A scoping review of international virtual knowledge exchanges for healthcare professionals.

International knowledge exchanges within healthcare have historically been a popular method to provide exposure to practice in other national and international healthcare settings. As the COVID-19 pandemic forced many countries into lockdowns, knowledge exchanges in healthcare were forced into a period of suspension. This provided an opportunity to consider alternative methods of delivery. This scoping review explores virtual knowledge exchanges in healthcare professional education, including their format and related outcomes. Thirty-four virtual knowledge exchanges were identified. These demonstrated viability and subjective participant satisfaction. Virtual methods removed barriers of time, distance and finance associated with traditional exchanges, while still facilitating engagement with other international healthcare colleagues. However these exchanges were heterogeneous in their aims, structure and theoretical underpinnings. An understanding of educational outcomes and their measurement was not always obvious. Applying an overlay of robust pedagogical theory would strengthen and provide structure to the clearly well valued activity of international exchange

Growing old in England: economic and social issues

This paper examines the economic and social impact of changes in the duration of working life for the 80 per cent of older adults living in urban England. While some people are experiencing extended retirement because of moving out of paid work in their fifties, a growing minority of those beyond the state retirement age continue in paid employment. This paper highlights the considerable challenges for urban policy makers in addressing the economic and social inclusion of all older adults

Height and timing of growth spurt during puberty in young people living with vertically acquired HIV in Europe and Thailand.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to describe growth during puberty in young people with vertically acquired HIV. DESIGN: Pooled data from 12 paediatric HIV cohorts in Europe and Thailand. METHODS: One thousand and ninety-four children initiating a nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor or boosted protease inhibitor based regimen aged 1-10 years were included. Super Imposition by Translation And Rotation (SITAR) models described growth from age 8 years using three parameters (average height, timing and shape of the growth spurt), dependent on age and height-for-age z-score (HAZ) (WHO references) at antiretroviral therapy (ART) initiation. Multivariate regression explored characteristics associated with these three parameters. RESULTS: At ART initiation, median age and HAZ was 6.4 [interquartile range (IQR): 2.8, 9.0] years and -1.2 (IQR: -2.3 to -0.2), respectively. Median follow-up was 9.1 (IQR: 6.9, 11.4) years. In girls, older age and lower HAZ at ART initiation were independently associated with a growth spurt which occurred 0.41 (95% confidence interval 0.20-0.62) years later in children starting ART age 6 to 10 years compared with 1 to 2 years and 1.50 (1.21-1.78) years later in those starting with HAZ less than -3 compared with HAZ at least -1. Later growth spurts in girls resulted in continued height growth into later adolescence. In boys starting ART with HAZ less than -1, growth spurts were later in children starting ART in the oldest age group, but for HAZ at least -1, there was no association with age. Girls and boys who initiated ART with HAZ at least -1 maintained a similar height to the WHO reference mean. CONCLUSION: Stunting at ART initiation was associated with later growth spurts in girls. Children with HAZ at least -1 at ART initiation grew in height at the level expected in HIV negative children of a comparable age

Primary medical care in Irish prisons

BACKGROUND: An industrial dispute between prison doctors and the Irish Prison Service (IPS) took place in 2004. Part of the resolution of that dispute was that an independent review of prison medical and support services be carried out by a University Department of Primary Care. The review took place in 2008 and we report here on the principal findings of that review. METHODS: This study utilised a mixed methods approach. An independent expert medical evaluator (one of the authors, DT) inspected the medical facilities, equipment and relevant custodial areas in eleven of the fourteen prisons within the IPS. Semistructured interviews took place with personnel who had operational responsibility for delivery of prison medical care. Prison doctors completed a questionnaire to elicit issues such as allocation of clinician's time, nurse and administrative support and resources available. RESULTS: There was wide variation in the standard of medical facilities and infrastructure provided across the IPS. The range of medical equipment available was generally below that of the equivalent general practice scheme in the community. There is inequality within the system with regard to the ratio of doctor-contracted time relative to the size of the prison population. There is limited administrative support, with the majority of prisons not having a medical secretary. There are few psychiatric or counselling sessions available. CONCLUSIONS: People in prison have a wide range of medical care needs and there is evidence to suggest that these needs are being met inconsistently in Irish prisons

Completeness of reporting and risks of overstating impact in cluster randomised trials : a systematic review

Acknowledgments We received no funding specifically for this systematic review. ELT is funded in part by awards R01-AI141444 from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and R01-MH120649 from the US National Institute of Mental Health; both Institutes are part of the National Institutes of Health (NIH). JAG and ACP's support of this project was made possible (in part) by grant number UL1TR002553 from the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences of the NIH, and the NIH Roadmap for Medical Research. JEM is supported by an Australian National Health and Medical Research Council Career Development Fellowship (APP1143429). SN was supported by an award that is jointly funded by the UK Medical Research Council (MRC) and the UK Department for International Development (DFID) under the MRC/DFID Concordat agreement, and part of the EDCTP2 programme supported by the European Union (grant reference MR/R010161/1). ABF acknowledges funding support from the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia (grant ID 1183303). KH is funded by a National Institute for Health Research Senior Research Fellowship SRF-2017-10-002. The contents of the research included in this manuscript are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of any of the funders. The research contributed by all authors of this manuscript are independent of their funders. Specifically, the funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. We wish to thank the three reviewers for their insightful comments and constructive feedback.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Convalescent plasma in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 (RECOVERY): a randomised controlled, open-label, platform trial

Background: Many patients with COVID-19 have been treated with plasma containing anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of convalescent plasma therapy in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19. Methods: This randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy [RECOVERY]) is assessing several possible treatments in patients hospitalised with COVID-19 in the UK. The trial is underway at 177 NHS hospitals from across the UK. Eligible and consenting patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either usual care alone (usual care group) or usual care plus high-titre convalescent plasma (convalescent plasma group). The primary outcome was 28-day mortality, analysed on an intention-to-treat basis. The trial is registered with ISRCTN, 50189673, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04381936. Findings: Between May 28, 2020, and Jan 15, 2021, 11558 (71%) of 16287 patients enrolled in RECOVERY were eligible to receive convalescent plasma and were assigned to either the convalescent plasma group or the usual care group. There was no significant difference in 28-day mortality between the two groups: 1399 (24%) of 5795 patients in the convalescent plasma group and 1408 (24%) of 5763 patients in the usual care group died within 28 days (rate ratio 1·00, 95% CI 0·93–1·07; p=0·95). The 28-day mortality rate ratio was similar in all prespecified subgroups of patients, including in those patients without detectable SARS-CoV-2 antibodies at randomisation. Allocation to convalescent plasma had no significant effect on the proportion of patients discharged from hospital within 28 days (3832 [66%] patients in the convalescent plasma group vs 3822 [66%] patients in the usual care group; rate ratio 0·99, 95% CI 0·94–1·03; p=0·57). Among those not on invasive mechanical ventilation at randomisation, there was no significant difference in the proportion of patients meeting the composite endpoint of progression to invasive mechanical ventilation or death (1568 [29%] of 5493 patients in the convalescent plasma group vs 1568 [29%] of 5448 patients in the usual care group; rate ratio 0·99, 95% CI 0·93–1·05; p=0·79). Interpretation: In patients hospitalised with COVID-19, high-titre convalescent plasma did not improve survival or other prespecified clinical outcomes. Funding: UK Research and Innovation (Medical Research Council) and National Institute of Health Research

Dimethyl fumarate in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 (RECOVERY): a randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial

Dimethyl fumarate (DMF) inhibits inflammasome-mediated inflammation and has been proposed as a treatment for patients hospitalised with COVID-19. This randomised, controlled, open-label platform trial (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy [RECOVERY]), is assessing multiple treatments in patients hospitalised for COVID-19 (NCT04381936, ISRCTN50189673). In this assessment of DMF performed at 27 UK hospitals, adults were randomly allocated (1:1) to either usual standard of care alone or usual standard of care plus DMF. The primary outcome was clinical status on day 5 measured on a seven-point ordinal scale. Secondary outcomes were time to sustained improvement in clinical status, time to discharge, day 5 peripheral blood oxygenation, day 5 C-reactive protein, and improvement in day 10 clinical status. Between 2 March 2021 and 18 November 2021, 713 patients were enroled in the DMF evaluation, of whom 356 were randomly allocated to receive usual care plus DMF, and 357 to usual care alone. 95% of patients received corticosteroids as part of routine care. There was no evidence of a beneficial effect of DMF on clinical status at day 5 (common odds ratio of unfavourable outcome 1.12; 95% CI 0.86-1.47; p = 0.40). There was no significant effect of DMF on any secondary outcome