Experiences of a digital health intervention for young people exposed to technology assisted sexual abuse:A qualitative study

BACKGROUND: There is growing evidence that Technology Assisted Sexual Abuse (TASA) represents a serious problem for large numbers of children. To date, there are very few evidence-based interventions available to young people (YP) after they have been exposed to this form of abuse, and access to support services remains a challenge. Digital tools such as smartphones have the potential to increase access to mental health support and may provide an opportunity for YP to both manage their distress and reduce the possibility of further victimization. The current study explores the acceptability of a digital health intervention (DHI; the i-Minds app) which is a theory-driven, co-produced, mentalization-based DHI designed for YP aged 12-18 who have experienced TASA.METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 15 YP recruited through Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services, a Sexual Assault Referral Centre and an e-therapy provider who had access to the i-Minds app as part of a feasibility clinical trial. Interviews focused on the acceptability and usability of i-Minds and were coded to themes based on the Acceptability of Healthcare Interventions framework.RESULTS: All participants found the i-Minds app acceptable. Many aspects of the app were seen as enjoyable and useful in helping YP understand their abuse, manage feelings, and change behavior. The app was seen as usable and easy to navigate, but for some participants the level of text was problematic and aspects of the content was, at times, emotionally distressing at times.CONCLUSIONS: The i-Minds app is useful in the management of TASA and helping change some risk-related vulnerabilities. The app was designed, developed and evaluated with YP who had experienced TASA and this may account for the high levels of acceptability seen.TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial was registered on the ISRCTN registry on the 12/04/2022 as i-Minds: a digital intervention for young people exposed to online sexual abuse (ISRCTN43130832).</p

Measurement of χ c1 and χ c2 production with s√ = 7 TeV pp collisions at ATLAS

The prompt and non-prompt production cross-sections for the χ c1 and χ c2 charmonium states are measured in pp collisions at s√ = 7 TeV with the ATLAS detector at the LHC using 4.5 fb−1 of integrated luminosity. The χ c states are reconstructed through the radiative decay χ c → J/ψγ (with J/ψ → μ + μ −) where photons are reconstructed from γ → e + e − conversions. The production rate of the χ c2 state relative to the χ c1 state is measured for prompt and non-prompt χ c as a function of J/ψ transverse momentum. The prompt χ c cross-sections are combined with existing measurements of prompt J/ψ production to derive the fraction of prompt J/ψ produced in feed-down from χ c decays. The fractions of χ c1 and χ c2 produced in b-hadron decays are also measured

Measurement of the inclusive jet cross-section in proton-proton collisions at √s=7 TeV using 4.5 fb−1 of data with the ATLAS detector

The inclusive jet cross-section is measured in proton-proton collisions at a centre-of-mass energy of 7 TeV using a data set corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 4.5 fb−1 collected with the ATLAS detector at the Large Hadron Collider in 2011. Jets are identified using the anti-kt algorithm with radius parameter values of 0.4 and 0.6. The double-differential cross-sections are presented as a function of the jet transverse momentum and the jet rapidity, covering jet transverse momenta from 100 GeV to 2 TeV. Next-to-leading-order QCD calculations corrected for non-perturbative effects and electroweak effects, as well as Monte Carlo simulations with next-to-leading-order matrix elements interfaced to parton showering, are compared to the measured cross-sections. A quantitative comparison of the measured cross-sections to the QCD calculations using several sets of parton distribution functions is performed

Safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (AZD1222) against SARS-CoV-2: an interim analysis of four randomised controlled trials in Brazil, South Africa, and the UK.

BACKGROUND: A safe and efficacious vaccine against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), if deployed with high coverage, could contribute to the control of the COVID-19 pandemic. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine in a pooled interim analysis of four trials. METHODS: This analysis includes data from four ongoing blinded, randomised, controlled trials done across the UK, Brazil, and South Africa. Participants aged 18 years and older were randomly assigned (1:1) to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine or control (meningococcal group A, C, W, and Y conjugate vaccine or saline). Participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group received two doses containing 5 × 1010 viral particles (standard dose; SD/SD cohort); a subset in the UK trial received a half dose as their first dose (low dose) and a standard dose as their second dose (LD/SD cohort). The primary efficacy analysis included symptomatic COVID-19 in seronegative participants with a nucleic acid amplification test-positive swab more than 14 days after a second dose of vaccine. Participants were analysed according to treatment received, with data cutoff on Nov 4, 2020. Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1 - relative risk derived from a robust Poisson regression model adjusted for age. Studies are registered at ISRCTN89951424 and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324606, NCT04400838, and NCT04444674. FINDINGS: Between April 23 and Nov 4, 2020, 23 848 participants were enrolled and 11 636 participants (7548 in the UK, 4088 in Brazil) were included in the interim primary efficacy analysis. In participants who received two standard doses, vaccine efficacy was 62·1% (95% CI 41·0-75·7; 27 [0·6%] of 4440 in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group vs71 [1·6%] of 4455 in the control group) and in participants who received a low dose followed by a standard dose, efficacy was 90·0% (67·4-97·0; three [0·2%] of 1367 vs 30 [2·2%] of 1374; pinteraction=0·010). Overall vaccine efficacy across both groups was 70·4% (95·8% CI 54·8-80·6; 30 [0·5%] of 5807 vs 101 [1·7%] of 5829). From 21 days after the first dose, there were ten cases hospitalised for COVID-19, all in the control arm; two were classified as severe COVID-19, including one death. There were 74 341 person-months of safety follow-up (median 3·4 months, IQR 1·3-4·8): 175 severe adverse events occurred in 168 participants, 84 events in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 91 in the control group. Three events were classified as possibly related to a vaccine: one in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group, one in the control group, and one in a participant who remains masked to group allocation. INTERPRETATION: ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 has an acceptable safety profile and has been found to be efficacious against symptomatic COVID-19 in this interim analysis of ongoing clinical trials. FUNDING: UK Research and Innovation, National Institutes for Health Research (NIHR), Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Lemann Foundation, Rede D'Or, Brava and Telles Foundation, NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Thames Valley and South Midland's NIHR Clinical Research Network, and AstraZeneca

Safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (AZD1222) against SARS-CoV-2: an interim analysis of four randomised controlled trials in Brazil, South Africa, and the UK

Background A safe and efficacious vaccine against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), if deployed with high coverage, could contribute to the control of the COVID-19 pandemic. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine in a pooled interim analysis of four trials. Methods This analysis includes data from four ongoing blinded, randomised, controlled trials done across the UK, Brazil, and South Africa. Participants aged 18 years and older were randomly assigned (1:1) to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine or control (meningococcal group A, C, W, and Y conjugate vaccine or saline). Participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group received two doses containing 5 × 1010 viral particles (standard dose; SD/SD cohort); a subset in the UK trial received a half dose as their first dose (low dose) and a standard dose as their second dose (LD/SD cohort). The primary efficacy analysis included symptomatic COVID-19 in seronegative participants with a nucleic acid amplification test-positive swab more than 14 days after a second dose of vaccine. Participants were analysed according to treatment received, with data cutoff on Nov 4, 2020. Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1 - relative risk derived from a robust Poisson regression model adjusted for age. Studies are registered at ISRCTN89951424 and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324606, NCT04400838, and NCT04444674. Findings Between April 23 and Nov 4, 2020, 23 848 participants were enrolled and 11 636 participants (7548 in the UK, 4088 in Brazil) were included in the interim primary efficacy analysis. In participants who received two standard doses, vaccine efficacy was 62·1% (95% CI 41·0–75·7; 27 [0·6%] of 4440 in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group vs71 [1·6%] of 4455 in the control group) and in participants who received a low dose followed by a standard dose, efficacy was 90·0% (67·4–97·0; three [0·2%] of 1367 vs 30 [2·2%] of 1374; pinteraction=0·010). Overall vaccine efficacy across both groups was 70·4% (95·8% CI 54·8–80·6; 30 [0·5%] of 5807 vs 101 [1·7%] of 5829). From 21 days after the first dose, there were ten cases hospitalised for COVID-19, all in the control arm; two were classified as severe COVID-19, including one death. There were 74 341 person-months of safety follow-up (median 3·4 months, IQR 1·3–4·8): 175 severe adverse events occurred in 168 participants, 84 events in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 91 in the control group. Three events were classified as possibly related to a vaccine: one in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group, one in the control group, and one in a participant who remains masked to group allocation. Interpretation ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 has an acceptable safety profile and has been found to be efficacious against symptomatic COVID-19 in this interim analysis of ongoing clinical trials

Effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and angiotensin receptor blocker initiation on organ support-free days in patients hospitalized with COVID-19

IMPORTANCE Overactivation of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) may contribute to poor clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. Objective To determine whether angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) initiation improves outcomes in patients hospitalized for COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS In an ongoing, adaptive platform randomized clinical trial, 721 critically ill and 58 non–critically ill hospitalized adults were randomized to receive an RAS inhibitor or control between March 16, 2021, and February 25, 2022, at 69 sites in 7 countries (final follow-up on June 1, 2022). INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized to receive open-label initiation of an ACE inhibitor (n = 257), ARB (n = 248), ARB in combination with DMX-200 (a chemokine receptor-2 inhibitor; n = 10), or no RAS inhibitor (control; n = 264) for up to 10 days. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was organ support–free days, a composite of hospital survival and days alive without cardiovascular or respiratory organ support through 21 days. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model. Odds ratios (ORs) greater than 1 represent improved outcomes. RESULTS On February 25, 2022, enrollment was discontinued due to safety concerns. Among 679 critically ill patients with available primary outcome data, the median age was 56 years and 239 participants (35.2%) were women. Median (IQR) organ support–free days among critically ill patients was 10 (–1 to 16) in the ACE inhibitor group (n = 231), 8 (–1 to 17) in the ARB group (n = 217), and 12 (0 to 17) in the control group (n = 231) (median adjusted odds ratios of 0.77 [95% bayesian credible interval, 0.58-1.06] for improvement for ACE inhibitor and 0.76 [95% credible interval, 0.56-1.05] for ARB compared with control). The posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitors and ARBs worsened organ support–free days compared with control were 94.9% and 95.4%, respectively. Hospital survival occurred in 166 of 231 critically ill participants (71.9%) in the ACE inhibitor group, 152 of 217 (70.0%) in the ARB group, and 182 of 231 (78.8%) in the control group (posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitor and ARB worsened hospital survival compared with control were 95.3% and 98.1%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this trial, among critically ill adults with COVID-19, initiation of an ACE inhibitor or ARB did not improve, and likely worsened, clinical outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT0273570

What are practitioners' views of how digital health interventions may play a role in online child sexual abuse service delivery?

Introduction: Online child sexual abuse (OCSA) affects considerable numbers of children globally and is associated with a variety of mental health problems. Existing practitioner studies suggest that young people are infrequently asked about online abuse and practitioners have a fragmented understanding of the problems experienced or how they might approach them. There are very few evidence-based interventions that guide clinical assessment or practice. Digital Health Interventions (DHIs) have the potential to be an effective option where children and young people’s services are challenged, including accessibility and anonymity. The aim of this study was to explore mental health practitioners’ views of how DHIs may play a role in supporting young people who have experienced OCSA, and the role they can play in healthcare delivery.Method: In-depth qualitative interviews and one focus group were conducted with 25 child mental health professionals across two sites (Manchester and Edinburgh). Data was analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis.Results: Three overarching themes and 9 sub-themes were identified: (1) advantages of another DHI; (2) challenges of DHIs; and (3) DHI development considerations. Practitioners expressed interest in a DHI to support this client group and saw it as a way of managing waiting lists and complementing existing therapies. They felt that many young people would see this as a preferred medium to in-person therapy, would be empowering, and offers new ways of learning how to stay safe online. However, there were concerns about how much time would be needed by staff to deliver a DHI, anxieties about safety issues in relation to content and data protection, some of which may be unique to this population of young people, and concerns about the absence of a therapeutic relationship with vulnerable children. Discussion: Our findings indicated that practitioners were uncertain about working with children subjected to OCSA but were receptive to the possibility of using a DHI to support their practice and to reduce waiting lists. Concerns were expressed about the time needed for staff training and support as well as concerns over patient safety and the lack of evidence about the effectiveness of an unsupported DHI