Pediatric Trauma During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A 3-year Retrospective Analysis.

The Coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has significantly impacted the volume and types of trauma patients encountered. We performed a retrospective analysis of pediatric trauma patients <17 years old presenting within a large US health care system from 2019 to 2021. Demographics, trauma volume, injury severity, mechanism of injury, and outcomes were compared. A total of 16 966 patients, from 88 hospitals over 18 states, were included in our analysis. Pediatric traumas decreased from 2019 to 2020 and 2021. The injury severity scores (ISSs) increased from 2019 to 2020 and 2019 to 2021. Compared with 2019, more gun-related traumas occurred in both 2020 and 2021, whereas motor vehicle collisions decreased. There were additional changes in bicycle, assault, auto versus pedestrian (AVP), playground, and sports injuries. The COVID-19 pandemic has impacted the volume, injury severity, and mechanism of injury of the pediatric trauma population.

Non-adherence to COVID-19 containment behaviours: results from an all-Ireland telephone survey.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 public health measures like handwashing and social distancing can help stem the spread of the virus. Adherence to guidelines varies between individuals. This study aims to identify predictors of non-adherence to social distancing and handwashing guidelines. METHODS: A cross-sectional weekly telephone survey was conducted over eight weeks (11/06/2020-05/08/2020). The sample included adults resident on the island of Ireland (75:25 split between ROI and NI). Data were collected on demographics, threat perceptions, fear of COVID-19, response efficacy and self-efficacy, response cost and social norms, COVID-19 behaviours, mood, loneliness, and self-reported health. RESULTS: 3011 participants were surveyed. Handwashing non-adherers were more likely to be male (OR: 5.2, 95% CI: 2.4 - 11.3), to have higher levels of loneliness (OR: 1.86, 95% CI: 1.1 - 3.1), and higher perceptions of handwashing costs (OR: 3.4, 95% CI: 2.2 - 5.2). Those reporting rarely engaging in social distancing were more likely to be members of lower socioeconomic groups, to be younger (OR: 0.97, 95% CI: 0.96 - 0.98), male (OR: 1.67, 95% CI: 1.1 - 2.5), healthcare workers (OR: 1.98, 95% CI: 1.1 - 3.4), to report lower mood (OR: 1.72, 95% CI: 1.3 - 2.2), were less likely to live in households with people aged under-18 (OR: 0.75, 95% CI: 0.6 - 0.9), and to have lower fear of COVID-19 (OR: 0.79, 95% CI: 0.6 - 0.9). CONCLUSIONS: Non-adherers to handwashing differ to social distancing non-adherers. Public health messages should target specific demographic groups and different messages are necessary to improve adherence to each behaviour.

Open science communication: The first year of the UK's Independent Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies.

The COVID-19 pandemic has shone a light on the complex relationship between science and policy. Policymakers have had to make decisions at speed in conditions of uncertainty, implementing policies that have had profound consequences for people's lives. Yet this process has sometimes been characterised by fragmentation, opacity and a disconnect between evidence and policy. In the United Kingdom, concerns about the secrecy that initially surrounded this process led to the creation of Independent SAGE, an unofficial group of scientists from different disciplines that came together to ask policy-relevant questions, review the evolving evidence, and make evidence-based recommendations. The group took a public health approach with a population perspective, worked in a holistic transdisciplinary way, and were committed to public engagement. In this paper, we review the lessons learned during its first year. These include the importance of learning from local expertise, the value of learning from other countries, the role of civil society as a critical friend to government, finding appropriate relationships between science and policy, and recognising the necessity of viewing issues through an equity lens.

Vaccinating adolescents against SARS-CoV-2 in England: a risk-benefit analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To offer a quantitative risk-benefit analysis of two doses of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination among adolescents in England. SETTING: England. DESIGN: Following the risk-benefit analysis methodology carried out by the US Centers for Disease Control, we calculated historical rates of hospital admission, Intensive Care Unit admission and death for ascertained SARS-CoV-2 cases in children aged 12-17 in England. We then used these rates alongside a range of estimates for incidence of long COVID, vaccine efficacy and vaccine-induced myocarditis, to estimate hospital and Intensive Care Unit admissions, deaths and cases of long COVID over a period of 16 weeks under assumptions of high and low case incidence. PARTICIPANTS: All 12-17 year olds with a record of confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection in England between 1 July 2020 and 31 March 2021 using national linked electronic health records, accessed through the British Heart Foundation Data Science Centre. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Hospitalisations, Intensive Care Unit admissions, deaths and cases of long COVID averted by vaccinating all 12-17 year olds in England over a 16-week period under different estimates of future case incidence. RESULTS: At high future case incidence of 1000/100,000 population/week over 16 weeks, vaccination could avert 4430 hospital admissions and 36 deaths over 16 weeks. At the low incidence of 50/100,000/week, vaccination could avert 70 hospital admissions and two deaths over 16 weeks. The benefit of vaccination in terms of hospitalisations in adolescents outweighs risks unless case rates are sustainably very low (below 30/100,000 teenagers/week). Benefit of vaccination exists at any case rate for the outcomes of death and long COVID, since neither have been associated with vaccination to date. CONCLUSIONS: Given the current (as at 15 September 2021) high case rates (680/100,000 population/week in 10-19 year olds) in England, our findings support vaccination of adolescents against SARS-CoV2.

Media Representations of Science during the First Wave of the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Qualitative Analysis of News and Social Media on the Island of Ireland.

COVID-19 is arguably the most critical science communication challenge of a generation, yet comes in the wake of a purported populist turn against scientific expertise in western societies. This study advances understanding of science-society relations during the COVID-19 pandemic by analysing how science was represented in news and social media coverage of COVID-19 on the island of Ireland. Thematic analysis was performed on a dataset comprising 952 news articles and 603 tweets published between 1 January and 31 May 2020. Three themes characterised the range of meanings attached to science: 'Defining science: Its subjects, practice and process', 'Relating to science: Between veneration and suspicion' and 'Using science: As solution, policy and rhetoric'. The analysis suggested that the COVID-19 pandemic represented a platform to highlight the value, philosophy, process and day-to-day activity of scientific research. However, the study also identified risks the pandemic might pose to science communication, including feeding public alienation by disparaging lay understandings, reinforcing stereotypical images of scientists, and amplifying the politicisation of scientific statements.

Bordering on crisis: A qualitative analysis of focus group, social media, and news media perspectives on the Republic of Ireland-Northern Ireland border during the 'first wave' of the COVID-19 pandemic.

RATIONALE: International border controls were among the earliest and most effective of measures to constrain transmission of COVID-19. However, such measures are complex when established borders are open yet politically contested, as for the border that divides the Republic of Ireland (ROI) from Northern Ireland (NI). Understanding how this border affected the everyday lives of both populations during the pandemic is important for informing the continued development of effective responses to COVID-19 and future health crises. OBJECTIVE: This multi-methods study aimed to explore public perspectives on how the ROI-NI border affected experiences of and responses to the 'first wave' of the pandemic. METHOD: The study collated data from focus groups (n = 8), news articles (n = 967), and Twitter posts (n = 356) on the island of Ireland, which mentioned the ROI-NI border in relation to COVID-19. Thematic analysis was used to explore the range of perspectives on the role played by the border during the early months of the pandemic. RESULTS: Analysis identified three themes: Cross-Border Interdependencies illustrated the complexity and challenges of living near the border; Interpretations of Cross-Border Policy Disparities showed that lay publics perceived NI and ROI policy approaches as discordant and politicised; and Responses to Cross-Border Policy Disparities revealed alternating calls to either strengthen border controls, or pursue a unified all-island approach. CONCLUSIONS: Results reveal clear public appetite for greater synchronisation of cross-border pandemic responses, emphasise the specific vulnerability of communities living near the border, and highlight the risk of long-term socio-political repercussions of border management decisions taken during the pandemic. Findings will inform implementation of pandemic responses and public health policies in jurisdictions that share a porous land border.

Overcoming Systemic Barriers Preventing Healthy Urban Development in the UK: Main Findings from Interviewing Senior Decision-Makers During a 3-Year Planetary Health Pilot.

This paper sets out the main findings from two rounds of interviews with senior representatives from the UK's urban development industry: the third and final phase of a 3-year pilot, Moving Health Upstream in Urban Development' (UPSTREAM). The project had two primary aims: firstly, to attempt to value economically the health cost-benefits associated with the quality of urban environments and, secondly, to interview those in control of urban development in the UK in order to reveal the potential barriers to, and opportunities for, the creation of healthy urban environments, including their views on the use of economic valuation of (planetary) health outcomes. Much is known about the 'downstream' impact of urban environments on human and planetary health and about how to design and plan healthy towns and cities ('midstream'), but we understand relatively little about how health can be factored in at key governance tipping points further 'upstream', particularly within dominant private sector areas of control (e.g. land, finance, delivery) at sub-national level. Our findings suggest that both public and private sector appeared well aware of the major health challenges posed by poor-quality urban environments. Yet they also recognized that health is not factored adequately into the urban planning process, and there was considerable support for greater use of non-market economic valuation to help improve decision-making. There was no silver bullet however: 110 barriers and 76 opportunities were identified across a highly complex range of systems, actors and processes, including many possible points of targeted intervention for economic valuation. Eight main themes were identified as key areas for discussion and future focus. This findings paper is the second of two on this phase of the project: the first sets out the rationale, approach and methodological lessons learned.

The Application of 'Elite Interviewing' Methodology in Transdisciplinary Research: a Record of Process and Lessons Learned during a 3-Year Pilot in Urban Planetary Health Research.

This paper sets out the rationale and process for the interviewing methodology utilized during a 3-year research pilot, 'Moving Health Upstream in Urban Development' (UPSTREAM). The project had two primary aims: firstly, to attempt to value economically the health cost benefits associated with the quality of urban environments and secondly, to engage with those in control of urban development in the UK in order to determine what are the barriers to and opportunities for creating healthy urban environments, including those identified through the utilisation of economic valuation. Engagement at senior level with those who have most control over key facets of planning and development implementation-such as land disposal, investment, development delivery and planning permission-was central to the approach, which encompassed the adoption of 'elite interviewing', a method developed in the USA in the 1950s and used in the political sciences but relatively unutilized in the health and environmental sciences [1]. Two rounds of semi-structured interviews were undertaken with 15 senior decision-makers from the UK's main urban development delivery agencies, both public and private. The 'elite interviewing' approach successfully enabled the UPSTREAM project to capture and analyse the information received from the interviewees, all of whom held influential or leadership posts in organisations that are important actors in the process of planning, developing and constructing the built environment in the UK. Having academic and practitioner research leads on an equal footing created some minor tensions, but it also appeared to strengthen the rigor of the approach through a broad knowledge of context 'in-house'. This form of co-production at times challenged academic traditions in qualitative analysis, but it also appeared to build trust with interviewees and provided greater clarity of the real-world context under investigation. Findings from this study are written up in a separate paper.

Tackling Root Causes Upstream of Unhealthy Urban Development (TRUUD): Protocol of a five-year prevention research consortium.

Poor quality urban environments substantially increase non-communicable disease. Responsibility for associated decision-making is dispersed across multiple agents and systems: fast growing urban authorities are the primary gatekeepers of new development and change in the UK, yet the driving forces are remote private sector interests supported by a political economy focused on short-termism and consumption-based growth. Economic valuation of externalities is widely thought to be fundamental, yet evidence on how to value and integrate it into urban development decision-making is limited, and it forms only a part of the decision-making landscape. Researchers must find new ways of integrating socio-environmental costs at numerous key leverage points across multiple complex systems. This mixed-methods study comprises of six highly integrated work packages. It aims to develop and test a multi-action intervention in two urban areas: one on large-scale mixed-use development, the other on major transport. The core intervention is the co-production with key stakeholders through interviews, workshops, and participatory action research, of three areas of evidence: economic valuations of changed health outcomes; community-led media on health inequalities; and routes to potential impact mapped through co-production with key decision-makers, advisors and the lay public. This will be achieved by: mapping system of actors and processes involved in each case study; developing, testing and refining the combined intervention; evaluating the extent to which policy and practice changes amongst our target users, and the likelihood of impact on non-communicable diseases (NCDs) downstream. The integration of such diverse disciplines and sectors presents multiple practical/operational issues. The programme is testing new approaches to research, notably with regards practitioner-researcher integration and transdisciplinary research co-leadership. Other critical risks relate to urban development timescales, uncertainties in upstream-downstream causality, and the demonstration of impact.

Pandemics, vulnerability, and prevention: time to fundamentally reassess how we value and communicate risk?: CITIES, HEALTH and COVID-19: Initial reflections and future challenges.

For over a decade, pandemics have been on the UK National Risk Register as both the likeliest and most severe of threats. Non-infectious 'lifestyle' diseases were already crippling our healthcare services and our economy. COVID-19 has exposed two critical vulnerabilities: firstly, the UK's failure to adequately assess and communicate the severity of non-communicable disease; secondly, the health inequalities across our society, due not least to the poor quality of our urban environments. This suggests a potentially disastrous lack of preventative action and risk management more generally, notably with regards to the existential risks from the climate and ecological crises.

Study protocol for the COvid-19 Toolbox for All IslaNd (CONTAIN) project: A cross-border analysis in Ireland to disentangle psychological, behavioural, media and governmental responses to COVID-19.

COVID-19 represents a serious challenge to governments and healthcare systems. In addition to testing/contact tracing, behavioural and social responses such as handwashing and social distancing or cocooning are effective tools for mitigating the spread of the disease. Psychological (e.g., risk perceptions, self-efficacy) and contextual factors (government, public health messaging, etc.) are likely to drive these behaviours. Collated real-time information of these indicators strengthens local, national and international public health advice and messaging. Further, understanding how well public health and government messages and measures are understood, communicated via (social) media and adhered to is vital. There are two governments and public health jurisdictions on the island of Ireland, the Republic of Ireland (ROI) and Northern Ireland (NI). This represents an opportunity to explore implications of differing measures and messaging across these two jurisdictions as they relate to COVID-19 on two similar populations. The expert research team are drawn from a range of disciplines in the two countries. This project has four nested studies: Assessment of key behavioural, social and psychological factors through a large, prospective representative telephone survey of individuals aged over-18 on a weekly basis over eight weeks (n=3072); and conduct qualitative focus groups over the same period.Interrogation of social media messaging and formal media responses in both jurisdictions to investigate the spread of (mis)information.Modelling data from Studies 1 and 2, plotting the psychosocial/behavioural and media messaging information with international, ROI and NI incidence and mortality data. Conducting an assessment of health policy transfer in an attempt to incorporate the most significant public health and political insights from each jurisdiction. The CONTAIN project will develop an evidence-based toolbox for targeting public health messaging and political leadership and will be created for use for the anticipated second wave of COVID-19, and subsequently for future epidemics/pandemics.

Moving Health Upstream in Urban Development: Reflections on the Operationalization of a Transdisciplinary Case Study.

This paper describes the development, conceptualization, and implementation of a transdisciplinary research pilot, the aim of which is to understand how human and planetary health could become a priority for those who control the urban development process. Key challenges include a significant dislocation between academia and the real world, alongside systemic failures in valuation and assessment mechanisms. The National Institutes of Health four-phase model of transdisciplinary team-based research is drawn on and adapted to reflect on what has worked well and what has not operationally. Results underscore the need for experienced academics open to new collaborations and ways of working; clarity of leadership without compromising exploration; clarification of the poorly understood "impacts interface" and navigation toward effective real world impact; acknowledgement of the additional time and resource required for transdisciplinary research and "nonacademic" researchers. Having practitioner-researchers as part of the research leadership team requires rigourous reflective practice and effective management, but it can also ensure breadth in transdisciplinary outlook as well as constant course correction toward real-world impact. It is important for the research community to understand better the opportunities and limitations provided by knowledge intermediaries in terms of function, specialism, and experience.