A qualitative study of the dynamics of access to remote antenatal care through the lens of candidacy.

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to explore the experiences and perspectives of pregnant women, antenatal healthcare professionals, and system leaders to understand the impact of the implementation of remote provision of antenatal care during the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative study involving semi-structured interviews with 93 participants, including 45 individuals who had been pregnant during the study period, 34 health care professionals, and 14 managers and system-level stakeholders. Analysis was based on the constant comparative method and used the theoretical framework of candidacy. RESULTS: We found that remote antenatal care had far-reaching effects on access when understood through the lens of candidacy. It altered women's own identification of themselves and their babies as eligible for antenatal care. Navigating services became more challenging, often requiring considerable digital literacy and sociocultural capital. Services became less permeable, meaning that they were more difficult to use and demanding of the personal and social resources of users. Remote consultations were seen as more transactional in character and were limited by lack of face-to-face contact and safe spaces, making it more difficult for women to make their needs - both clinical and social - known, and for professionals to assess them. Operational and institutional challenges, including problems in sharing of antenatal records, were consequential. There were suggestions that a shift to remote provision of antenatal care might increase risks of inequities in access to care in relation to every feature of candidacy we characterised. CONCLUSION: It is important to recognise the implications for access to antenatal care of a shift to remote delivery. It is not a simple swap: it restructures many aspects of candidacy for care in ways that pose risks of amplifying existing intersectional inequalities that lead to poorer outcomes. Addressing these challenges through policy and practice action is needed to tackle these risks.

The Society of Thoracic Surgeons Intermacs 2022 Annual Report: Focus on 2018 Heart Transplant Allocation System.

The thirteenth annual report from The Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support (Intermacs) highlights outcomes for 27,314 patients receiving continuous flow durable left ventricular assist devices (LVAD) over the last decade (2012-2021). In 2021, 2,464 primary LVADs were implanted, representing a 23.5% reduction in the annual volume compared to peak implantation in 2019 and an ongoing trend from the prior year. This decline is likely a reflection of the untoward effects of the COVID-19 pandemic and the change in the US heart transplant allocation system in 2018. The last several years have been characterized by a shift in device indication and type with 81.1% of patients now implanted as destination therapy and 92.7% receiving an LVAD with full magnetic levitation in 2021. However, despite an older, more ill population being increasingly supported pre-implant with temporary circulatory devices in the recent (2017-2021) vs prior (2012-2016) eras, the 1- and 5-year survival continues to improve at 83.0% and 51.9%, respectively. The adverse events profile has also improved, with significant reduction in stroke, gastrointestinal bleeding, and hospital readmissions. Finally, we examined the impact of the change in heart transplant allocation system in 2018 on LVAD candidacy, implant strategy, and outcomes. In the competing outcomes analysis, the proportion of transplant eligible patients receiving a transplant has declined from 56.5% to 46.0% at 3 years, while the proportion remaining alive with ongoing support has improved from 24.1% to 38.1% at 3 years, underscoring the durability of the currently available technology.

Negotiation of collective and individual candidacy for long Covid healthcare in the early phases of the Covid-19 pandemic: Validated, diverted and rejected candidacy.

This analysis of people's accounts of establishing their need and experiences of healthcare for long Covid (LC) symptoms draws on interview data from five countries (UK, US, Netherlands, Canada, Australia) during the first ∼18 months of the Covid-19 pandemic when LC was an emerging, sometimes contested, condition with scant scientific or lay knowledge to guide patients and professionals in their sense-making of often bewildering constellations of symptoms. We extend the construct of candidacy to explore positive and (more often) negative experiences that patients reported in their quest to understand their symptoms and seek appropriate care. Candidacy usually considers how individuals negotiate healthcare access. We argue a crucial step preceding individual claims to candidacy is recognition of their condition through generation of collective candidacy. "Vanguard patients" collectively identified, named and fought for recognition of long Covid in the context of limited scientific knowledge and no established treatment pathways. This process was technologically accelerated via social media use. Patients commonly experienced "rejected" candidacy (feeling disbelieved, discounted/uncounted and abandoned, and that their suffering was invisible to the medical gaze and society). Patients who felt their candidacy was "validated" had more positive experiences; they appreciated being believed and recognition of their changed lives/bodies and uncertain futures. More positive healthcare encounters were described as a process of "co-experting" through which patient and healthcare professional collaborated in a joint quest towards a pathway to recovery. The findings underpin the importance of believing and learning from patient experience, particularly vanguard patients with new and emerging illnesses.

Critical Care of the Lung Transplant Patient.

Lung transplantation is a therapeutic option for end-stage lung disease that improves survival and quality of life. Prelung transplant admission to the intensive care unit (ICU) for bridge to transplant with mechanical ventilation and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is common. Primary graft dysfunction is an important immediate complication of lung transplantation with short- and long-term morbidity and mortality. Later transplant-related causes of respiratory failure necessitating ICU admission include acute cellular rejection, atypical infections, and chronic lung allograft dysfunction. Lung transplantation for COVID-19-related ARDS is increasingly common..

Candidacy for Cochlear implantation: Validating a novel Cochlear implant candidacy calculator against gold-standard, in-clinic audiometric assessments.

Objectives: Cochlear implants (CI) are reliable implantable devices that are highly cost-effective in reducing the burden of hearing loss at an individual and societal scale. However, only 10% of CI candidates are aware of their candidacy and receive a CI. A web-based screening tool to assess CI candidacy may make many more individuals aware of their candidacy for cochlear implantation. The objective of this study was to validate and optimize the online Cochlear Implant Candidacy Calculator against in-clinic audiometric testing. Methods: Audiogram data and word discrimination scores for 132 patients who underwent initial CI consultation at the Johns Hopkins Cochlear Implant Center in 2020 were inputted into the calculator. Candidacy results from the calculator were compared against formal clinical diagnoses provided by the audiologist at the time of visit. Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) and Area Under the Curve (AUC) analyses were performed to identify optimal diagnostic thresholds. Results: Of the resulting 132 patients, 54 presented with single-sided deafness (SSD), and 114 were clinically determined to be CI candidates. ROC AUC analyses identified optimal thresholds of high-frequency PTA ≥65 dB and word discrimination score ≤ 50%. To maximize sensitivity at the expense of specificity, diagnostic thresholds of high-frequency PTA ≥ 65 dB and word discrimination score ≤ 70% were chosen, which yielded accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, and ROC AUC of 0.90, 0.94, 0.82, and 0.88, respectively. Conclusion: The novel online CI Candidacy Calculator exhibits high sensitivity and accuracy, and moderate specificity. The calculator may thereby be useful in increasing awareness of potential CI candidacy, increasing prevalence of CIs, and decreasing the burden of hearing loss.

Qualitative study of candidacy and access to secondary mental health services during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Candidacy, a construct describing how people's eligibility for care is negotiated between themselves and services, has received limited attention in the context of mental health care. In addition, candidacy research has only rarely studied the views of carers and health professionals. In this article, we use concepts relating to candidacy to enable a theoretically informed examination of experiences of access to secondary mental health services during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in England. We report a qualitative study of the views and experiences of service users, carers, and healthcare professionals. Analysis of 65 in-depth interviews was based on the constant comparative method. We found that wide-ranging service changes designed to address the imperatives of the pandemic were highly consequential for people's candidacy. Macro-level changes, including increased emphasis on crisis and risk management and adapted risk assessment systems, produced effects that went far beyond restrictions in the availability of services: they profoundly re-structured service users' identification of their own candidacy, including perceptions of what counted as a problem worthy of attention and whether they as individuals needed, deserved, and were entitled to care. Services became less permeable, such that finding a point of entry to those services that remained open required more work of service users and carers. Healthcare professionals were routinely confronted by complex decisions and ethical dilemmas about provision of care, and their implicit judgements about access may have important implications for equity. Many of the challenges of access exposed by the pandemic related to pre-existing resource deficits and institutional weaknesses in care for people living with mental health difficulties. Overall, these findings affirm the value of the construct of candidacy for explaining access to mental healthcare, but also enable deepened understanding of the specific features of candidacy, offering enduring learning and implications for policy and practice.

Revisiting Candidacy: What Might It Offer Cancer Prevention?

The notion of candidacy emerged three decades ago through Davison and colleagues' exploration of people's understanding of the causes of coronary heart disease. Candidacy was a mechanism to estimate one's own or others risk of disease informed by their lay epidemiology. It could predict who would develop illness or explain why someone succumbed to it. Candidacy's predictive ability, however, was fallible, and it was from this perspective that the public's reticence to adhere to prevention messages could be explained, as ultimately anybody could be 'at-risk'. This work continues to resonate in health research, with over 700 citations of Davison's Candidacy paper. Less explored however, is the candidacy framework in its entirety in other illness spheres, where prevention efforts could potentially impact health outcomes. This paper revisits the candidacy framework to reconsider it use within prevention. In doing so, candidacy within coronary heart disease, suicide prevention, diabetes, and cancer will be examined, and key components of candidacy and how people negotiate their candidacy within differing disease contexts will be uncovered. The applicability of candidacy to address modifiable breast cancer risk factors or cancer prevention more broadly will be considered, as will the implications for public health policy.

Engaging the 'Missing Men' in the HIV Treatment Cascade: Creating a Tailored Intervention to Improve Men's Uptake of HIV Care Services in Rural South Africa: A Study Protocol.

Men, especially young men, have been consistently missing from the HIV care cascade, leading to poor health outcomes in men and ongoing transmission of HIV in young women in South Africa. Although these men may not be missing for the same reasons across the cascade and may need different interventions, early work has shown similar trends in men's low uptake of HIV care services and suggested that the social costs of testing and accessing care are extremely high for men, particularly in South Africa. Interventions and data collection have hitherto, by and large, focused on men in relation to HIV prevention in women and have not approached the problem through the male lens. Using the participatory method, the overall aim of this study is to improve health outcomes in men and women through formative work to co-create male-specific interventions in an HIV-hyper endemic setting in rural KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa.