What works for wellbeing in culture and sport? Report of a DELPHI process to support coproduction and establish principles and parameters of an evidence review

Aims: There is a growing recognition of the ways in which culture and sport can contribute to wellbeing. A strong evidence base is needed to support innovative service development and a 3-year research programme is being undertaken to capture best evidence of wellbeing impacts and outcomes of cultural and sporting activities in order to inform UK policy and practice. This article provides an overview of methods and findings from an initial coproduction process with key stakeholders that sought to explore and agree principles and parameters of the evidence review for culture, sport and wellbeing (CSW). Methods: A two-stage DELPHI process was conducted with a purposeful sample of 57 stakeholders between August and December 2015. Participants were drawn from a range of culture and sport organisations and included commissioners and managers, policy makers, representatives of service delivery organisations (SDOs) and scholars. The DELPHI 1 questionnaire was developed from extensive consultation in July and August 2015. It explored definitions of wellbeing, the role of evidence, quality assessment, and the culture and sport populations, settings and interventions that are most likely to deliver wellbeing outcomes. Following further consultation, the results, presented as a series of ranked statements, were sent back to participants (DELPHI 2), which allowed them to reflect on and, if they wished, express agreement or disagreement with the emerging consensus. Results: A total of 40 stakeholders (70.02%) responded to the DELPHI questionnaires. DELPHI 1 mapped areas of agreement and disagreement, confirmed in DELPHI 2. The exercise drew together the key priorities for the CSW evidence review. Conclusion: The DELPHI process, in combination with face-to-face deliberation, enabled stakeholders to engage in complex discussion and express nuanced priorities while also allowing the group to come to an overall consensus and agree outcomes. The results will inform the CSW evidence review programme until its completion in March 2018

Selecting a BRCA risk assessment model for use in a familial cancer clinic

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Risk models are used to calculate the likelihood of carrying a <it>BRCA1 </it>or <it>BRCA2 </it>mutation. We evaluated the performances of currently-used risk models among patients from a large familial program using the criteria of high sensitivity, simple data collection and entry and <it>BRCA </it>score reporting.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Risk calculations were performed by applying the BRCAPRO, Manchester, Penn II, Myriad II, FHAT, IBIS and BOADICEA models to 200 non-<it>BRCA </it>carriers and 100 <it>BRCA </it>carriers, consecutively tested between August 1995 and March 2006. Areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUCs) were determined and sensitivity and specificity were calculated at the conventional testing thresholds. In addition, subset analyses were performed for low and high risk probands.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The BRCAPRO, Penn II, Myriad II, FHAT and BOADICEA models all have similar AUCs of approximately 0.75 for <it>BRCA </it>status. The Manchester and IBIS models have lower AUCs (0. and 0.47 respectively). At the conventional testing thresholds, the sensitivities and specificities for a <it>BRCA </it>mutation were, respectively, as follows: BRCAPRO (0.75, 0.62), Manchester (0.58,0.71), Penn II (0.93,0.31), Myriad II (0.71,0.63), FHAT (0.70,0.63), IBIS (0.20,0.74), BOADICEA (0.70, 0.65).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The Penn II model most closely met the criteria we established and this supports the use of this model for identifying individuals appropriate for genetic testing at our facility. These data are applicable to other familial clinics provided that variations in sample populations are taken into consideration.</p

Long Covid in adults discharged from UK hospitals after Covid-19 : a prospective, multicentre cohort study using the ISARIC WHO Clinical Characterisation Protocol

Funding: This work is supported by grants from: the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) [award CO-CIN-01], the Medical Research Council [grant MC_PC_19059], the Imperial Biomedical Research Centre (NIHR Imperial BRC, grant P45058), the Health Protection Research Unit (HPRU) in Respiratory Infections at Imperial College London and NIHR HPRU in Emerging and Zoonotic Infections at University of Liverpool, both in partnership with Public Health England, [NIHR award 200907], Wellcome Trust and Department for International Development [215091/Z/18/Z], and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation [OPP1209135], and Liverpool Experimental Cancer Medicine Centre (Grant Reference: C18616/A25153), NIHR Biomedical Research Centre at Imperial College London [IS-BRC-1215-20013], EU Platform for European Preparedness Against (Re-) emerging Epidemics 1 [FP7 project 602525] and NIHR Clinical Research Network for providing infrastructure support for this research. LT is a Wellcome Trust clinical career development fellow, supported by grant number 205228/Z/16/Z. This research was funded in part, by the Wellcome Trust. PJMO is supported by a NIHR Senior Investigator Award [award 201385].Background : This study sought to establish the long-term effects of Covid-19 following hospitalisation. Methods : 327 hospitalised participants, with SARS-CoV-2 infection were recruited into a prospective multicentre cohort study at least 3 months post-discharge. The primary outcome was self-reported recovery at least ninety days after initial Covid-19 symptom onset. Secondary outcomes included new symptoms, disability (Washington group short scale), breathlessness (MRC Dyspnoea scale) and quality of life (EQ5D-5L). Findings : 55% of participants reported not feeling fully recovered. 93% reported persistent symptoms, with fatigue the most common (83%), followed by breathlessness (54%). 47% reported an increase in MRC dyspnoea scale of at least one grade. New or worse disability was reported by 24% of participants. The EQ5D-5L summary index was significantly worse following acute illness (median difference 0.1 points on a scale of 0 to 1, IQR: -0.2 to 0.0). Females under the age of 50 years were five times less likely to report feeling recovered (adjusted OR 5.09, 95% CI 1.64 to 15.74), were more likely to have greater disability (adjusted OR 4.22, 95% CI 1.12 to 15.94), twice as likely to report worse fatigue (adjusted OR 2.06, 95% CI 0.81 to 3.31) and seven times more likely to become more breathless (adjusted OR 7.15, 95% CI 2.24 to 22.83) than men of the same age. Interpretation : Survivors of Covid-19 experienced long-term symptoms, new disability, increased breathlessness, and reduced quality of life. These findings were present in young, previously healthy working age adults, and were most common in younger females.Publisher PDFPeer reviewe

Being Ready to Treat Ebola Virus Disease Patients

As the outbreak of Ebola virus disease (EVD) in West Africa continues, clinical preparedness is needed in countries at risk for EVD (e.g., United States) and more fully equipped and supported clinical teams in those countries with epidemic spread of EVD in Africa. Clinical staff must approach the patient with a very deliberate focus on providing effective care while assuring personal safety. To do this, both individual health care providers and health systems must improve EVD care. Although formal guidance toward these goals exists from the World Health Organization, Medecin Sans Frontières, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and other groups, some of the most critical lessons come from personal experience. In this narrative, clinicians deployed by the World Health Organization into a wide range of clinical settings in West Africa distill key, practical considerations for working safely and effectively with patients with EVD

A prospective cohort study of dietary patterns of non-western migrants in the Netherlands in relation to risk factors for cardiovascular diseases: HELIUS-Dietary Patterns

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>In Western countries the prevalence of cardiovascular disease (CVD) is often higher in non-Western migrants as compared to the host population. Diet is an important modifiable determinant of CVD. Increasingly, dietary patterns rather than single nutrients are the focus of research in an attempt to account for the complexity of nutrient interactions in foods. Research on dietary patterns in non-Western migrants is limited and may be hampered by a lack of validated instruments that can be used to assess the habitual diet of non-western migrants in large scale epidemiological studies. The ultimate aims of this study are to (1) understand whether differences in dietary patterns explain differences in CVD risk between ethnic groups, by developing and validating ethnic-specific Food Frequency Questionnaires (FFQs), and (2) to investigate the determinants of these dietary patterns. This paper outlines the design and methods used in the HELIUS-Dietary Patterns study and describes a systematic approach to overcome difficulties in the assessment and analysis of dietary intake data in ethnically diverse populations.</p> <p>Methods/Design</p> <p>The HELIUS-Dietary Patterns study is embedded in the HELIUS study, a Dutch multi-ethnic cohort study. After developing ethnic-specific FFQs, we will gather data on the habitual intake of 5000 participants (18-70 years old) of ethnic Dutch, Surinamese of African and of South Asian origin, Turkish or Moroccan origin. Dietary patterns will be derived using factor analysis, but we will also evaluate diet quality using hypothesis-driven approaches. The relation between dietary patterns and CVD risk factors will be analysed using multiple linear regression analysis. Potential underlying determinants of dietary patterns like migration history, acculturation, socio-economic factors and lifestyle, will be considered.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>This study will allow us to investigate the contribution of the dietary patterns on CVD risk factors in a multi-ethnic population. Inclusion of five ethnic groups residing in one setting makes this study highly innovative as confounding by local environment characteristics is limited. Heterogeneity in the study population will provide variance in dietary patterns which is a great advantage when studying the link between diet and disease.</p