Transcultural adaptation and psychometric validation of the Thai-Brief Resilient Coping Scale: a cross-sectional study during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic in Thailand.

This study aimed to examine the transcultural adaptation, construct validity, and psychometric properties of the Thai-Brief Resilient Coping Scale (BRCS) among the general population and college students through the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic in Thailand. We invited the 4004 participants to complete sets of anchor-based measurement tools, including depressive symptoms, anxiety symptoms, perceived stress, well-being, and perceived social support. The scale factor structure of the Thai-BRCS was assessed using factor analysis, and nonparametric item response theory (IRT) analysis. The psychometric properties of the Thai-BRCS for validity (convergent and discriminant) and reliability (internal consistency and reproducibility) were assessed. Based on the construct validity testing, factor analysis, and nonparametric IRT analysis reaffirmed the unidimensionality with a one-factor structure of the Thai-BRCS version. For convergent validity, the scale was significantly correlated with all sets of anchor-based measurement tools (all P < 0.001). The discriminant validity was satisfactory with a group of medium and low resilience and the risk of adverse mental outcomes. For scale reliability, it revealed excellent internal consistency (alpha = 0.84, omega = 0.85) and reproducibility (intraclass correlation = 0.91). The Thai-BRCS version fulfills transcultural adaptation with satisfactory psychometric properties to measure psychological resilience in the Thai population during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Service-level barriers to and facilitators of access to services for the treatment of alcohol use disorder and problematic alcohol use: protocol for a scoping review.

INTRODUCTION: Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, substance use health services for treatment of alcohol use disorder and problematic alcohol use (AUD/PAU) were fragmented and challenging to access. The pandemic magnified system weaknesses, often resulting in disruptions of treatment as alcohol use during the pandemic rose. When treatment services were available, utilisation was often low for various reasons. Virtual care was implemented to offset the drop in in-person care, however accessibility was not universal. Identification of the characteristics of treatment services for AUD/PAU that impact accessibility, as perceived by the individuals accessing or providing the services, will provide insights to enable improved access. We will perform a scoping review that will identify characteristics of services for treatment of AUD/PAU that have been identified as barriers to or facilitators of service access from the perspectives of these groups. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will follow scoping review methodological guidance from the Joanna Briggs Institute. Using the OVID platform, we will search Ovid MEDLINE including Epub Ahead of Print and In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, Embase Classic+Embase, APA PsychInfo, Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and CINAHL (Ebsco Platform). Multiple reviewers will screen citations. We will seek studies reporting data collected from individuals with AUD/PAU or providers of treatment for AUD/PAU on service-level factors affecting access to care. We will map barriers to and facilitators of access to AUD/PAU treatment services identified in the relevant studies, stratified by service type and key measures of inequity across service users. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This research will enhance awareness of existing evidence regarding barriers to and facilitators of access to services for the treatment of alcohol use disorder and problematic alcohol use. Findings will be disseminated through publications, conference presentations and a stakeholder meeting. As this is a scoping review of published literature, no ethics approval was required.

Psychological Resilience and Adverse Mental Health Issues in the Thai Population during the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pandemic.

In light of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and the enormous amount of uncertainty caused by it, mental health issues have become a great concern. Evidence regarding the effects of psychological resilience on the Thai population is scarce. We evaluated psychological resilience during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic and its association with the risk of mental health outcomes, such as depression, anxiety, stress, and health-related well-being. This cross-sectional study was a part of the HOME-COVID-19 project, which conducted an online survey of 4004 members of the general population in Thailand using the Brief Resilience Coping Scale. Logistic regression was performed to identify the association between psychological resilience and mental health issues and well-being. Groups with prevalence rates of 43.9%, 39.2%, and 16.9% were classified as low, moderate, and high resilient copers, respectively. Using high resilient copers as a reference group, the low resilient copers had a higher chance of having mental health adversities. The adjusted odds ratio (OR) was 1.89 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.39-2.56; p < 0.001) for depression, 2.13 (95% CI, 1.45-3.14; p < 0.001) for anxiety, 4.61 (95% CI, 3.30-6.45; p < 0.001) for perceived stress, and 3.18 (95% CI, 2.31-4.38; p < 0.001) for low well-being. For the medium resilient copers, only low well-being was found to be statistically significant (OR, 1.60; 95% CI, 1.16-2.20; p = 0.004). It is important that resilience be considered in the development of strategies for managing the COVID-19 pandemic to prevent or reduce adverse mental health outcomes.

Enhancing COVID Rehabilitation with Technology (ECORT): protocol for an open-label, single-site randomized controlled trial evaluating the effectiveness of electronic case management for individuals with persistent COVID-19 symptoms.

BACKGROUND: As of May 2022, Ontario has seen more than 1.3 million cases of COVID-19. While the majority of individuals will recover from infection within 4 weeks, a significant subset experience persistent and often debilitating symptoms, known as "post-COVID syndrome" or "Long COVID." Those with Long COVID experience a wide array of symptoms, with variable severity, including fatigue, cognitive impairment, and shortness of breath. Further, the prevalence and duration of Long COVID is not clear, nor is there evidence on the best course of rehabilitation for individuals to return to their desired level of function. Previous work with chronic conditions has suggested that the addition of electronic case management (ECM) may help to improve outcomes. These platforms provide enhanced connection with care providers, detailed symptom tracking and goal setting, and access to relevant resources. In this study, our primary aim is to determine if the addition of ECM with health coaching improves Long COVID outcomes at 3 months compared to health coaching alone. METHODS: The trial is an open-label, single-site, randomized controlled trial of ECM with health coaching (ECM+) compared to health coaching alone (HC). Both groups will continue to receive usual care. Participants will be randomized equally to receive health coaching (± ECM) for a period of 8 weeks and a 12-week follow-up. Our primary outcome is the WHO Disability Assessment Scale (WHODAS), 36-item self-report total score. Participants will also complete measures of cognition, fatigue, breathlessness, and mental health. Participants and care providers will be asked to complete a brief qualitative interview at the end of the study to evaluate acceptability and implementation of the intervention. DISCUSSION: There is currently little evidence about the optimal treatment of Long COVID patients or the use of digital health platforms in this population. The results of this trial could result in rapid, scalable, and personalized care for people with Long COVID which will decrease morbidity after an acute infection. Results from this study will also inform decision making in Long COVID and treatment guidelines at provincial and national levels. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05019963. Registered on 25 August 2021.

The Impact of Virtual Cancer Care on Chemotherapy Delivery and Clinical Outcomes in Colorectal Cancer Patients Receiving Systemic Therapy: A Pre- and Intra-Pandemic Analysis.

(1) Background: The coronavirus 2019 pandemic has resulted in an abrupt transition to virtual oncology care worldwide. This study's objective is to evaluate chemotherapy delivery and clinical outcomes in patients on systemic treatment for colorectal cancer before and during the pandemic. (2) Methods: Clinical data was collected on patients with colorectal cancer receiving intravenous chemotherapy at The Ottawa Hospital from June 2019 to March 2021. Patients were stratified by whether they were started on chemotherapy pre-pandemic (June 2019-January 2020) or intra-pandemic (February 2020-March 2021). Multiple regression analysis was used to compare outcomes between pandemic periods; (3) Results: There were 220 patients included in this study. The proportion of virtual consultations (1.2% to 64.4%) and follow-up visits (5.2% to 83.3%) increased during the pandemic. There was no difference in the incidence of treatment delays (OR = 1.01, p = 0.78), chemotherapy dose reductions (OR = 0.99, p = 0.69), emergency department visits (OR = 1.23, p = 0.37) or hospitalizations (OR = 0.73, p = 0.43) between pandemic periods. A subgroup analysis revealed no difference in outcomes independent of the presence of metastases; (4) Conclusion: These findings serve as an important quality-care indicator and demonstrate that virtual oncology care appears safe in a cohort of high-risk colorectal cancer patients.

Trends in all-cause mortality and inpatient and outpatient visits for ambulatory care sensitive conditions during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic: A population-based study.

BACKGROUND: The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the management of ambulatory care sensitive conditions (ACSCs) remains unknown. OBJECTIVES: To compare observed and expected (projected based on previous years) trends in all-cause mortality and healthcare use for ACSCs in the first year of the pandemic (March 2020 to March 2021). DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: We conducted a population-based study using provincial health administrative data on general adul population (Ontario, Canada). OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Monthly all-cause mortality, and hospitalizations, emergency department (ED) and outpatient visit rates (per 100,000 people at-risk) for seven combined ACSCs (asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, angina, congestive heart failure, hypertension, diabetes, and epilepsy) during the first year were compared with similar periods in previous years (2016-2019) by fitting monthly time series autoregressive integrated moving-average models. RESULTS: Compared to previous years, all-cause mortality rates increased at the beginning of the pandemic (observed rate in March to May 2020 of 79.98 vs. projected of 71.24 [66.35-76.50]) and then returned to expected in June 2020-except among immigrants and people with mental health conditions where they remained elevated. Hospitalization and ED visit rates for ACSCs remained lower than projected throughout the first year: observed hospitalization rate of 37.29 versus projected of 52.07 (47.84-56.68); observed ED visit rate of 92.55 versus projected of 134.72 (124.89-145.33). ACSC outpatient visit rates decreased initially (observed rate of 4299.57 vs. projected of 5060.23 [4712.64-5433.46]) and then returned to expected in June 2020.

Disparities and Factors Associated with Coronavirus Disease-2019-Related Public Stigma: A Cross-Sectional Study in Thailand.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-related public stigma is a major challenge, with scarce available evidence. This study aimed to determine the disparities and factors associated with COVID-19-related public stigma in the Thai population. We conducted a cross-sectional study involving a voluntary online survey in Thailand from 21 April 2020 to 4 May 2020. We invited 4004 participants to complete a series of questionnaires, including the validated COVID-19 public stigma scale and questions on relevant COVID-19-related psychosocial issues. Multinomial logistic regression was performed to investigate the factors associated with COVID-19-related public stigma. The prevalence of COVID-19-related public stigma was 24.2% (95% confidence interval [CI], 22.2-26.2) for no/minimal, 35.5% (95% CI, 33.4-37.6) for moderate, and 40.3% (95% CI, 38.2-42.4) for high. We observed disparities in the prevalence of COVID-19-related public stigma according to participant characteristics and psychosocial factors. Using the no/minimal group as a reference group, the six predominant risk factors significantly associated with a moderate and high degree of COVID-19-related public stigma were middle-aged or older adults, male, divorced/widowed/separated, current quarantine status, moderate/severe fear of COVID-19, and medium/high perceived risk of COVID-19. Additional risk factors significantly related to a high degree of COVID-19-related public stigma were religion (Buddhist), region of residence (non-capital city), and exposure to COVID-19-related information. Disparities in COVID-19-related public stigma due to sociodemographic and psychosocial issues are frequent in the Thai population. To reduce public stigmatization, early identification of vulnerable groups and the development of tailored mitigation strategies should be implemented during the pandemic.

Disparities and Factors Associated with Coronavirus Disease-2019-Related Public Stigma: A Cross-Sectional Study in Thailand

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-related public stigma is a major challenge, with scarce available evidence. This study aimed to determine the disparities and factors associated with COVID-19-related public stigma in the Thai population. We conducted a cross-sectional study involving a voluntary online survey in Thailand from 21 April 2020 to 4 May 2020. We invited 4004 participants to complete a series of questionnaires, including the validated COVID-19 public stigma scale and questions on relevant COVID-19-related psychosocial issues. Multinomial logistic regression was performed to investigate the factors associated with COVID-19-related public stigma. The prevalence of COVID-19-related public stigma was 24.2% (95% confidence interval [CI], 22.2–26.2) for no/minimal, 35.5% (95% CI, 33.4–37.6) for moderate, and 40.3% (95% CI, 38.2–42.4) for high. We observed disparities in the prevalence of COVID-19-related public stigma according to participant characteristics and psychosocial factors. Using the no/minimal group as a reference group, the six predominant risk factors significantly associated with a moderate and high degree of COVID-19-related public stigma were middle-aged or older adults, male, divorced/widowed/separated, current quarantine status, moderate/severe fear of COVID-19, and medium/high perceived risk of COVID-19. Additional risk factors significantly related to a high degree of COVID-19-related public stigma were religion (Buddhist), region of residence (non-capital city), and exposure to COVID-19-related information. Disparities in COVID-19-related public stigma due to sociodemographic and psychosocial issues are frequent in the Thai population. To reduce public stigmatization, early identification of vulnerable groups and the development of tailored mitigation strategies should be implemented during the pandemic.

Inclusion of Older Adults in Digital Health Technologies to Support Hospital-to-Home Transitions: Secondary Analysis of a Rapid Review and Equity-Informed Recommendations.

BACKGROUND: Digital health technologies have been proposed to support hospital-to-home transition for older adults. The COVID-19 pandemic and the associated physical distancing guidelines have propelled a shift toward digital health technologies. However, the characteristics of older adults who participated in digital health research interventions to support hospital-to-home transitions remain unclear. This information is needed to assess whether current digital health interventions are generalizable to the needs of the broader older adult population. OBJECTIVE: This rapid review of the existing literature aimed to identify the characteristics of the populations targeted by studies testing the implementation of digital health interventions designed to support hospital-to-home transitions, identify the characteristics of the samples included in studies testing digital health interventions used to support hospital-to-home transitions, and create recommendations for enhancing the diversity of samples within future hospital-to-home digital health interventions. METHODS: A rapid review methodology based on scoping review guidelines by Arksey and O'Malley was developed. A search for peer-reviewed literature published between 2010 and 2021 on digital health solutions that support hospital-to-home transitions for older adults was conducted using MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL databases. The data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and qualitative content analysis. The Sex- and Gender-Based Analysis Plus lens theoretically guided the study design, analysis, and interpretation. RESULTS: A total of 34 studies met the inclusion criteria. Our findings indicate that many groups of older adults were excluded from these interventions and remain understudied. Specifically, the oldest old and those living with cognitive impairments were excluded from the studies included in this review. In addition, very few studies have described the characteristics related to gender diversity, education, race, ethnicity, and culture. None of the studies commented on the sexual orientation of the participants. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first review, to our knowledge, that has mapped the literature focusing on the inclusion of older adults in digital hospital-to-home interventions. The findings suggest that the literature on digital health interventions tends to operationalize older adults as a homogenous group, ignoring the heterogeneity in older age definitions. Inconsistency in the literature surrounding the characteristics of the included participants suggests a need for further study to better understand how digital technologies to support hospital-to-home transitions can be inclusive.

Assessing the Implementation and Effectiveness of the Electronic Patient-Reported Outcome Tool for Older Adults With Complex Care Needs: Mixed Methods Study.

BACKGROUND: Goal-oriented care is being adopted to deliver person-centered primary care to older adults with multimorbidity and complex care needs. Although this model holds promise, its implementation remains a challenge. Digital health solutions may enable processes to improve adoption; however, they require evaluation to determine feasibility and impact. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to evaluate the implementation and effectiveness of the electronic Patient-Reported Outcome (ePRO) mobile app and portal system, designed to enable goal-oriented care delivery in interprofessional primary care practices. The research questions driving this study are as follows: Does ePRO improve quality of life and self-management in older adults with complex needs? What mechanisms are likely driving observed outcomes? METHODS: A multimethod, pragmatic randomized controlled trial using a stepped-wedge design and ethnographic case studies was conducted over a 15-month period in 6 comprehensive primary care practices across Ontario with a target enrollment of 176 patients. The 6 practices were randomized into either early (3-month control period; 12-month intervention) or late (6-month control period; 9-month intervention) groups. The primary outcome measure of interest was the Assessment of Quality of Life-4D (AQoL-4D). Data were collected at baseline and at 3 monthly intervals for the duration of the trial. Ethnographic data included observations and interviews with patients and providers at the midpoint and end of the intervention. Outcome data were analyzed using linear models conducted at the individual level, accounting for cluster effects at the practice level, and ethnographic data were analyzed using qualitative description and framework analysis methods. RESULTS: Recruitment challenges resulted in fewer sites and participants than expected; of the 176 target, only 142 (80.6%) patients were identified as eligible to participate because of lower-than-expected provider participation and fewer-than-expected patients willing to participate or perceived as ready to engage in goal-setting. Of the 142 patients approached, 45 (32%) participated. Patients set a variety of goals related to self-management, mental health, social health, and overall well-being. Owing to underpowering, the impact of ePRO on quality of life could not be definitively assessed; however, the intervention group, ePRO plus usual care (mean 15.28, SD 18.60) demonstrated a nonsignificant decrease in quality of life (t24=-1.20; P=.24) when compared with usual care only (mean 21.76, SD 2.17). The ethnographic data reveal a complex implementation process in which the meaningfulness (or coherence) of the technology to individuals' lives and work acted as a key driver of adoption and tool appraisal. CONCLUSIONS: This trial experienced many unexpected and significant implementation challenges related to recruitment and engagement. Future studies could be improved through better alignment of the research methods and intervention to the complex and diverse clinical settings, dynamic goal-oriented care process, and readiness of provider and patient participants. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02917954; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02917954.

Exposure to COVID-19-Related Information and its Association With Mental Health Problems in Thailand: Nationwide, Cross-sectional Survey Study.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has had a negative impact on both the physical and mental health of individuals worldwide. Evidence regarding the association between mental health problems and information exposure among Thai citizens during the COVID-19 outbreak is limited. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to explore the relationship between information exposure and mental health problems during the COVID-19 pandemic in Thailand. METHODS: Between April 21 and May 4, 2020, we conducted a cross-sectional, nationwide online survey of the general population in Thailand. We categorized the duration of exposure to COVID-19-related information as follows: <1 h/day (reference group), 1-2 h/day, and ≥3 h/day. Mental health outcomes were assessed using the Patient Health Questionnaire-9, the Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 scale, the Perceived Stress Scale-10, and the Insomnia Severity Index for symptoms of depression, anxiety, perceived stress, and insomnia, respectively. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to evaluate the relationship between information exposure and the risk of developing the aforementioned symptoms. An ancillary analysis using multivariable multinomial logistic regression models was also conducted to assess the possible dose-response relationship across the severity strata of mental health problems. RESULTS: Of the 4322 eligible participants, 4004 (92.6%) completed the online survey. Of them, 1481 (37.0%), 1644 (41.1%), and 879 (22.0%) participants were exposed to COVID-19-related information for less than 1 hour per day, 1 to 2 hours per day, or 3 or more hours per day, respectively. The major source of information related to the COVID-19 pandemic was social media (95.3%), followed by traditional media (68.7%) and family members (34.9%). Those exposed to information for 3 or more hours per day had a higher risk of developing symptoms of depression (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 1.35, 95% CI 1.03-1.76; P=.03), anxiety (adjusted OR 1.88, 95% CI 1.43-2.46; P<.001), and insomnia (adjusted OR 1.52, 95% CI 1.17-1.97; P=.001) than people exposed to information for less than 1 hour per day. Meanwhile, people exposed to information for 1 to 2 hours per day were only at risk of developing symptoms of anxiety (adjusted OR 1.35, 95% CI 1.08-1.69; P=.008). However, no association was found between information exposure and the risk of perceived stress. In the ancillary analysis, a dose-response relationship was observed between information exposure of 3 or more hours per day and the severity of mental health problems. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that social media is the main source of COVID-19-related information. Moreover, people who are exposed to information for 3 or more hours per day are more likely to develop psychological problems, including depression, anxiety, and insomnia. Longitudinal studies investigating the long-term effects of COVID-19-related information exposure on mental health are warranted.

COVID-19 Public Stigma Scale (COVID-PSS): development, validation, psychometric analysis and interpretation.

OBJECTIVE: Amid the COVID-19 pandemic, social stigma towards COVID-19 infection has become a major component of public discourse and social phenomena. As such, we aimed to develop and validate the COVID-19 Public Stigma Scale (COVID-PSS). DESIGN AND SETTING: National-based survey cross-sectional study during the lockdown in Thailand. PARTICIPANTS: We invited the 4004 adult public to complete a set of measurement tools, including the COVID-PSS, global fear of COVID-19, perceived risk of COVID-19 infection, Bogardus Social Distance Scale, Pain Intensity Scale and Insomnia Severity Index. METHODS: Factor structure dimensionality was constructed and reaffirmed with model fit by exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses and non-parametric item response theory (IRT) analysis. Psychometric properties for validity and reliability were tested. An anchor-based approach was performed for classifying the proper cut-off scores. RESULTS: After factor analysis, IRT analysis and test for model fit, we created the final 10-item COVID-PSS with a three-factor structure: stereotype, prejudice and fear. Face and content validity were established through the public and experts' perspectives. The COVID-PSS was significantly correlated (Spearman rank, 95% CI) with the global fear of COVID-19 (0.68, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.70), perceived risk of COVID-19 infection (0.79, 95% CI 0.77 to 0.80) and the Bogardus Social Distance Scale (0.50, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.53), indicating good convergent validity. The correlation statistics between the COVID-PSS and the Pain Intensity Scale and Insomnia Severity Index were <0.2, supporting the discriminant validity. The reliability of the COVID-PSS was satisfactory, with good internal consistency (Cronbach's α of 0.85, 95% CI 0.84 to 0.86) and test-retest reproducibility (intraclass correlation of 0.94, 95% CI 0.86 to 0.96). The proposed cut-off scores were as follows: no/minimal (≤18), moderate (19-25) and high (≥26) public stigma towards COVID-19 infection. CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-PSS is practical and suitable for measuring stigma towards COVID-19 in a public health survey. However, cross-cultural adaptation may be needed.

The Ontario Integrated Supervised Injection Services Cohort Study of People Who Inject Drugs in Toronto, Canada (OiSIS-Toronto): Cohort Profile.

The Ontario Integrated Supervised Injection Services cohort in Toronto, Canada (OiSIS-Toronto) is an open prospective cohort of people who inject drugs (PWID). OiSIS-Toronto was established to evaluate the impacts of supervised consumption services (SCS) integrated within three community health agencies on health status and service use. The cohort includes PWID who do and do not use SCS, recruited via self-referral, snowball sampling, and community/street outreach. From 5 November 2018 to 19 March 2020, we enrolled 701 eligible PWID aged 18+ who lived in Toronto. Participants complete interviewer-administered questionnaires at baseline and semi-annually thereafter and are asked to consent to linkages with provincial healthcare administrative databases (90.2% consented; of whom 82.4% were successfully linked) and SCS client databases. At baseline, 86.5% of participants (64.0% cisgender men, median ([IQR] age= 39 [33-49]) had used SCS in the previous 6 months, of whom most (69.7%) used SCS for <75% of their injections. A majority (56.8%) injected daily, and approximately half (48.0%) reported fentanyl as their most frequently injected drug. As of 23 April 2021, 291 (41.5%) participants had returned for follow-up. Administrative and self-report data are being used to (1) evaluate the impact of integrated SCS on healthcare use, uptake of community health agency services, and health outcomes; (2) identify barriers and facilitators to SCS use; and (3) identify potential enhancements to SCS delivery. Nested sub-studies include evaluation of "safer opioid supply" programs and impacts of COVID-19.

Single session compared with multiple sessions of education and exercise for older adults with spinal pain in an advanced practice physiotherapy model of care: protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a single session compared with multiple sessions of education and exercise for older adults with spinal pain treated conservatively in an advanced practice physiotherapy model of care. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: In this pragmatic randomised controlled trial, 152 older adults (≥65 years old) with neck or back pain initially referred for a consultation in neurosurgery, but treated conservatively, will be recruited through the advanced practice physiotherapy neurosurgery CareAxis programme in the Montreal region (Quebec, Canada). In the CareAxis programme, older patients with spinal pain are triaged by an advance practice physiotherapist and are offered conservative care and only potential surgical candidates are referred to a neurosurgeon. Participants will be randomised into one of two arms: 1-a single session or 2-multiple sessions (6 sessions over 12 weeks) of education and exercise with the advance practice physiotherapist (1:1 ratio). The primary outcome measure will be the Brief Pain Inventory (pain severity and interference subscales). Secondary measures will include self-reported disability (the Neck Disability Index or Oswestry Disability Index), the Pain Catastrophizing Scale, satisfaction with care questionnaires (9-item Visit-specific Satisfaction Questionnaire and MedRisk), and the EQ-5D-5L. Participants' healthcare resources use and related costs will be measured. Outcomes will be collected at baseline and at 6, 12 and 26 weeks after enrolment. Intention-to-treat analyses will be performed, and repeated mixed-model analysis of variance will assess differences between treatment arms. Cost-utility analyses will be conducted from the perspective of the healthcare system. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval has been obtained from the Comité d'éthique de la recherche du CIUSS de l'Est-de-l'Île-de-Montréal (FWA00001935 and IRB00002087). Results of this study will be presented to different stakeholders, published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at international conferences. PROTOCOL VERSION: V.4 August 2021. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04868591; Pre-results.

A comprehensive review of prioritised interventions to improve the health and wellbeing of persons with lived experience of homelessness.

Background: Homelessness has emerged as a public health priority, with growing numbers of vulnerable populations despite advances in social welfare. In February 2020, the United Nations passed a historic resolution, identifying the need to adopt social-protection systems and ensure access to safe and affordable housing for all. The establishment of housing stability is a critical outcome that intersects with other social inequities. Prior research has shown that in comparison to the general population, people experiencing homelessness have higher rates of infectious diseases, chronic illnesses, and mental-health disorders, along with disproportionately poorer outcomes. Hence, there is an urgent need to identify effective interventions to improve the lives of people living with homelessness. Objectives: The objective of this systematic review is to identify, appraise, and synthesise the best available evidence on the benefits and cost-effectiveness of interventions to improve the health and social outcomes of people experiencing homelessness. Search Methods: In consultation with an information scientist, we searched nine bibliographic databases, including Medline, EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL, from database inception to February 10, 2020 using keywords and MeSH terms. We conducted a focused grey literature search and consulted experts for additional studies. Selection Criteria: Teams of two reviewers independently screened studies against our inclusion criteria. We included randomised control trials (RCTs) and quasi-experimental studies conducted among populations experiencing homelessness in high-income countries. Eligible interventions included permanent supportive housing (PSH), income assistance, standard case management (SCM), peer support, mental health interventions such as assertive community treatment (ACT), intensive case management (ICM), critical time intervention (CTI) and injectable antipsychotics, and substance-use interventions, including supervised consumption facilities (SCFs), managed alcohol programmes and opioid agonist therapy. Outcomes of interest were housing stability, mental health, quality of life, substance use, hospitalisations, employment and income. Data Collection and Analysis: Teams of two reviewers extracted data in duplicate and independently. We assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. We performed our statistical analyses using RevMan 5.3. For dichotomous data, we used odds ratios and risk ratios with 95% confidence intervals. For continuous data, we used the mean difference (MD) with a 95% CI if the outcomes were measured in the same way between trials. We used the standardised mean difference with a 95% CI to combine trials that measured the same outcome but used different methods of measurement. Whenever possible, we pooled effect estimates using a random-effects model. Main Results: The search resulted in 15,889 citations. We included 86 studies (128 citations) that examined the effectiveness and/or cost-effectiveness of interventions for people with lived experience of homelessness. Studies were conducted in the United States (73), Canada (8), United Kingdom (2), the Netherlands (2) and Australia (1). The studies were of low to moderate certainty, with several concerns regarding the risk of bias. PSH was found to have significant benefits on housing stability as compared to usual care. These benefits impacted both high- and moderate-needs populations with significant cimorbid mental illness and substance-use disorders. PSH may also reduce emergency department visits and days spent hospitalised. Most studies found no significant benefit of PSH on mental-health or substance-use outcomes. The effect on quality of life was also mixed and unclear. In one study, PSH resulted in lower odds of obtaining employment. The effect on income showed no significant differences. Income assistance appeared to have some benefits in improving housing stability, particularly in the form of rental subsidies. Although short-term improvement in depression and perceived stress levels were reported, no evidence of the long-term effect on mental health measures was found. No consistent impact on the outcomes of quality of life, substance use, hospitalisations, employment status, or earned income could be detected when compared with usual services. SCM interventions may have a small beneficial effect on housing stability, though results were mixed. Results for peer support interventions were also mixed, though no benefit was noted in housing stability specifically. Mental health interventions (ICM, ACT, CTI) appeared to reduce the number of days homeless and had varied effects on psychiatric symptoms, quality of life, and substance use over time. Cost analyses of PSH interventions reported mixed results. Seven studies showed that PSH interventions were associated with increased cost to payers and that the cost of the interventions were only partially offset by savings in medical- and social-services costs. Six studies revealed that PSH interventions saved the payers money. Two studies focused on the cost-effectiveness of income-assistance interventions. For each additional day housed, clients who received income assistance incurred additional costs of US$45 (95% CI, -$19, -$108) from the societal perspective. In addition, the benefits gained from temporary financial assistance were found to outweigh the costs, with a net savings of US$20,548. The economic implications of case management interventions (SCM, ICM, ACT, CTI) was highly uncertain. SCM clients were found to incur higher costs than those receiving the usual care. For ICM, all included studies suggested that the intervention may be cost-offset or cost-effective. Regarding ACT, included studies consistently revealed that ACT saved payers money and improved health outcomes than usual care. Despite having comparable costs (US$52,574 vs. US$51,749), CTI led to greater nonhomeless nights (508 vs. 450 nights) compared to usual services. Authors' Conclusions: PSH interventions improved housing stability for people living with homelessness. High-intensity case management and income-assistance interventions may also benefit housing stability. The majority of included interventions inconsistently detected benefits for mental health, quality of life, substance use, employment and income. These results have important implications for public health, social policy, and community programme implementation. The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the urgent need to tackle systemic inequality and address social determinants of health. Our review provides timely evidence on PSH, income assistance, and mental health interventions as a means of improving housing stability. PSH has major cost and policy implications and this approach could play a key role in ending homelessness. Evidence-based reviews like this one can guide practice and outcome research and contribute to advancing international networks committed to solving homelessness.

Benefits and obstacles to cell therapy in neonates: The INCuBAToR (Innovative Neonatal Cellular Therapy for Bronchopulmonary Dysplasia: Accelerating Translation of Research).

Cell-based therapies hold promise to substantially curb complications from extreme preterm birth, the main cause of death in children below the age of 5 years. Exciting preclinical studies in experimental neonatal lung injury have provided the impetus for the initiation of early phase clinical trials in extreme preterm infants at risk of developing bronchopulmonary dysplasia. Clinical translation of promising therapies, however, is slow and often fails. In the adult population, results of clinical trials so far have not matched the enticing preclinical data. The neonatal field has experienced many hard-earned lessons with the implementation of oxygen therapy or postnatal steroids. Here we briefly summarize the preclinical data that have permitted the initiation of early phase clinical trials of cell-based therapies in extreme preterm infants and describe the INCuBAToR concept (Innovative Neonatal Cellular Therapy for Bronchopulmonary Dysplasia: Accelerating Translation of Research), an evidence-based approach to mitigate the risk of translating advanced therapies into this vulnerable patient population. The INCuBAToR addresses several of the shortcomings at the preclinical and the clinical stage that usually contribute to the failure of clinical translation through (a) systematic reviews of preclinical and clinical studies, (b) integrated knowledge transfer through engaging important stakeholders early on, (c) early economic evaluation to determine if a novel therapy is viable, and (d) retrospective and prospective studies to define and test ideal eligibility criteria to optimize clinical trial design. The INCuBAToR concept can be applied to any novel therapy in order to enhance the likelihood of success of clinical translation in a timely, transparent, rigorous, and evidence-based fashion.

Global prevalence of mental health issues among the general population during the coronavirus disease-2019 pandemic: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

To provide a contemporary global prevalence of mental health issues among the general population amid the coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. We searched electronic databases, preprint databases, grey literature, and unpublished studies from January 1, 2020, to June 16, 2020 (updated on July 11, 2020), with no language restrictions. Observational studies using validated measurement tools and reporting data on mental health issues among the general population were screened to identify all relevant studies. We have included information from 32 different countries and 398,771 participants. The pooled prevalence of mental health issues amid the COVID-19 pandemic varied widely across countries and regions and was higher than previous reports before the COVID-19 outbreak began. The global prevalence estimate was 28.0% for depression; 26.9% for anxiety; 24.1% for post-traumatic stress symptoms; 36.5% for stress; 50.0% for psychological distress; and 27.6% for sleep problems. Data are limited for other aspects of mental health issues. Our findings highlight the disparities between countries in terms of the poverty impacts of COVID-19, preparedness of countries to respond, and economic vulnerabilities that impact the prevalence of mental health problems. Research on the social and economic burden is needed to better manage mental health problems during and after epidemics or pandemics. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO CRD 42020177120.

How digital health solutions align with the roles and functions that support hospital to home transitions for older adults: a rapid review study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Older adults may experience challenges during the hospital to home transitions that could be mitigated by digital health solutions. However, to promote adoption in practice and realise benefits, there is a need to specify how digital health solutions contribute to hospital to home transitions, particularly pertinent in this era of social distancing. This rapid review will: (1) elucidate the various roles and functions that have been developed to support hospital to home transitions of care, (2) identify existing digital health solutions that support hospital to home transitions of care, (3) identify gaps and new opportunities where digital health solutions can support these roles and functions and (4) create recommendations that will inform the design and structure of future digital health interventions that support hospital to home transitions for older adults (eg, the pre-trial results of the Digital Bridge intervention; ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04287192). METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A two-phase rapid review will be conducted to meet identified aims. In phase 1, a selective literature review will be used to generate a conceptual map of the roles and functions of individuals that support hospital to home transitions for older adults. In phase 2, a search on MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL will identify literature on digital health solutions that support hospital to home transitions. The ways in which digital health solutions can support the roles and functions that facilitate these transitions will then be mapped in the analysis and generation of findings. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This protocol is a review of the literature and does not involve human subjects, and therefore, does not require ethics approval. This review will permit the identification of gaps and new opportunities for digital processes and platforms that enable care transitions and can help inform the design and implementation of future digital health interventions. Review findings will be disseminated through publications and presentations to key stakeholders.

Mental health circumstances among health care workers and general public under the pandemic situation of COVID-19 (HOME-COVID-19).

BACKGROUND: After the spread of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) globally, upgraded quarantine and physical distancing strategy, strict infection measures, and government's strict lockdown have been abided to confront the spread of the COVID-19 in Thailand. During the COVID-19 pandemic, concerns about the mental health and psychosocial problems among health care workers and the general population are now arising. Yet, information on mental health and psychosocial problems among health care workers and the general population have not been comprehensively reported in Thailand. As such, we conduct a cross-sectional study, a national online survey to describe the short- and long-term consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic on mental health and psychosocial problems among health care workers and the general population in Thailand. METHODS: This study is a repeated cross-sectional study, an open online voluntary national-based survey during the wave I (April 21-May 4, 2020) follow-up in the wave II (August 3-16, 2020), wave III (November 15-28, 2020), and a 1-year follow-up survey (wave IV: April 21-May 4, 2021) in Thailand. Health care workers at the hospitals and the adult general population will be invited to participate in the online survey via the SurveyMonkey that limits one-time participation per unique internet protocol address. The target sample size of at least 1182 health care workers and 1310 general populations will be required to complete the online survey for each wave of the survey. Sociodemographic characteristics and a set of measurement tools for mental and psychosocial problems for each subcohort including depression, anxiety, stress, resilient copings, neuroticism, perceived social support, wellbeing, somatic symptoms, insomnia, burnout (for healthcare workers), and public stigma toward COVID-19 infection (for the general population) will be collected. For all estimates of prevalence, we will weigh data for all wave analyses under the complex design of the survey. Subgroup analyses stratified by key characteristics will also be done to analyze the proportion differences. For the repeated cross-sectional survey, we will combine the data from the wave I to wave IV survey to analyze changes in the mental health status. We will perform multilevel logistic regression models with random intercepts to explore associations with individual-level and region-level/hospital-level predictors. We also plan to perform an ancillary systematic review and meta-analysis by incorporating data from our findings to all available evidence. RESULTS: Our findings will provide information on the short- and long-term mental health status as well as the psychosocial responses to the COVID-19 outbreak in a national sample of health care workers and the general population in Thailand. CONCLUSION: This prospective, nationally based, a repeated cross-sectional study will describe the mental health status and psychosocial problems among health care workers and the general population in Thailand during the COVID-19 pandemic. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval for the study was obtained from the Faculty of Public Health and Faculty of Pharmacy, Chiang Mai University. The findings will be disseminated through public, scientific, and professional meetings, and publications in peer-reviewed journals. THAI CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRY (TCTR) REGISTRATION NUMBER: TCTR20200425001.