Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Vaccine Boosting in Previously Infected or Vaccinated Individuals.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether boosting previously infected or vaccinated healthcare personnel with a vaccine developed for an earlier variant of SARS-CoV-2 protects against the Omicron variant. METHODS: Employees of Cleveland Clinic previously infected with or vaccinated against COVID-19, and working in Ohio the day the Omicron variant was declared a variant of concern, were included. The cumulative incidence of COVID-19 was examined over two months during an Omicron variant surge. Protection provided by boosting (analyzed as a time-dependent covariate) was evaluated using Cox proportional hazards regression. Analyses were adjusted for time since proximate SARS-CoV-2 exposure as a time-dependent covariate. RESULTS: Among 39 766 employees, 8037 (20%) previously infected and the remaining previously vaccinated, COVID-19 occurred in 6230 (16%) during the study. Risk of COVID-19 increased with time since proximate SARS-CoV-2 exposure, and boosting protected those >6 months since prior infection or vaccination. In multivariable analysis, boosting was independently associated with lower risk of COVID-19 among those vaccinated but not previously infected (HR, .43; 95% CI, .41-.46) as well as those previously infected (HR, .66; 95% CI, .58-.76). Among those previously infected, receiving 2 compared to 1 dose of vaccine was associated with higher risk of COVID-19 (HR, 1.54; 95% CI, 1.21-1.97). CONCLUSIONS: Administering a COVID-19 vaccine not designed for the Omicron variant, >6 months after prior infection or vaccination, protects against Omicron variant infection in those previously infected or vaccinated. There is no evidence of an advantage to administering more than 1 dose of vaccine to previously infected persons.

Digital Eye Strain in Medical Undergraduate Students during COVID-19 Pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Digital devices have been an integral part of our daily lives. With the emergence of COVID-19 pandemic we have gone through strict lockdowns. Most educational institutions conducted classes virtually. This increased the symptoms of digital eye strain. This study aims to assess the prevalence, symptoms, and level of awareness regarding digital eye strain in medical undergraduate students following the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: Our study was a questionnaire-based cross-sectional study with a duration of 3 months. All the undergraduate medical students studying at Kathmandu Medical College Teaching Hospital were included in the study. A self-administered questionnaire was sent to each student electronically via google forms. Descriptive statistics, frequency tables, and percentages were calculated. RESULTS: A total of 208 students were included in the study. The mean age of participants was 22.7±1.6 years (Mean ± SD) with a mean duration of online classes being11.39 ± 5.2 months (Mean ± SD) . The average screen time of students before the start of online classes was 4.14 (SD=2.13) hours. The average screen time after the start of online classes was 7.93 (SD=2.44) hours, an increase of 91.54%. The overall prevalence of digital eye strain among the respondents was 90.8% (n=189). CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of digital eye strain in our study was high. The average screen time increased significantly following COVID-19. Therefore, it is important to create awareness regarding digital eye strain and practices that decrease the symptoms of digital eye strain.

Caregiving for Persons Living With Dementia During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Perspectives of Family Care Partners.

Persons living with dementia (PLWD) are at increased risk for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and poorer outcomes if they contract the disease. COVID-19 may also change and exacerbate usual stresses of family caregiving. The current qualitative descriptive study examined 14 family care partners' (FCPs) experiences and perspectives on how the COVID-19 pandemic impacted them, their care recipients, and their caregiving for their care recipients. Thematic analysis of interviews generated five themes: Cautious of COVID-19 Exposure, Challenges of Balancing COVID-19 Restrictions With Caregiving, Shared Loneliness, Functional Decline, and Communication Challenges With PLWD and Health Care Professionals (HCPs). FCPs are integral to the care of PLWD across care settings. The time is now to plan for changes in policy that will safely maintain FCPs' visitation with their care recipients with dementia and allow for partnering with HCPs to avoid the long-lasting negative effects on older adults' health and function. [Journal of Gerontological Nursing, 49(3), 27-33.].

Crowdfunding for health research: a qualitative evidence synthesis and a pilot programme.

BACKGROUND: Many low-income and middle-income country (LMIC) researchers have disadvantages when applying for research grants. Crowdfunding may help LMIC researchers to fund their research. Crowdfunding organises large groups of people to make small contributions to support a research study. This manuscript synthesises global qualitative evidence and describes a Special Programme for Research and Training in Tropical Diseases (TDR) crowdfunding pilot for LMIC researchers. METHODS: Our global systematic review and qualitative evidence synthesis searched six databases for qualitative data. We used a thematic synthesis approach and assessed our findings using the GRADE-CERQual approach. Building on the review findings, we organised a crowdfunding pilot to support LMIC researchers and use crowdfunding. The pilot provided an opportunity to assess the feasibility of crowdfunding for infectious diseases of poverty research in resource-constrained settings. RESULTS: Nine studies were included in the qualitative evidence synthesis. We identified seven findings which we organised into three broad domains: public engagement strategies, correlates of crowdfunding success and risks and mitigation strategies. Our pilot data suggest that crowdfunding is feasible in diverse LMIC settings. Three researchers launched crowdfunding campaigns, met their goals and received substantial monetary (raising a total of US$26 546 across all three campaigns) and non-monetary contributions. Two researchers are still preparing for the campaign launch due to COVID-19-related difficulties. CONCLUSION: Public engagement provides a foundation for effective crowdfunding for health research. Our evidence synthesis and pilot data provide practical strategies for LMIC researchers to engage the public and use crowdfunding. A practical guide was created to facilitate these activities across multiple settings.

Caregiving for Persons Living With Dementia in the New Normal: Family Caregiver’s Perspective

Persons living with dementia (PLWD) are at increased risk for COVID-19 and associated poor outcomes, including: incident delirium, hospitalization, severe symptoms, intensive care admission, and even death. PLWD are likely to rely on family caregivers to maintain their health and well-being in the community. Under normal circumstances, caregiving can be stressful and complex, and the COVID-19 pandemic has the potential to change and exacerbate the stresses of family caregiving. As a part of a larger study using descriptive qualitative methodology to explore the family caregiver understanding and experiences related to delirium in caring for a person with dementia, 14 participants (age x̄ =67, SD= 13.8) were asked about the impact of COVID-19 on their caregiving for PLWD. Thematic analysis of the transcribed interviews using Dedoose generated four overarching themes associated with the family caregiver’s perspective of changes in caregiving during the COVID-19 pandemic: 1) Cautious of COVID-19 exposure, 2) We can’t go in, 3) Feeling of isolation for both the PLWD and caregiver, and 4) Six-feet distance. The current study highlights the importance of understanding the needs of PLWD during a pandemic based upon the perspective of their family caregivers and will inform the development of ways to safely incorporate family caregivers in the interdisciplinary care team. Caregivers are integral to the care of PLWD across settings of care and should be partners even during a pandemic. Solutions for care include integrating technology for individualized approaches. Finally, future areas for research will be discussed.

Social Innovation For Health Research: Development of the SIFHR Checklist.

BACKGROUND: Social innovations in health are inclusive solutions to address the healthcare delivery gap that meet the needs of end users through a multi-stakeholder, community-engaged process. While social innovations for health have shown promise in closing the healthcare delivery gap, more research is needed to evaluate, scale up, and sustain social innovation. Research checklists can standardize and improve reporting of research findings, promote transparency, and increase replicability of study results and findings. METHODS AND FINDINGS: The research checklist was developed through a 3-step community-engaged process, including a global open call for ideas, a scoping review, and a 3-round modified Delphi process. The call for entries solicited checklists and related items and was open between November 27, 2019 and February 1, 2020. In addition to the open call submissions and scoping review findings, a 17-item Social Innovation For Health Research (SIFHR) Checklist was developed based on the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) Checklist. The checklist was then refined during 3 rounds of Delphi surveys conducted between May and June 2020. The resulting checklist will facilitate more complete and transparent reporting, increase end-user engagement, and help assess social innovation projects. A limitation of the open call was requiring internet access, which likely discouraged participation of some subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: The SIFHR Checklist will strengthen the reporting of social innovation for health research studies. More research is needed on social innovation for health.