Child health prioritisation in national adaptation policies on climate change: a policy document analysis across 160 countries.

Integration of child-specific adaptation measures into health policies is imperative given children's heightened susceptibility to the health impacts of climate change. Using a document analysis method, we examined 160 national adaptation policies for inclusion of child-relevant measures and identified 19 child health-related adaptation domains. 44 (28%) of 160 countries' policies that were analysed failed to include any domains, 49 (31%) included at least one child-related domain, 62 (39%) included between two and six domains, and five (3%) included at least seven domains. Predominant domains among child-specific adaptation measures included education and awareness raising, followed by community engagement and nutrition. No country addressed children's direct needs in the domain of mental health. National adaptation policies tend towards overly simple conceptualisations of children across four major lenses: age, social role, gender, and agency. Limited inclusion of child-specific measures in national adaptation policies suggests insufficient recognition of and action on children's susceptibility to climate change effects.

The I-frame vs. S-frame: how neoliberalism has led behavioral sciences astray.

In their recently published paper, Chater and Loewenstein critically elaborate on the differences between interventions that focus on individual behavior ('i-frame'), as opposed to the systems in which health behavior occurs ('s-frame'). They point out that behavioral scientists frequently rely on individual-level interventions, rather than systemic change to improve population health. As individual-level interventions have fallen short of the author's expectations to fix health problems, the authors argue that behavioral scientists should focus more on system-level change. They warn behavioral scientists that by framing disease as an individual problem they hinder real change. We agree with the arguments made by the authors; nevertheless, we propose that bringing underlying causes for the i-frame focus to light would advance their argument. In our commentary, we discuss that neoliberalism might be a reason for the focus on individual interventions in behavioral health sciences.

Socio-economic inequalities in body mass index among preschool children: do sports programs in early childhood education and care centers make a difference?

Background: Overweight in childhood is considered to be one of the most serious public health challenges. Many studies have investigated individual-level determinants of children's body mass index (BMI), yet studies exploring determinants at the meso-level are sparse. The aim of our study was to examine how a sports focus at early childhood education and care (ECEC) centers moderates the effect of parental socio-economic position (SEP) on children's BMI. Methods: We used data from the German National Educational Panel Study and included 1,891 children (955 boys and 936 girls) from 224 ECEC centers in our analysis. Linear multilevel regressions were used to estimate the main effects of family SEP and the ECEC center sports focus, as well as their interaction, on children's BMI. All analyses were stratified by sex and adjusted for age, migration background, number of siblings, and employment status of parents. Results: Our analysis confirmed the wellknown health inequalities in childhood overweight with a social gradient toward a higher BMI for children from lower SEP families. An interactive effect between family SEP and ECEC center sports focus was found. Boys with low family SEP not attending a sports-focused ECEC center had the highest BMI among all boys. In contrast, boys with low family SEP attending a sports-focused ECEC center had the lowest BMI. For girls, no association regarding ECEC center focus or interactive effects emerged. Girls with a high SEP had the lowest BMI, independent of the ECEC center focus. Conclusion: We provided evidence for the gender-specific relevance of sports-focused ECEC centers for the prevention of overweight. Especially boys from low SEP families benefited from a sports focus, whereas for girls the family's SEP was more relevant. As a consequence, gender differences in determinants for BMI at different levels and their interaction should be considered in further research and preventive measures. Our research indicates that ECEC centers may decrease health inequalities by providing opportunities for physical activity.

Antiplatelet agents for the treatment of adults with COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) can cause thrombotic events that lead to severe complications or death. Antiplatelet agents, such as acetylsalicylic acid, have been shown to effectively reduce thrombotic events in other diseases: they could influence the course of COVID-19 in general. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of antiplatelets given with standard care compared to no treatment or standard care (with/without placebo) for adults with COVID-19. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register (which comprises MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP, medRxiv, CENTRAL), Web of Science, WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease and the Epistemonikos COVID-19 L*OVE Platform to identify completed and ongoing studies without language restrictions to December 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We followed standard Cochrane methodology. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating antiplatelet agents for the treatment of COVID-19 in adults with COVID-19, irrespective of disease severity, gender or ethnicity. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed standard Cochrane methodology. To assess bias in included studies, we used the Cochrane risk of bias tool (RoB 2) for RCTs. We rated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach for the outcomes. MAIN RESULTS: Antiplatelets plus standard care versus standard care (with/without placebo) Adults with a confirmed diagnosis of moderate to severe COVID-19 We included four studies (17,541 participants) that recruited hospitalised people with a confirmed diagnosis of moderate to severe COVID-19. A total of 8964 participants were analysed in the antiplatelet arm (either with cyclooxygenase inhibitors or P2Y12 inhibitors) and 8577 participants in the control arm. Most people were older than 50 years and had comorbidities such as hypertension, lung disease or diabetes. The studies were conducted in high- to lower middle-income countries prior to wide-scale vaccination programmes. Antiplatelets compared to standard care: - probably result in little to no difference in 28-day mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.85 to 1.05; 3 studies, 17,249 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). In absolute terms, this means that for every 177 deaths per 1000 people not receiving antiplatelets, there were 168 deaths per 1000 people who did receive the intervention (95% CI 151 to 186 per 1000 people); - probably result in little to no difference in worsening (new need for invasive mechanical ventilation or death up to day 28) (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.01; 2 studies, 15,266 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); - probably result in little to no difference in improvement (participants discharged alive up to day 28) (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.04; 2 studies, 15,454 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); - probably result in a slight reduction of thrombotic events at longest follow-up (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.02; 4 studies, 17,518 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); - may result in a slight increase in serious adverse events at longest follow-up (Peto odds ratio (OR) 1.57, 95% CI 0.48 to 5.14; 1 study, 1815 participants; low-certainty evidence), but non-serious adverse events during study treatment were not reported; - probably increase the occurrence of major bleeding events at longest follow-up (Peto OR 1.68, 95% CI 1.29 to 2.19; 4 studies, 17,527 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Adults with a confirmed diagnosis of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection or mild COVID-19 We included two RCTs allocating participants, of whom 4209 had confirmed mild COVID-19 and were not hospitalised. A total of 2109 participants were analysed in the antiplatelet arm (treated with acetylsalicylic acid) and 2100 participants in the control arm. No study included people with asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection. Antiplatelets compared to standard care: - may result in little to no difference in all-cause mortality at day 45 (Peto OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.45 to 2.22; 2 studies, 4209 participants; low-certainty evidence); - may slightly decrease the incidence of new thrombotic events up to day 45 (Peto OR 0.37, 95% CI 0.09 to 1.46; 2 studies, 4209 participants; low-certainty evidence); - may make little or no difference to the incidence of serious adverse events up to day 45 (Peto OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.64; 1 study, 3881 participants; low-certainty evidence), but non-serious adverse events were not reported. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of antiplatelets on the following outcomes (compared to standard care plus placebo): - admission to hospital or death up to day 45 (Peto OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.10; 2 studies, 4209 participants; very low-certainty evidence); - major bleeding events up to longest follow-up (no event occurred in 328 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Quality of life and adverse events during study treatment were not reported. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In people with confirmed or suspected COVID-19 and moderate to severe disease, we found moderate-certainty evidence that antiplatelets probably result in little to no difference in 28-day mortality, clinical worsening or improvement, but probably result in a slight reduction in thrombotic events. They probably increase the occurrence of major bleeding events. Low-certainty evidence suggests that antiplatelets may result in a slight increase in serious adverse events. In people with confirmed COVID-19 and mild symptoms, we found low-certainty evidence that antiplatelets may result in little to no difference in 45-day mortality and serious adverse events, and may slightly reduce thrombotic events. The effects on the combined outcome admission to hospital or death up to day 45 and major bleeding events are very uncertain. Quality of life was not reported. Included studies were conducted in high- to lower middle-income settings using antiplatelets prior to vaccination roll-outs. We identified a lack of evidence concerning quality of life assessments, adverse events and people with asymptomatic infection. The 14 ongoing and three completed, unpublished RCTs that we identified in trial registries address similar settings and research questions as in the current body of evidence. We expect to incorporate the findings of these studies in future versions of this review.

Understanding perceived addiction to and addictiveness of electronic cigarettes among electronic cigarette users: a cross-sectional analysis of the International Tobacco Control Smoking and Vaping (ITC 4CV) England Survey.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The addictive potential of electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) remains to be fully understood. We identified patterns and correlates of perceived addiction to e-cigarettes and perceived addictiveness of e-cigarettes relative to tobacco cigarettes (relative addictiveness) in dual users as well as exclusive e-cigarette users. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Observational study using cross-sectional survey data from England (2016) from the International Tobacco Control Project (ITC) Four Country Smoking and Vaping (4CV) survey. The study comprised 832 current e-cigarette users who had been vaping for at least 4 months. MEASUREMENTS: Perceived addiction to e-cigarettes and relative addictiveness of e-cigarettes were examined. Socio-demographic factors were age, gender and education; markers of addiction included urge to vape, time to first vape after waking and nicotine strength used; vaping and smoking characteristics included frequency and duration of e-cigarette use, intention to quit, adjustable power or temperature, enjoyment, satisfaction relative to tobacco cigarettes and tobacco cigarette smoking status. FINDINGS: A total of 17% of participants reported feeling very addicted to e-cigarettes, while 40% considered e-cigarettes equally/more addictive than tobacco cigarettes. Those who felt very addicted had higher odds of regarding e-cigarettes as more addictive than tobacco cigarettes (odds ratio 3.4, 95% confidence interval 2.3-5.1). All markers of addiction, daily use and enjoyment were associated with higher perceived addiction, whereas time to first vape after waking, daily vaping and perceiving vaping as less satisfying than smoking were associated with relative addictiveness. CONCLUSIONS: Markers of addiction to e-cigarettes appear to correspond with perceived addiction to e-cigarettes, suggesting that self-reported perceived addiction might serve as an indicator of addiction. Prevalence both of markers of addiction and perceived addiction were comparatively low overall, suggesting a limited but relevant addictive potential of e-cigarettes. Additionally, positive and negative reinforcement, reflected here by enjoyment and relative satisfaction, might play a role in e-cigarette addiction.

Addictive Potential of e-Cigarettes as Reported in e-Cigarette Online Forums: Netnographic Analysis of Subjective Experiences.

BACKGROUND: While e-cigarettes usually contain nicotine, their addictive potential is not yet fully understood. We hypothesized that if e-cigarettes are addictive, users will experience typical symptoms of addiction. OBJECTIVE: The aim of our study was to investigate whether and how e-cigarette users report signs of addiction. METHODS: We identified 3 large German-language e-cigarette online forums via a systematic Google search. Based on a netnographic approach, we used deductive content analysis to investigate relevant posts in these forums. Netnography has the advantage of limiting the social desirability bias that prevails in face-to-face research, such as focus groups. The data were coded according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th Edition (DSM-5) criteria for tobacco use disorder, adapted for e-cigarettes. The DSM-5 criteria were used to portray a broad spectrum of possible experiences of addiction. RESULTS: Overall, 5337 threads in 3 forums were screened, and 451 threads containing relevant information were included in the analysis. Users reported experiences consistent with the DSM-5 criteria, such as craving e-cigarettes, excessive time spent vaping, and health issues related to e-cigarette use. However, our analysis also showed that users reported the absence of typical tobacco use disorder criteria, such as successful attempts to reduce the nicotine dosage. For most themes, reports of their absence were more frequent than of their presence. The absence of perceived addiction was mostly reported in contrast to prior tobacco smoking. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to use a netnographic approach to explore unfiltered self-reports of experiences of e-cigarette addiction by users in online forums. As hypothesized, some but not all users reported subjective experiences that corresponded to the criteria of tobacco use disorder as defined by the DSM-5. Nevertheless, subjective reports also indicated that many e-cigarette users felt in control of their behavior, especially in contrast to their prior use of tobacco cigarettes. The finding that some e-cigarette users subjectively experience addiction highlights the need for effective cessation programs to support users who experience their e-cigarette use as burdensome. This research can guide the refinement of instruments to assess e-cigarette addiction and guide cessation programs. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.1186/s40359-021-00682-8.

The Reporting, Use, and Validity of Patient-Reported Outcomes in Multiple Myeloma in Clinical Trials: A Systematic Literature Review.

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are becoming increasingly important in supporting clinical outcomes in clinical trials. In multiple myeloma (MM), PRO measurement is useful to reveal how treatment affects physical, psychosocial, and functional behaviour as well as symptoms and treatment-related adverse events to evaluate the benefit-risk ratio of a particular drug or drug combination. We report the types of PRO instruments used in MM, the frequency in which they are utilised in randomised controlled trials (RCTs), and the consistency of their reporting. METHODS: The European Hematology Association (EHA) supports the development of guidelines for the use of PROs in adult patients with haematological malignancies. The first step is the present systematic review of the literature. MEDLINE and CENTRAL were searched for RCTs in MM between 2015 and 2020. Study design, characteristics of MM and its treatment, the primary outcomes, and the types of PRO instrument(s) were extracted using a predefined template. Additionally, in a stepwise approach, it was assessed whether the identified instruments had been validated for multiple myeloma patients, patients with haematological malignancies, or cancer patients. RESULTS: Following screening for RCTs, 283 studies were included for review from 10,707 records retrieved, and 118 of these planned the use of PRO measures. Thirty-eight PRO instruments were reported. The most frequently used instrument (92 studies) was the EORTC QLQ-30. The EORTC-MY20 MM-specific questionnaire was the second most frequently used (50 studies), together with the EQ-5D (50 studies). Only 19 PRO instruments reported were consistent with the trial registry. Furthermore, in 58 publications, the information on PRO instruments differed between the publication and the trial registry. Further, information on PRO in HTA reports was available for 26 studies, of which 18 reports were consistent with the trial registries. Out of the 38 instruments used, six had been validated for patients with multiple myeloma (the most frequently used), six for patients with haematological malignancies, and 10 for cancer patients in general. CONCLUSIONS: The findings indicate that the measurement of PROs in RCTs for MM is underutilised, underreported, and often inconsistent. Guidelines for the appropriate use of PROs in MM are needed to ensure standardisation in selection and reporting. Furthermore, not all PRO instruments identified have been validated for myeloma patients or patients with haematological malignancies. Thus, guidelines for the appropriate use and reporting of PROs are needed in MM to ensure standardisation in the selection and reporting of PROs.

Interventions to increase COVID-19 vaccine uptake: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Vaccines are effective in preventing severe COVID-19, a disease for which few treatments are available and which can lead to disability or death. Widespread vaccination against COVID-19 may help protect those not yet able to get vaccinated. In addition, new and vaccine-resistant mutations of SARS-CoV-2 may be less likely to develop if the spread of COVID-19 is limited. Different vaccines are now widely available in many settings. However, vaccine hesitancy is a serious threat to the goal of nationwide vaccination in many countries and poses a substantial threat to population health. This scoping review maps interventions aimed at increasing COVID-19 vaccine uptake and decreasing COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. OBJECTIVES: To scope the existing research landscape on interventions to enhance the willingness of different populations to be vaccinated against COVID-19, increase COVID-19 vaccine uptake, or decrease COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy, and to map the evidence according to addressed populations and intervention categories. SEARCH METHODS: We searched Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, Web of Science (Science Citation Index Expanded and Emerging Sources Citation Index), WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease, PsycINFO, and CINAHL to 11 October 2021. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included studies that assess the impact of interventions implemented to enhance the willingness of different populations to be vaccinated against COVID-19, increase vaccine uptake, or decrease COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), non-randomised studies of intervention (NRSIs), observational studies and case studies with more than 100 participants. Furthermore, we included systematic reviews and meta-analyses. We did not limit the scope of the review to a specific population or to specific outcomes assessed. We excluded interventions addressing hesitancy towards vaccines for diseases other than COVID-19. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data were analysed according to a protocol uploaded to the Open Science Framework. We used an interactive scoping map to visualise the results of our scoping review. We mapped the identified interventions according to pre-specified intervention categories, that were adapted to better fit the evidence. The intervention categories were: communication interventions, policy interventions, educational interventions, incentives (both financial and non-financial), interventions to improve access, and multidimensional interventions. The study outcomes were also included in the mapping. Furthermore, we mapped the country in which the study was conducted, the addressed population, and whether the design was randomised-controlled or not. MAIN RESULTS: We included 96 studies in the scoping review, 35 of which are ongoing and 61 studies with published results. We did not identify any relevant systematic reviews. For an overview, please see the interactive scoping map (https://tinyurl.com/2p9jmx24) STUDIES WITH PUBLISHED RESULTS Of the 61 studies with published results, 46 studies were RCTs and 15 NRSIs. The interventions investigated in the studies were heterogeneous with most studies testing communication strategies to enhance COVID-19 vaccine uptake. Most studies assessed the willingness to get vaccinated as an outcome. The majority of studies were conducted in English-speaking high-income countries. Moreover, most studies investigated digital interventions in an online setting. Populations that were addressed were diverse. For example, studies targeted healthcare workers, ethnic minorities in the USA, students, soldiers, at-risk patients, or the general population.  ONGOING STUDIES Of the 35 ongoing studies, 29 studies are RCTs and six NRSIs. Educational and communication interventions were the most used types of interventions. The majority of ongoing studies plan to assess vaccine uptake as an outcome. Again, the majority of studies are being conducted in English-speaking high-income countries. In contrast to the studies with published results, most ongoing studies will not be conducted online. Addressed populations range from minority populations in the USA to healthcare workers or students. Eleven ongoing studies have estimated completion dates in 2022.   AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We were able to identify and map a variety of heterogeneous interventions for increasing COVID-19 vaccine uptake or decreasing vaccine hesitancy. Our results demonstrate that this is an active field of research with 61 published studies and 35 studies still ongoing. This review gives a comprehensive overview of interventions to increase COVID-19 vaccine uptake and can be the foundation for subsequent systematic reviews on the effectiveness of interventions to increase COVID-19 vaccine uptake.  A research gap was shown for studies conducted in low and middle-income countries and studies investigating policy interventions and improved access, as well as for interventions addressing children and adolescents. As COVID-19 vaccines become more widely available, these populations and interventions should not be neglected in research. AUTHORS CONCLUSIONS: We were able to identify and map a variety of heterogeneous interventions for increasing COVID-19 vaccine uptake or decreasing vaccine hesitancy. Our results demonstrate that this is an active field of research with 61 published studies and 35 studies still ongoing. This review gives a comprehensive overview of interventions to increase COVID-19 vaccine uptake and can be the foundation for subsequent systematic reviews on the effectiveness of interventions to increase COVID-19 vaccine uptake.  A research gap was shown for studies conducted in low and middle-income countries and studies investigating policy interventions and improved access, as well as for interventions addressing children and adolescents. As COVID-19 vaccines become more widely available, these populations and interventions should not be neglected in research.

Immunity after COVID-19 vaccination in people with higher risk of compromised immune status: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: High efficacy in terms of protection from severe COVID-19 has been demonstrated for several SARS-CoV-2 vaccines. However, patients with compromised immune status develop a weaker and less stable immune response to vaccination. Strong immune response may not always translate into clinical benefit, therefore it is important to synthesise evidence on modified schemes and types of vaccination in these population subgroups for guiding health decisions. As the literature on COVID-19 vaccines continues to expand, we aimed to scope the literature on multiple subgroups to subsequently decide on the most relevant research questions to be answered by systematic reviews. OBJECTIVES: To provide an overview of the availability of existing literature on immune response and long-term clinical outcomes after COVID-19 vaccination, and to map this evidence according to the examined populations, specific vaccines, immunity parameters, and their way of determining relevant long-term outcomes and the availability of mapping between immune reactivity and relevant outcomes. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, the Web of Science Core Collection, and the World Health Organization COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease on 6 December 2021.  SELECTION CRITERIA: We included studies that published results on immunity outcomes after vaccination with BNT162b2, mRNA-1273, AZD1222, Ad26.COV2.S, Sputnik V or Sputnik Light, BBIBP-CorV, or CoronaVac on predefined vulnerable subgroups such as people with malignancies, transplant recipients, people undergoing renal replacement therapy, and people with immune disorders, as well as pregnant and breastfeeding women, and children. We included studies if they had at least 100 participants (not considering healthy control groups); we excluded case studies and case series. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We extracted data independently and in duplicate onto an online data extraction form. Data were represented as tables and as online maps to show the frequency of studies for each item. We mapped the data according to study design, country of participant origin, patient comorbidity subgroup, intervention, outcome domains (clinical, safety, immunogenicity), and outcomes.  MAIN RESULTS: Out of 25,452 identified records, 318 studies with a total of more than 5 million participants met our eligibility criteria and were included in the review. Participants were recruited mainly from high-income countries between January 2020 and 31 October 2021 (282/318); the majority of studies included adult participants (297/318).  Haematological malignancies were the most commonly examined comorbidity group (N = 54), followed by solid tumours (N = 47), dialysis (N = 48), kidney transplant (N = 43), and rheumatic diseases (N = 28, 17, and 15 for mixed diseases, multiple sclerosis, and inflammatory bowel disease, respectively). Thirty-one studies included pregnant or breastfeeding women. The most commonly administered vaccine was BNT162b2 (N = 283), followed by mRNA-1273 (N = 153), AZD1222 (N = 66), Ad26.COV2.S (N = 42), BBIBP-CorV (N = 15), CoronaVac (N = 14), and Sputnik V (N = 5; no studies were identified for Sputnik Light). Most studies reported outcomes after regular vaccination scheme.  The majority of studies focused on immunogenicity outcomes, especially seroconversion based on binding antibody measurements and immunoglobulin G (IgG) titres (N = 179 and 175, respectively). Adverse events and serious adverse events were reported in 126 and 54 studies, whilst SARS-CoV-2 infection irrespective of severity was reported in 80 studies. Mortality due to SARS-CoV-2 infection was reported in 36 studies. Please refer to our evidence gap maps for more detailed information. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Up to 6 December 2021, the majority of studies examined data on mRNA vaccines administered as standard vaccination schemes (two doses approximately four to eight weeks apart) that report on immunogenicity parameters or adverse events. Clinical outcomes were less commonly reported, and if so, were often reported as a secondary outcome observed in seroconversion or immunoglobulin titre studies. As informed by this scoping review, two effectiveness reviews (on haematological malignancies and kidney transplant recipients) are currently being conducted.

Young people's experiences of COVID-19 messaging at the start of the UK lockdown: lessons for positive engagement and information sharing.

BACKGROUND: To reduce COVID-19 infection rates during the initial stages of the pandemic, the UK Government mandated a strict period of restriction on freedom of movement or 'lockdown'. For young people, closure of schools and higher education institutions and social distancing rules may have been particularly challenging, coming at a critical time in their lives for social and emotional development. This study explored young people's experiences of the UK Government's initial response to the pandemic and related government messaging. METHODS: This qualitative study combines data from research groups at the University of Southampton, University of Edinburgh and University College London. Thirty-six online focus group discussions (FGDs) were conducted with 150 young people (Southampton: n = 69; FGD = 7; Edinburgh: n = 41; FGD = 5; UCL: n = 40; FGD = 24). Thematic analysis was conducted to explore how young people viewed the government's response and messaging and to develop recommendations for how to best involve young people in addressing similar crises in the future. RESULTS: The abrupt onset of lockdown left young people shocked, confused and feeling ignored by government and media messaging. Despite this, they were motivated to adhere to government advice by the hope that life might soon return to normal. They felt a responsibility to help with the pandemic response, and wanted to be productive with their time, but saw few opportunities to volunteer. CONCLUSIONS: Young people want to be listened to and feel they have a part to play in responding to a national crisis such as the COVID-19 epidemic. To reduce the likelihood of disenfranchising the next generation, Government and the media should focus on developing messaging that reflects young people's values and concerns and to provide opportunities for young people to become involved in responses to future crises.

Interventions for palliative symptom control in COVID-19 patients.

BACKGROUND: Individuals dying of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) may experience distressing symptoms such as breathlessness or delirium. Palliative symptom management can alleviate symptoms and improve the quality of life of patients. Various treatment options such as opioids or breathing techniques have been discussed for use in COVID-19 patients. However, guidance on symptom management of COVID-19 patients in palliative care has often been derived from clinical experiences and guidelines for the treatment of patients with other illnesses. An understanding of the effectiveness of pharmacological and non-pharmacological palliative interventions to manage specific symptoms of COVID-19 patients is required. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions for palliative symptom control in individuals with COVID-19. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register (including Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP), medRxiv); Web of Science Core Collection (Science Citation Index Expanded, Emerging Sources); CINAHL; WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease; and COAP Living Evidence on COVID-19 to identify completed and ongoing studies without language restrictions until 23 March 2021. We screened the reference lists of relevant review articles and current treatment guidelines for further literature. SELECTION CRITERIA: We followed standard Cochrane methodology as outlined in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. We included studies evaluating palliative symptom management for individuals with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 receiving interventions for palliative symptom control, with no restrictions regarding comorbidities, age, gender, or ethnicity. Interventions comprised pharmacological as well as non-pharmacological treatment (e.g. acupressure, physical therapy, relaxation, or breathing techniques). We searched for the following types of studies: randomized controlled trials (RCT), quasi-RCTs, controlled clinical trials, controlled before-after studies, interrupted time series (with comparison group), prospective cohort studies, retrospective cohort studies, (nested) case-control studies, and cross-sectional studies. We searched for studies comparing pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions for palliative symptom control with standard care. We excluded studies evaluating palliative interventions for symptoms caused by other terminal illnesses. If studies enrolled populations with or exposed to multiple diseases, we would only include these if the authors provided subgroup data for individuals with COVID-19. We excluded studies investigating interventions for symptom control in a curative setting, for example patients receiving life-prolonging therapies such as invasive ventilation.  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used a modified version of the Newcastle Ottawa Scale for non-randomized studies of interventions (NRSIs) to assess bias in the included studies. We included the following outcomes: symptom relief (primary outcome); quality of life; symptom burden; satisfaction of patients, caregivers, and relatives; serious adverse events; and grade 3 to 4 adverse events. We rated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach.  As meta-analysis was not possible, we used tabulation to synthesize the studies and histograms to display the outcomes.  MAIN RESULTS: Overall, we identified four uncontrolled retrospective cohort studies investigating pharmacological interventions for palliative symptom control in hospitalized patients and patients in nursing homes. None of the studies included a comparator. We rated the risk of bias high across all studies. We rated the certainty of the evidence as very low for the primary outcome symptom relief, downgrading mainly for high risk of bias due to confounding and unblinded outcome assessors. Pharmacological interventions for palliative symptom control We identified four uncontrolled retrospective cohort studies (five references) investigating pharmacological interventions for palliative symptom control. Two references used the same register to form their cohorts, and study investigators confirmed a partial overlap of participants. We therefore do not know the exact number of participants, but individual reports included 61 to 2105 participants. Participants received multimodal pharmacological interventions: opioids, neuroleptics, anticholinergics, and benzodiazepines for relieving dyspnea (breathlessness), delirium, anxiety, pain, audible upper airway secretions, respiratory secretions, nausea, cough, and unspecified symptoms.  Primary outcome: symptom relief All identified studies reported this outcome. For all symptoms (dyspnea, delirium, anxiety, pain, audible upper airway secretions, respiratory secretions, nausea, cough, and unspecified symptoms), a majority of interventions were rated as completely or partially effective by outcome assessors (treating clinicians or nursing staff). Interventions used in the studies were opioids, neuroleptics, anticholinergics, and benzodiazepines.  We are very uncertain about the effect of pharmacological interventions on symptom relief (very low-certainty evidence). The initial rating of the certainty of evidence was low since we only identified uncontrolled NRSIs. Our main reason for downgrading the certainty of evidence was high risk of bias due to confounding and unblinded outcome assessors. We therefore did not find evidence to confidently support or refute whether pharmacological interventions may be effective for palliative symptom relief in COVID-19 patients. Secondary outcomes We planned to include the following outcomes: quality of life; symptom burden; satisfaction of patients, caregivers, and relatives; serious adverse events; and grade 3 to 4 adverse events. We did not find any data for these outcomes, or any other information on the efficacy and safety of used interventions. Non-pharmacological interventions for palliative symptom control None of the identified studies used non-pharmacological interventions for palliative symptom control. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found very low certainty evidence for the efficacy of pharmacological interventions for palliative symptom relief in COVID-19 patients. We found no evidence on the safety of pharmacological interventions or efficacy and safety of non-pharmacological interventions for palliative symptom control in COVID-19 patients. The evidence presented here has no specific implications for palliative symptom control in COVID-19 patients because we cannot draw any conclusions about the effectiveness or safety based on the identified evidence. More evidence is needed to guide clinicians, nursing staff, and caregivers when treating symptoms of COVID-19 patients at the end of life. Specifically, future studies ought to investigate palliative symptom control in prospectively registered studies, using an active-controlled setting, assess patient-reported outcomes, and clearly define interventions. The publication of the results of ongoing studies will necessitate an update of this review. The conclusions of an updated review could differ from those of the present review and may allow for a better judgement regarding pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions for palliative symptom control in COVID-19 patients.