Lived In Experiences Of Covid-19 Victims In Selected Community Area In Chennai

COVID-19, more popularly known as novel corona virus, is associated with the respiratory disorder in humans which has been declared as a global epidemic and pandemic in the first quarter of the year 2020 by the world health organization. During the COVID-19 pandemic, young people's education and social networks were severely disrupted. The inquiry on the experiences of the victims will help the health sector to change the strategies of care during such public health emergency. The lockdown and subsequent school closures established a new life routine for adolescents, centred on spending time with family and temporarily interrupting face-to-face peer relationships. In this regard, similar to others, significant autobiographical events. To explore the lived in experiences of the COVID-19 victims. Qualitative approach, with phenomenological research design, was used among 15 COVID 19 victims selected using a non probability convenient sampling technique. A one - one indepth interview was conducted using a semi structured questionnaire with 7 themes. Participants who were affected with severe symptoms for 2-3 days had variant psychological experiences like fear of spread, guilt, scared, anxious. Presence of respiratory and psychological symptoms decreased the sleep. Role change had been identified in the family support. Economic needs were manageable with their savings and monthly salary. Practicing spiritual values were the background for the recovery of the victims. The study has brought the perception of approaching the disease with positive attitude for speedy recovery.Copyright © 2022 Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications. All rights reserved.

Exploring the Young Person, Their Family and Clinician Perspectives About the Psychosocial Factors Influencing Access to Kidney Transplantation and Transplant Outcomes for Children

Introduction Kidney transplantation is often seen as the optimal form of kidney replacement therapy for children and young people (CYP) with stage 5 Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD5). Psychosocial factors have been cited to delay their access to a kidney transplant, however it is unclear what these factors are. We undertook a multi-centre qualitative study that explored the range of psychological and social factors that CYP, their carers and their paediatric nephrology multi-disciplinary team (MDT) perceived to influence how soon a CYP with CKD5 accesses a kidney transplant. This included factors that were perceived to influence kidney transplantation outcomes or deemed important to patients and their families in terms of their quality of life (QoL). Material and methods Semi-structured interviews were conducted with CYP, their carers and their paediatric nephrology MDT across 7 tertiary paediatric nephrology units in the United Kingdom. These interviews were reviewed for pertinent themes using Thematic Analysis following the approach of Braun and Clarke. Results A total of 36 interviews were conducted with 13 families and 16 members of the paediatric nephrology MDT. The majority of participating families identified as White (57%), followed by Black (22%) or Asian (21%). The following themes were deemed important to accessing kidney transplantation and post-transplant outcomes: health beliefs;relationship with and trust in healthcare;support networks;family relationships;socioeconomic circumstances;culture and race;and mental health and coping strategies. Specific challenges from living with CKD5 and living through the COVID-19 pandemic were also discussed due to their impact on QoL and accessing a kidney transplant. Conclusions There are a wide range of psychosocial factors that are perceived to influence a CYP's access to kidney transplantation. Longitudinal and prospective studies are needed to fully assess the relationship between these psychosocial factors and a CYP's access to, and outcomes of, kidney transplantation.

From the Editor

Continuous quality improvement applies there too, and as of the first of this year, we have incorporated the IBAM Leadership Team to serve as members of the JBAM Editorial Board, thereby enhancing the IBAM/JBAM connection and a sense of mutual ownership in both processes and outcomes. Factors such as leadership style, organizational culture, social culture, and experiences with change in an organization influence how employees perceive and respond to the organizations dynamics. The Mediating Effect of Trust on Psychological Safety and Job Satisfaction by Dennis M. Mitterer and Heather E. Mitterer uses social exchange theory to illustrate positive influences that the quality of dyadic relationships and trust have on contagious effects.

Methodological and Quality Flaws in the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Mental Health Research: Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Artificial intelligence (AI) is giving rise to a revolution in medicine and health care. Mental health conditions are highly prevalent in many countries, and the COVID-19 pandemic has increased the risk of further erosion of the mental well-being in the population. Therefore, it is relevant to assess the current status of the application of AI toward mental health research to inform about trends, gaps, opportunities, and challenges. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to perform a systematic overview of AI applications in mental health in terms of methodologies, data, outcomes, performance, and quality. METHODS: A systematic search in PubMed, Scopus, IEEE Xplore, and Cochrane databases was conducted to collect records of use cases of AI for mental health disorder studies from January 2016 to November 2021. Records were screened for eligibility if they were a practical implementation of AI in clinical trials involving mental health conditions. Records of AI study cases were evaluated and categorized by the International Classification of Diseases 11th Revision (ICD-11). Data related to trial settings, collection methodology, features, outcomes, and model development and evaluation were extracted following the CHARMS (Critical Appraisal and Data Extraction for Systematic Reviews of Prediction Modelling Studies) guideline. Further, evaluation of risk of bias is provided. RESULTS: A total of 429 nonduplicated records were retrieved from the databases and 129 were included for a full assessment-18 of which were manually added. The distribution of AI applications in mental health was found unbalanced between ICD-11 mental health categories. Predominant categories were Depressive disorders (n=70) and Schizophrenia or other primary psychotic disorders (n=26). Most interventions were based on randomized controlled trials (n=62), followed by prospective cohorts (n=24) among observational studies. AI was typically applied to evaluate quality of treatments (n=44) or stratify patients into subgroups and clusters (n=31). Models usually applied a combination of questionnaires and scales to assess symptom severity using electronic health records (n=49) as well as medical images (n=33). Quality assessment revealed important flaws in the process of AI application and data preprocessing pipelines. One-third of the studies (n=56) did not report any preprocessing or data preparation. One-fifth of the models were developed by comparing several methods (n=35) without assessing their suitability in advance and a small proportion reported external validation (n=21). Only 1 paper reported a second assessment of a previous AI model. Risk of bias and transparent reporting yielded low scores due to a poor reporting of the strategy for adjusting hyperparameters, coefficients, and the explainability of the models. International collaboration was anecdotal (n=17) and data and developed models mostly remained private (n=126). CONCLUSIONS: These significant shortcomings, alongside the lack of information to ensure reproducibility and transparency, are indicative of the challenges that AI in mental health needs to face before contributing to a solid base for knowledge generation and for being a support tool in mental health management.

The integrity of the research record: a mess so big and so deep and so tall.

SUMMARY: Poor research integrity is increasingly recognised as a serious problem in science. We outline some evidence for this claim and introduce the Royal College of Psychiatrists (RCPsych) journals' Research Integrity Group, which has been created to address this problem.

Impact of malnutrition on clinical outcomes in patients diagnosed with COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is now the third leading cause of death in the United States. Malnutrition in hospitalized patients increases risk of complications. However, the effect of malnutrition on outcomes in patients infected is unclear. This study aims to identify the impact of malnutrition on mortality and adverse hospital events in patients hospitalized with COVID-19. METHODS: This study used data from the National COVID Cohort Collaborative (N3C), a COVID-19 repository containing harmonized, longitudinal electronic health record data from US health systems. Malnutrition was categorized into three groups based on condition diagnosis: (1) none documented, (2) history of malnutrition, and (3) hospital-acquired malnutrition. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to determine whether malnutrition was associated with mortality and adverse events, including mechanical ventilation, acute respiratory distress syndrome, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, and hospital-acquired pressure injury, in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. RESULTS: Of 343,188 patients hospitalized with COVID-19, 11,206 had a history of malnutrition and 15,711 had hospital-acquired malnutrition. After adjustment for potential confounders, odds of mortality were significantly higher in patients with a history of malnutrition (odds ratio [OR], 1.71; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.63-1.79; P < 0.001) and hospital-acquired malnutrition (OR, 2.5; 95% CI, 2.4-2.6; P < 0.001). Adjusted odds of adverse hospital events were also significantly elevated in both malnutrition groups. CONCLUSIONS: Results indicate the risk of mortality and adverse inpatient events in adults with COVID-19 is significantly higher in patients with malnutrition. Prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of malnutrition could be a key component in improving outcomes in these patients.

COVID-19 survey burden for health care workers: literature review and audit.

OBJECTIVES: Concerns have been raised about the quantity and quality of research conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly related to the mental health and wellbeing of health care workers (HCWs). For understanding the volume, source, methodological rigour and degree of overlap in COVID-19, studies were conducted among HCWs in the United Kingdom (UK). STUDY DESIGN: Mixed methods approach, literature review and audit. METHODS: First, a literature review of published research studies and second, an audit of studies HCWs have been invited to complete. For the literature review, we searched Medline, PsycINFO and Nexis, webpages of three medical organisations (Royal Society of Medicine, Royal College of Nursing and British Medical Association), and the YouGov website. For the audit, a non-random purposive sample of six HCWs from different London NHS Trusts reviewed email, WhatsApp and SMS messages they received for study invitations. RESULTS: The literature review identified 27 studies; the audit identified 70 study invitations. Studies identified by the literature review were largely of poor methodological rigour: only eight studies (30%) provided response rate, one study (4%) reported having ethical approval, and one study (4%) reported funding details. There was substantial overlap in the topics measured. In the audit, volunteers received a median of 12 invitations. The largest number of study invitations were for national surveys (n = 23), followed by local surveys (n = 16) and research surveys (n = 8). CONCLUSION: HCWs have been asked to complete numerous surveys that frequently have methodological shortcomings and overlapping aims. Many studies do not follow scientific good-practice and generate questionable, non-generalisable results.

Research on Posttraumatic Stress Disorder in the Context of the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Review of Methods and Implications in General Population Samples.

Increasing concern about the mental health sequelae to the COVID-19 pandemic has prompted a surge in research and publications on the prevalence of posttraumatic stress disorder in general population samples in relation to the pandemic. We examined how posttraumatic stress disorder in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic has been studied to date and found three general themes: (1) assessment of posttraumatic stress disorder and posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms relied on self-report measures and often did not determine direct trauma exposure as required by Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition Criterion A to diagnose posttraumatic stress disorder; (2) inadequate assessment of pre-existing mental disorders and co-occurring stress; and (3) the use of cross-sectional designs in most studies, often relying on snowball sampling strategies to conduct online surveys. Notwithstanding these methodological limitations, these studies have reported moderate to severe posttraumatic symptoms in 25.8% of the general population on average in relation to the pandemic (ranging from 4.6% to 55.3%). Opportunities for advancing future research that will inform public health planning are discussed.

Methodology over metrics: current scientific standards are a disservice to patients and society.

Covid-19 research made it painfully clear that the scandal of poor medical research, as denounced by Altman in 1994, persists today. The overall quality of medical research remains poor, despite longstanding criticisms. The problems are well known, but the research community fails to properly address them. We suggest that most problems stem from an underlying paradox: although methodology is undeniably the backbone of high-quality and responsible research, science consistently undervalues methodology. The focus remains more on the destination (research claims and metrics) than on the journey. Notwithstanding, research should serve society more than the reputation of those involved. While we notice that many initiatives are being established to improve components of the research cycle, these initiatives are too disjointed. The overall system is monolithic and slow to adapt. We assert that top-down action is needed from journals, universities, funders and governments to break the cycle and put methodology first. These actions should involve the widespread adoption of registered reports, balanced research funding between innovative, incremental and methodological research projects, full recognition and demystification of peer review, improved methodological review of reports, adherence to reporting guidelines, and investment in methodological education and research. Currently, the scientific enterprise is doing a major disservice to patients and society.

Academic Journal Retractions and the COVID-19 Pandemic.

The 2020 COVID-19 pandemic has produced an unprecedented amount of scientific research, with over 100,000 articles on the SARS-COV2 virus or the associated pandemic published within the first year. To effectively disseminate such a large volume of research, some academic journal publishers altered their review criteria, and many articles were made available before undergoing a traditional review process. However, with this rapid influx of information, multiple COVID-19 articles have been retracted or withdrawn. Some researchers have expressed concern that these retractions call into question the validity of an expedited review process and the overall quality of the larger body of COVID-19 research. We examined 68 removed articles and determined that many of the articles were removed for unknown reasons (n = 22) or as duplications (n = 12); 24 papers were retracted for more significant reasons (data integrity, plagiarism, reporting or analysis, and IRB or privacy issues). The majority of removed papers were from the USA (n = 23) and China (n = 19).

Characteristics of scientific articles on COVID-19 published during the initial 3 months of the pandemic.

The COVID-19 pandemic has been characterized by an unprecedented amount of published scientific articles. The aim of this study is to assess the type of articles published during the first 3 months of the COVID-19 pandemic and to compare them with articles published during 2009 H1N1 swine influenza pandemic. Two operators independently extracted and assessed all articles on COVID-19 and on H1N1 swine influenza that had an abstract and were indexed in PubMed during the first 3 months of these pandemics. Of the 2482 articles retrieved on COVID-19, 1165 were included. Over half of them were secondary articles (590, 50.6%). Common primary articles were: human medical research (340, 59.1%), in silico studies (182, 31.7%) and in vitro studies (26, 4.5%). Of the human medical research, the vast majority were observational studies and cases series, followed by single case reports and one randomized controlled trial. Secondary articles were mainly reviews, viewpoints and editorials (373, 63.2%). Limitations were reported in 42 out of 1165 abstracts (3.6%), with 10 abstracts reporting actual methodological limitations. In a similar timeframe, there were 223 articles published on the H1N1 pandemic in 2009. During the COVID-19 pandemic there was a higher prevalence of reviews and guidance articles and a lower prevalence of in vitro and animal research studies compared with the H1N1 pandemic. In conclusions, compared to the H1N1 pandemic, the majority of early publications on COVID-19 does not provide new information, possibly diluting the original data published on this disease and consequently slowing down the development of a valid knowledge base on this disease. Also, only a negligible number of published articles reports limitations in the abstracts, hindering a rapid interpretation of their shortcomings. Researchers, peer reviewers, and editors should take action to flatten the curve of secondary articles.

Science at Warp Speed: Medical Research, Publication, and Translation During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, there has been a rapid growth in research focused on developing vaccines and therapies. In this context, the need for speed is taken for granted, and the scientific process has adapted to accommodate this. On the surface, attempts to speed up the research enterprise appear to be a good thing. It is, however, important to consider what, if anything, might be lost when biomedical innovation is sped up. In this article we use the case of a study recently retracted from the Lancet to illustrate the potential risks and harms associated with speeding up science. We then argue that, with appropriate governance mechanisms in place (and adequately resourced), it should be quite possible to both speed up science and remain attentive to scientific quality and integrity.

The quality of research on mental health related to the COVID-19 pandemic: A note of caution after a systematic review.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has spurred scientific production in diverse fields of knowledge, including mental health. Yet, the quality of current research may be challenged by the urgent need to provide immediate results to understand and alleviate the consequences of the pandemic. This study aims to examine compliance with basic methodological quality criteria and open scientific research practices on the mental health effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. METHOD AND RESULTS: Twenty-eight studies were identified through a systematic search. Most of them met the requirements related to reporting key methodological and statistical information. However, the widespread use of convenience samples and the lack of a priori power analysis, coupled with low compliance with open science recommendations, such as pre-registration of studies and availability of databases, raise concerns about the validity, generalisability, and reproducibility of the findings. CONCLUSIONS: While the importance of offering rapid evidence-based responses to mitigate mental health problems stemming from the COVID-19 pandemic is undeniable, it should not be done at the expense of sacrificing scientific rigor. The results of this study may stimulate researchers and funding agencies to try to orchestrate efforts and resources and follow standard codes of good scientific practice.