A new look at an old well-being construct: evaluating the psychometric properties of 9, 5, and 1-item versions of emotional exhaustion metrics

ObjectiveTo compare the relative strengths (psychometric and convergent validity) of four emotional exhaustion (EE) measures: 9- and 5-item scales and two 1-item metrics.Patients and methodsThis was a national cross-sectional survey study of 1409 US physicians in 2013. Psychometric properties were compared using Cronbach’s alpha, Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA), Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA), and Spearman’s Correlations. Convergent validity with subjective happiness (SHS), depression (CES-D10), work-life integration (WLI), and intention to leave current position (ITL) was assessed using Spearman’s Correlations and Fisher’s R-to-Z.ResultsThe 5-item EE scale correlated highly with the 9-item scale (Spearman’s rho = 0.828), demonstrated excellent internal reliability (alpha = 0.87), and relative to the 9-item, exhibited superior CFA model fit (RMSEA = 0.082, CFI = 0.986, TLI = 0.972). The 5-item EE scale correlated as highly as the 9-item scale with SHS, CES-D10, and WLI, and significantly stronger than the 9-item scale to ITL. Both 1-item EE metrics had significantly weaker correlation with SHS, CES-D10, WLI, and ITL (Fisher’s R-to-Z; p < 0.05) than the 5- and 9-item EE scales.ConclusionThe 5-item EE scale was repeatedly found equivalent or superior to the 9-item version across analyses, particularly with respect to the CFA results. As there is no cost to using the briefer 5-item EE scale, the burden on respondents is smaller, and widespread access to administering and interpreting an excellent wellbeing metric is enhanced at a critical time in global wellbeing research. The single item EE metrics exhibited lower convergent validity than the 5- and 9-item scales, but are acceptable for detecting a signal of EE when using a validated EE scale is not feasible. Replication of psychometrics and open-access benchmarking results for use of the 5-tem EE scale further enhance access and utility of this metric

Large expert-curated database for benchmarking document similarity detection in biomedical literature search

Document recommendation systems for locating relevant literature have mostly relied on methods developed a decade ago. This is largely due to the lack of a large offline gold-standard benchmark of relevant documents that cover a variety of research fields such that newly developed literature search techniques can be compared, improved and translated into practice. To overcome this bottleneck, we have established the RElevant LIterature SearcH consortium consisting of more than 1500 scientists from 84 countries, who have collectively annotated the relevance of over 180 000 PubMed-listed articles with regard to their respective seed (input) article/s. The majority of annotations were contributed by highly experienced, original authors of the seed articles. The collected data cover 76% of all unique PubMed Medical Subject Headings descriptors. No systematic biases were observed across different experience levels, research fields or time spent on annotations. More importantly, annotations of the same document pairs contributed by different scientists were highly concordant. We further show that the three representative baseline methods used to generate recommended articles for evaluation (Okapi Best Matching 25, Term Frequency-Inverse Document Frequency and PubMed Related Articles) had similar overall performances. Additionally, we found that these methods each tend to produce distinct collections of recommended articles, suggesting that a hybrid method may be required to completely capture all relevant articles. The established database server located at https://relishdb.ict.griffith.edu.au is freely available for the downloading of annotation data and the blind testing of new methods. We expect that this benchmark will be useful for stimulating the development of new powerful techniques for title and title/abstract-based search engines for relevant articles in biomedical research.Peer reviewe

Multiorgan MRI findings after hospitalisation with COVID-19 in the UK (C-MORE): a prospective, multicentre, observational cohort study

Introduction: The multiorgan impact of moderate to severe coronavirus infections in the post-acute phase is still poorly understood. We aimed to evaluate the excess burden of multiorgan abnormalities after hospitalisation with COVID-19, evaluate their determinants, and explore associations with patient-related outcome measures. Methods: In a prospective, UK-wide, multicentre MRI follow-up study (C-MORE), adults (aged ≥18 years) discharged from hospital following COVID-19 who were included in Tier 2 of the Post-hospitalisation COVID-19 study (PHOSP-COVID) and contemporary controls with no evidence of previous COVID-19 (SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid antibody negative) underwent multiorgan MRI (lungs, heart, brain, liver, and kidneys) with quantitative and qualitative assessment of images and clinical adjudication when relevant. Individuals with end-stage renal failure or contraindications to MRI were excluded. Participants also underwent detailed recording of symptoms, and physiological and biochemical tests. The primary outcome was the excess burden of multiorgan abnormalities (two or more organs) relative to controls, with further adjustments for potential confounders. The C-MORE study is ongoing and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04510025. Findings: Of 2710 participants in Tier 2 of PHOSP-COVID, 531 were recruited across 13 UK-wide C-MORE sites. After exclusions, 259 C-MORE patients (mean age 57 years [SD 12]; 158 [61%] male and 101 [39%] female) who were discharged from hospital with PCR-confirmed or clinically diagnosed COVID-19 between March 1, 2020, and Nov 1, 2021, and 52 non-COVID-19 controls from the community (mean age 49 years [SD 14]; 30 [58%] male and 22 [42%] female) were included in the analysis. Patients were assessed at a median of 5·0 months (IQR 4·2–6·3) after hospital discharge. Compared with non-COVID-19 controls, patients were older, living with more obesity, and had more comorbidities. Multiorgan abnormalities on MRI were more frequent in patients than in controls (157 [61%] of 259 vs 14 [27%] of 52; p<0·0001) and independently associated with COVID-19 status (odds ratio [OR] 2·9 [95% CI 1·5–5·8]; padjusted=0·0023) after adjusting for relevant confounders. Compared with controls, patients were more likely to have MRI evidence of lung abnormalities (p=0·0001; parenchymal abnormalities), brain abnormalities (p<0·0001; more white matter hyperintensities and regional brain volume reduction), and kidney abnormalities (p=0·014; lower medullary T1 and loss of corticomedullary differentiation), whereas cardiac and liver MRI abnormalities were similar between patients and controls. Patients with multiorgan abnormalities were older (difference in mean age 7 years [95% CI 4–10]; mean age of 59·8 years [SD 11·7] with multiorgan abnormalities vs mean age of 52·8 years [11·9] without multiorgan abnormalities; p<0·0001), more likely to have three or more comorbidities (OR 2·47 [1·32–4·82]; padjusted=0·0059), and more likely to have a more severe acute infection (acute CRP >5mg/L, OR 3·55 [1·23–11·88]; padjusted=0·025) than those without multiorgan abnormalities. Presence of lung MRI abnormalities was associated with a two-fold higher risk of chest tightness, and multiorgan MRI abnormalities were associated with severe and very severe persistent physical and mental health impairment (PHOSP-COVID symptom clusters) after hospitalisation. Interpretation: After hospitalisation for COVID-19, people are at risk of multiorgan abnormalities in the medium term. Our findings emphasise the need for proactive multidisciplinary care pathways, with the potential for imaging to guide surveillance frequency and therapeutic stratification

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

Distribution of malaria exposure in endemic countries in Africa considering country levels of effective treatment

Malaria prevalence, clinical incidence, treatment, and transmission rates are dynamically interrelated. Prevalence is often considered a measure of malaria transmission, but treatment of clinical malaria reduces prevalence, and consequently also infectiousness to the mosquito vector and onward transmission. The impact of the frequency of treatment on prevalence in a population is generally not considered. This can lead to potential underestimation of malaria exposure in settings with good health systems. Furthermore, these dynamical relationships between prevalence, treatment, and transmission have not generally been taken into account in estimates of burden.; Using prevalence as an input, estimates of disease incidence and transmission [as the distribution of the entomological inoculation rate (EIR)] for Plasmodium falciparum have now been made for 43 countries in Africa using both empirical relationships (that do not allow for treatment) and OpenMalaria dynamic micro-simulation models (that explicitly include the effects of treatment). For each estimate, prevalence inputs were taken from geo-statistical models fitted for the year 2010 by the Malaria Atlas Project to all available observed prevalence data. National level estimates of the effectiveness of case management in treating clinical attacks were used as inputs to the estimation of both EIR and disease incidence by the dynamic models.; When coverage of effective treatment is taken into account, higher country level estimates of average EIR and thus higher disease burden, are obtained for a given prevalence level, especially where access to treatment is high, and prevalence relatively low. These methods provide a unified framework for comparison of both the immediate and longer-term impacts of case management and of preventive interventions

Gamma Interferon Alters Junctional Integrity via Rho Kinase, Resulting in Blood-Brain Barrier Leakage in Experimental Viral Encephalitis

In an experimental viral encephalitis mouse model in which mice are infected with reovirus, we show that IFN-γ induces blood-brain barrier leakage. We show that IFN-γ promotes Rho kinase activity, resulting in actin cytoskeletal contractions in the brain endothelium that lead to vascular junctional disorganization and cell-cell separations. These studies now provide insight into a previously unknown mechanism for how blood-brain barrier breakdown occurs in viral encephalitis and implicates IFN-γ-Rho kinase activity as major contributor to this phenomenon. By identifying this mechanism of blood-brain barrier breakdown, we now provide potential therapeutic targets in treating patients with viral causes of encephalitis with the hope of limiting damage to the central nervous system.Blood-brain barrier (BBB) breakdown is a hallmark of many diseases of the central nervous system (CNS). Loss of BBB integrity in CNS diseases such as viral encephalitis results in the loss of nutrient/oxygen delivery, rapid infiltration of immune cells, and brain swelling that can exacerbate neuronal injury. Despite this, the cellular and molecular mechanisms that underlie BBB breakdown in viral encephalitis are incompletely understood. We undertook a comprehensive analysis of the cellular and molecular signaling events that induce BBB breakdown in an experimental model of virus-induced encephalitis in which neonatal mice are infected with reovirus (serotype 3 strain Abney). We show that BBB leakage during reovirus infection correlates with morphological changes in the vasculature, reductions in pericytes (BBB supporting cells), and disorganization of vascular junctions. Pathway analysis on RNA sequencing from brain endothelial cells identified the activation of interferon (IFN) signaling within the brain vasculature following reovirus infection. Our in vitro and in vivo studies show that type II IFN mediated by IFN-γ, a well known antiviral signal, is a major contributor to BBB leakage during reovirus infection. We show that IFN-γ reduces barrier properties in cultured brain endothelial cells through Rho kinase (ROCK)-mediated cytoskeletal contractions, resulting in junctional disorganization and cell-cell separations. In vivo neutralization of IFN-γ during reovirus infection significantly improved BBB integrity, pericyte coverage, attenuated vascular ROCK activity, and junctional disorganization. Our work supports a model in which IFN-γ acts directly on the brain endothelium to induce BBB breakdown through a mechanism involving ROCK-induced junctional disorganization

Ecological System Influences in the Treatment of Pediatric Chronic Pain

Family, school and the peer network each shape the chronic pain experience of the individual child, and each of these contexts also represents a domain of functioning often impaired by chronic pain. The goal of the present article is to summarize what is known about these bidirectional influences between children with pain and the social systems that surround them. Case reports that illustrate these complex, transactional forces and their ultimate impact on the child’s pain-related functioning are included. A case involving siblings participating in an intensive interdisciplinary program for functional restoration and pain rehabilitation highlights how parents change through this treatment approach and how this change is vital to the child’s outcomes. Another case involving a child undergoing intensive interdisciplinary treatment illustrates how school avoidance can be treated in the context of pain rehabilitation, resulting in successful return to the regular school environment. Finally, an acceptance and commitment therapy-focused group intervention for children with sickle cell disease and their parents demonstrates the benefits of peer contact as an element of the therapeutic intervention