19.

Mortality in hospitalized older adults with COVID‐19 during three waves: A multicenter retrospective cohort study

BackgroundThe waves of COVID‐19 infections in Ontario, Canada, were marked by differences in patient characteristics and treatment. Our objectives were to (i) describe patient characteristics, treatment, and outcomes of hospitalized older adults with COVID‐19 between waves 1, 2, and 3, (ii) determine if there was an improvement in in‐hospital mortality in waves 2 and 3 after adjusting for covariates.MethodsThis retrospective cohort study was done in five acute care hospitals in Toronto, Ontario. Consecutive hospitalized older adults aged ≥65 years with confirmed COVID‐19 infection were included. Wave 1 extended from March 11 to July 31, 2020, wave 2 from August 1, 2020 to February 20, 2021, and wave 3 from February 21 to June 30, 2021. Patient characteristics and outcomes were ed from charts. A logistic regression model was used to determine the association between COVID‐19 and in‐hospital mortality in waves 2 and 3 compared with wave 1.ResultsOf the 1671 patients admitted to acute care, 297 (17.8%) were admitted in wave 1, 751 (44.9%) in wave 2, and 623 (37.3%) in wave 3. The median age of our cohort was 77.0 years (interquartile range: 71.0–85.0) and 775 (46.4%) were female. The prevalence of frailty declined in progressive waves. The use of dexamethasone, remdesivir, and tocilizumab was significantly higher in waves 2 and 3 compared with wave 1. In the unadjusted analysis, in‐hospital mortality was unchanged between waves 1 and 2, but it was lower in wave 3 (18.3% vs. 27.4% in wave 1). After adjustment, in‐hospital mortality was unchanged in waves 2 and 3 compared with wave 1.ConclusionIn‐hospital mortality in hospitalized older adults with COVID‐19 was similar between waves 1 and 3. Further research should be done to determine if COVID‐19 therapies have similar benefits for older adults compared with younger adults.

Mortality in hospitalized older adults with COVID-19 during three waves: A multicenter retrospective cohort study.

Background: The waves of COVID-19 infections in Ontario, Canada, were marked by differences in patient characteristics and treatment. Our objectives were to (i) describe patient characteristics, treatment, and outcomes of hospitalized older adults with COVID-19 between waves 1, 2, and 3, (ii) determine if there was an improvement in in-hospital mortality in waves 2 and 3 after adjusting for covariates. Methods: This retrospective cohort study was done in five acute care hospitals in Toronto, Ontario. Consecutive hospitalized older adults aged ≥65 years with confirmed COVID-19 infection were included. Wave 1 extended from March 11 to July 31, 2020, wave 2 from August 1, 2020 to February 20, 2021, and wave 3 from February 21 to June 30, 2021. Patient characteristics and outcomes were abstracted from charts. A logistic regression model was used to determine the association between COVID-19 and in-hospital mortality in waves 2 and 3 compared with wave 1. Results: Of the 1671 patients admitted to acute care, 297 (17.8%) were admitted in wave 1, 751 (44.9%) in wave 2, and 623 (37.3%) in wave 3. The median age of our cohort was 77.0 years (interquartile range: 71.0-85.0) and 775 (46.4%) were female. The prevalence of frailty declined in progressive waves. The use of dexamethasone, remdesivir, and tocilizumab was significantly higher in waves 2 and 3 compared with wave 1. In the unadjusted analysis, in-hospital mortality was unchanged between waves 1 and 2, but it was lower in wave 3 (18.3% vs. 27.4% in wave 1). After adjustment, in-hospital mortality was unchanged in waves 2 and 3 compared with wave 1. Conclusion: In-hospital mortality in hospitalized older adults with COVID-19 was similar between waves 1 and 3. Further research should be done to determine if COVID-19 therapies have similar benefits for older adults compared with younger adults.

Barriers and facilitators to virtual care in a geriatric medicine clinic: a semi-structured interview study of patient, caregiver and healthcare provider perspectives.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19-related physical distancing measures necessitated widespread adoption of virtual care (i.e. telephone or videoconference), but patients, caregivers and healthcare providers raised concerns about its implementation and sustainability given barriers faced by older adults. OBJECTIVE: To describe barriers and facilitators experienced by people accessing and providing virtual care in a geriatric medicine clinic. DESIGN: Qualitative semi-structured interview study. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: We recruited and interviewed 20 English-speaking patients, caregivers and healthcare providers who participated in virtual care at St. Michael's Hospital's geriatric medicine clinic, Toronto, Canada, between 22 October 2020 and 23 January 2021. METHODS: We analyzed data in two stages: framework analysis and deductive coding to the Theoretical Domains Framework. RESULTS: We included six healthcare providers, seven patients and seven caregivers. We identified eight themes: impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on virtual care uptake, complexity of virtually caring for older adults, uncertain accuracy of virtual assessments, inequity in access to virtual care, importance of caring for the patient-caregiver dyad, assimilating technology into the lives of older adults, impact of technology-related factors on virtual care uptake and impact of clinic processes on integration of virtual care into outpatient care. Further, we identified knowledge, skills, belief in capabilities, and environmental context and resources as key barriers and facilitators to uptake. CONCLUSIONS: Patients, caregivers and healthcare providers believe that there is a role for virtual care after COVID-19-related physical distancing measures relax, but we must tailor implementation of virtual care programs for older adults based on identified barriers and facilitators.

Impact of restricted visitation policies in hospitals on patients, family members and healthcare providers during the COVID-19 pandemic: a scoping review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Flexible visitation policies in hospitals are an important component of care that contributes to reduced stress and increased satisfaction among patients and their family members. Early evidence suggests restricted visitation policies enacted in hospitals during the COVID-19 pandemic are having unintended consequences on patients, family members and healthcare providers. There is a need for a comprehensive summary of the impacts of restricted visitation policies on key stakeholders and approaches to mitigate that impact. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will conduct a scoping review as per the Arksey-O'Malley 5-stage scoping review method and the Scoping Review Methods Manual by the Joanna Briggs Institute. We will search relevant electronic databases (eg, CINAHL, MEDLINE, PsycINFO), grey literature and preprint repositories. We will include all study designs including qualitative and quantitative methodologies (excluding protocols) as well as reports, opinions and editorials, to identify the broad impact of restricted hospital visitation policies due to the COVID-19 pandemic on patients, family members or healthcare providers of hospitalised patients, and approaches taken or proposed to mitigate this impact. Two reviewers will calibrate the screening criteria and data abstraction form and will independently screen studies and abstract the data. Narrative synthesis with thematic analysis will be performed. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not applicable as this review will be conducted on published literature only. This scoping review will identify, describe and categorise impacts of restricted hospital visitation policies due to the COVID-19 pandemic on patients, family members and healthcare providers of hospitalised patients, and approaches that have been taken to mitigate impact. We will provide a comprehensive synthesis by developing a framework of restricted visitation policies and associated impacts. Our results will inform the development of consensus statements on restricted visitation policies to be implemented in future pandemics. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020221662.

Safety and effectiveness of dose-sparing strategies for intramuscular seasonal influenza vaccine: a rapid scoping review.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this rapid scoping review was to identify studies of dose-sparing strategies for administration of intramuscular seasonal influenza vaccines in healthy individuals of all ages. METHODS: Comprehensive literature searches were executed in MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane library. The grey literature was searched via international clinical trial registries for relevant studies published in English in the last 20 years. We included studies in healthy humans of any age that used any dose-sparing strategy to administer intramuscular seasonal influenza vaccines. Title/abstract and full-text screening were carried out by pairs of reviewers independently. Data extraction was conducted by a single reviewer and verified by a second reviewer. Our outcomes were influenza infections, intensive care unit admission, pneumonia, hospitalisations, adverse events and mortality. Results were summarised descriptively. RESULTS: A total of 13 studies with 10 351 participants were included in the review and all studies were randomised controlled trials (RCTs) conducted between 2006 and 2019. The most common interventions were the trivalent influenza vaccine (n=10), followed by the quadrivalent influenza vaccine (n=4). Nine studies included infants/toddlers 6-36 months old and one of these studies also included children and adolescents. In these nine studies, no clinical effectiveness outcomes were reported. Of the four adult studies (≥18 years), two studies reported on effectiveness outcomes, however, only one RCT reported on laboratory-confirmed influenza. CONCLUSIONS: Due to the low number of studies in healthy adults and the lack of studies assessing confirmed influenza and influenza-like illness, there remains a need for further evaluation.

An environmental scan of visitation policies in Canadian intensive care units during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic.

PURPOSE: In response to the rapid spread of SARS-CoV-2, hospitals in Canada enacted temporary visitor restrictions to limit the spread of COVID-19 and preserve personal protective equipment supplies. This study describes the extent, variation, and fluctuation of Canadian adult intensive care unit (ICU) visitation policies before and during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: We conducted an environmental scan of Canadian hospital visitation policies throughout the first wave of the pandemic. We conducted a two-phased study analyzing both quantitative and qualitative data. RESULTS: We collected 257 documents with reference to visitation policies (preCOVID, 101 [39%]; midCOVID, 71 [28%]; and lateCOVID, 85 [33%]). Of these 257 documents, 38 (15%) were ICU-specific and 70 (27%) referenced the ICU. Most policies during the midCOVID/lateCOVID pandemic period allowed no visitors with specific exceptions (e.g., end-of-life). Framework analysis revealed five overarching themes: 1) reasons for restricted visitation policies; 2) visitation policies and expectations; 3) exceptions to visitation policy; 4) patient and family-centred care; and 5) communication and transparency. CONCLUSIONS: During the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, most Canadian hospitals had public-facing visitor restriction policies with specific exception categories, most commonly for patients at end-of-life, patients requiring assistance, or COVID-19 positive patients (varying from not allowed to case-by-case). Further studies are needed to understand the consistency with which visitation policies were operationalized and how they may have impacted patient- and family-centred care.

RéSUMé: OBJECTIF: En réponse à la propagation rapide du SRAS-CoV-2, les hôpitaux du Canada ont adopté des restrictions temporaires pour les visites afin de limiter la propagation de la COVID-19 et de préserver les stocks d'équipements de protection individuelle. Cette étude décrit l'ampleur, les variations et fluctuations des politiques canadiennes concernant les visites aux unités de soins intensifs (USI) pour adultes avant et pendant la première vague de la pandémie de COVID-19. MéTHODE: Nous avons réalisé une étude de milieu des politiques hospitalières canadiennes concernant les visites tout au long de la première vague de la pandémie. Nous avons mené une étude en deux phases analysant des données quantitatives et qualitatives. RéSULTATS: Nous avons recueilli 257 documents faisant référence aux politiques de visites (pré-COVID, 101 [39 %]; mid-COVID, 71 [28 %]; et COVID-tardif, 85 [33 %]). Sur ces 257 documents, 38 (15 %) étaient spécifiques aux USI et 70 (27 %) faisaient référence aux USI. La plupart des politiques au cours de la période pandémique mid-COVID/COVID-tardif ne permettaient aucune visite sauf exception spécifique (p. ex., fin de vie). L'analyse du cadre a révélé cinq thèmes généraux : 1) les raisons des restrictions des politiques de visites; 2) les politiques et attentes en matière de visites; 3) les exceptions aux politiques de visites; 4) les soins aux patients et centrés sur la famille; et 5) la communication et la transparence. CONCLUSION: Au cours de la première vague de la pandémie de COVID-19, la plupart des hôpitaux canadiens avaient des politiques de restriction des visites s'appliquant au public avec des catégories d'exception spécifiques, le plus souvent pour les patients en fin de vie, les patients nécessitant de l'aide ou les patients COVID-positifs (variant d'une interdiction au cas par cas). D'autres études sont nécessaires pour comprendre l'uniformité avec laquelle les politiques de visites ont été mises en œuvre et comment elles ont pu avoir une incidence sur les soins centrés sur le patient et la famille.

Evaluation of the SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Response to the BNT162b2 Vaccine in Patients Undergoing Hemodialysis.

Importance: Patients undergoing hemodialysis have a high mortality rate associated with COVID-19, and this patient population often has a poor response to vaccinations. Randomized clinical trials for COVID-19 vaccines included few patients with kidney disease; therefore, vaccine immunogenicity is uncertain in this population. Objective: To evaluate the SARS-CoV-2 antibody response in patients undergoing chronic hemodialysis following 1 vs 2 doses of BNT162b2 COVID-19 vaccination compared with health care workers serving as controls and convalescent serum. Design, Setting, and Participants: A prospective, single-center cohort study was conducted between February 2 and April 17, 2021, in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Participants included 142 patients receiving in-center hemodialysis and 35 health care worker controls. Exposures: BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) COVID-19 vaccine. Main Outcomes and Measures: SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies to the spike protein (anti-spike), receptor binding domain (anti-RBD), and nucleocapsid protein (anti-NP). Results: Among the 142 participants undergoing maintenance hemodialysis, 94 (66%) were men; median age was 72 (interquartile range, 62-79) years. SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies were measured in 66 patients receiving 1 vaccine dose following a public health policy change, 76 patients receiving 2 vaccine doses, and 35 health care workers receiving 2 vaccine doses. Detectable anti-NP suggestive of natural SARS-CoV-2 infection was detected in 15 of 142 (11%) patients at baseline, and only 3 patients had prior COVID-19 confirmed by reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction testing. Two additional patients contracted COVID-19 after receiving 2 doses of vaccine. In 66 patients receiving a single BNT162b2 dose, seroconversion occurred in 53 (80%) for anti-spike and 36 (55%) for anti-RBD by 28 days postdose, but a robust response, defined by reaching the median levels of antibodies in convalescent serum from COVID-19 survivors, was noted in only 15 patients (23%) for anti-spike and 4 (6%) for anti-RBD in convalescent serum from COVID-19 survivors. In patients receiving 2 doses of BNT162b2 vaccine, seroconversion occurred in 69 of 72 (96%) for anti-spike and 63 of 72 (88%) for anti-RBD by 2 weeks following the second dose and median convalescent serum levels were reached in 52 of 72 patients (72%) for anti-spike and 43 of 72 (60%) for anti-RBD. In contrast, all 35 health care workers exceeded the median level of anti-spike and anti-RBD found in convalescent serum 2 to 4 weeks after the second dose. Conclusions and Relevance: This study suggests poor immunogenicity 28 days following a single dose of BNT162b2 vaccine in the hemodialysis population, supporting adherence to recommended vaccination schedules and avoiding delay of the second dose in these at-risk individuals.

Diagnostic accuracy of virtual cognitive assessment and testing: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Virtual (i.e., telephone or videoconference) care was broadly implemented because of the COVID-19 pandemic. Our objectives were to compare the diagnostic accuracy of virtual to in-person cognitive assessments and tests and barriers to virtual cognitive assessment implementation. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. SETTING: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CDSR, CENTRAL, PsycINFO, and gray literature (inception to April 1, 2020). PARTICIPANTS AND INTERVENTIONS: Studies describing the accuracy or reliability of virtual compared with in-person cognitive assessments (i.e., reference standard) for diagnosing dementia or mild cognitive impairment (MCI), identifying virtual cognitive test cutoffs suggestive of dementia or MCI, or describing correlations between virtual and in-person cognitive test scores in adults. MEASUREMENTS: Reviewer pairs independently conducted study screening, data abstraction, and risk of bias appraisal. RESULTS: Our systematic review included 121 studies (15,832 patients). Two studies demonstrated that virtual cognitive assessments could diagnose dementia with good reliability compared with in-person cognitive assessments: weighted kappa 0.51 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.41-0.62) and 0.63 (95% CI 0.4-0.9), respectively. Videoconference-based cognitive assessments were 100% sensitive and specific for diagnosing dementia compared with in-person cognitive assessments in a third study. No studies compared telephone with in-person cognitive assessment accuracy. The Telephone Interview for Cognitive Status (TICS; maximum score 41) and modified TICS (maximum score 50) were the only virtual cognitive tests compared with in-person cognitive assessments in >2 studies with extractable data for meta-analysis. The optimal TICS cutoff suggestive of dementia ranged from 22 to 33, but it was 28 or 30 when testing was conducted in English (10 studies; 1673 patients). Optimal modified TICS cutoffs suggestive of MCI ranged from 28 to 31 (3 studies; 525 patients). Sensory impairment was the most often voiced condition affecting assessment. CONCLUSION: Although there is substantial evidence supporting virtual cognitive assessment and testing, we identified critical gaps in diagnostic certainty.

Will COVID-19 result in a giant step backwards for women in academic science?

COVID-19 has disproportionately placed women in academic science on the frontlines of domestic and clinical care compared to men. As a result, women in science are publishing less and potentially acquiring less funding during COVID-19 than compared to before. This widens the pre-existing gap between men and women in prevailing, publication-based measures of productivity used to determine academic career progression. Early career women and those with intersectional identities associated with greater inequities, are facing unique challenges during this time. We argue that women will fall further behind unless academic reward systems adjust how and what they evaluate. We propose several strategies that academic institutions, funders, journals, and men in academic science can take.

Factors associated with virtual care access in older adults: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: virtual care has been critical during the COVID-19 pandemic, but there may be inequities in accessing different virtual modalities (i.e. telephone or videoconference). OBJECTIVE: to describe patient-specific factors associated with receiving different virtual care modalities. DESIGN: cross-sectional study. SETTING AND SUBJECTS: we reviewed medical records of all patients assessed virtually in the geriatric medicine clinic at St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Canada, between 17 March and 13 July 2020. METHODS: we derived adjusted odds ratios (OR), risk differences (RDs) and marginal and predicted probabilities, with 95% confidence intervals, from a multivariable logistic regression model, which tested the association between having a videoconference assessment (vs. telephone) and patient age, sex, computer ability, education, frailty (Clinical Frailty Scale score), history of cognitive impairment and immigration history; language of assessment and caregiver involvement in assessment. RESULTS: our study included 330 patients (227 telephone and 103 videoconference assessments). The median population age was 83 (Q1-Q3, 76-88) and 45.2% were male. Frailty (adjusted OR 0.62, 0.45-0.85; adjusted RD -0.08, -0.09 to -0.06) and absence of a caregiver (adjusted OR 0.12, 0.06-0.24; adjusted RD -0.35, -0.43 to -0.26) were associated with lower odds of videoconference assessment. Only 32 of 98 (32.7%) patients who independently use a computer participated in videoconference assessments. CONCLUSIONS: older adults who are frail or lack a caregiver to attend assessments with them may not have equitable access to videoconference-based virtual care. Future research should evaluate interventions that support older adults in accessing videoconference assessments.