International assessment of the link between COVID-19 related attitudes, concerns and behaviours in relation to public health policies: optimising policy strategies to improve health, economic and quality of life outcomes (the iCARE Study)

Introduction: In the context of a highly contagious virus with only recently approved vaccines and no cure, the key to slowing the spread of the COVID-19 disease and successfully transitioning through the phases of the pandemic, including vaccine uptake, is public adherence to rapidly evolving behaviour-based public health policies. The overall objective of the iCARE Study is to assess public awareness, attitudes, concerns and behavioural responses to COVID-19 public health policies, and their impacts, on people around the world and to link behavioural survey data with policy, mobility and case data to provide behavioural science, data-driven recommendations to governments on how to optimise current policy strategies to reduce the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods and analyses: The iCARE study (www.icarestudy.com) uses a multiple cross-sectional survey design to capture self-reported information on a variety of COVID-19 related variables from individuals around the globe. Survey data are captured using two data capture methods: convenience and representative sampling. These data are then linked to open access data for policies, cases and population movement. Ethics and dissemination: The primary ethical approval was obtained from the coordinating site, the Centre intégré universitaire de santé et de services sociaux du Nord-de-l’Île-de-Montréal (REB#: 2020–2099/03–25–2020). This study will provide high-quality, accelerated and real-time evidence to help us understand the effectiveness of evolving country-level policies and communication strategies to reduce the spread of the COVID-19. Due to the urgency of the pandemic, results will be disseminated in a variety of ways, including policy briefs, social media posts, press releases and through regular scientific methods

Long-term effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines against infections, hospitalisations, and mortality in adults: findings from a rapid living systematic evidence synthesis and meta-analysis up to December, 2022

Background Synthesising evidence on the long-term vaccine effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines (BNT162b2 [Pfizer–BioNTech], mRNA-1273 [Moderna], ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 [AZD1222; Oxford–AstraZeneca], and Ad26.COV2.S [Janssen]) against infections, hospitalisations, and mortality is crucial to making evidence-based pandemic policy decisions. Methods In this rapid living systematic evidence synthesis and meta-analysis, we searched EMBASE and the US National Institutes of Health's iSearch COVID-19 Portfolio, supplemented by manual searches of COVID-19-specific sources, until Dec 1, 2022, for studies that reported vaccine effectiveness immediately and at least 112 days after a primary vaccine series or at least 84 days after a booster dose. Single reviewers assessed titles, abstracts, and full-text articles, and extracted data, with a second reviewer verifying included studies. The primary outcomes were vaccine effectiveness against SARS-CoV-2 infections, hospitalisations, and mortality, which were assessed using three-level meta-analytic models. This study is registered with the National Collaborating Centre for Methods and Tools, review 473. Findings We screened 16 696 records at the title and abstract level, appraised 832 (5·0%) full texts, and initially included 73 (0·4%) studies. Of these, we excluded five (7%) studies because of critical risk of bias, leaving 68 (93%) studies that were extracted for analysis. For infections caused by any SARS-CoV-2 strain, vaccine effectiveness for the primary series reduced from 83% (95% CI 80–86) at baseline (14–42 days) to 62% (53–69) by 112–139 days. Vaccine effectiveness at baseline was 92% (88–94) for hospitalisations and 91% (85–95) for mortality, and reduced to 79% (65–87) at 224–251 days for hospitalisations and 86% (73–93) at 168–195 days for mortality. Estimated vaccine effectiveness was lower for the omicron variant for infections, hospitalisations, and mortality at baseline compared with that of other variants, but subsequent reductions occurred at a similar rate across variants. For booster doses, which covered mostly omicron studies, vaccine effectiveness at baseline was 70% (56–80) against infections and 89% (82–93) against hospitalisations, and reduced to 43% (14–62) against infections and 71% (51–83) against hospitalisations at 112 days or later. Not enough studies were available to report on booster vaccine effectiveness against mortality. Interpretation Our analyses indicate that vaccine effectiveness generally decreases over time against SARS-CoV-2 infections, hospitalisations, and mortality. The baseline vaccine effectiveness levels for the omicron variant were notably lower than for other variants. Therefore, other preventive measures (eg, face-mask wearing and physical distancing) might be necessary to manage the pandemic in the long term. Funding Canadian Institutes of Health Research and the Public Health Agency of Canada

International Perspectives on the practical application of violence risk assessment : a global survey of 44 countries

Mental health professionals are routinely called upon to assess the risk of violence presented by their patients. Prior surveys of risk assessment methods have been largely circumscribed to individual countries and have not compared the practices of different professional disciplines. Therefore, a Web-based survey was developed to examine methods of violence risk assessment across six continents, and to compare the perceived utility of these methods by psychologists, psychiatrists, and nurses. The survey was translated into nine languages and distributed to members of 59 national and international organizations. Surveys were completed by 2135 respondents from 44 countries. Respondents in all six continents reported using instruments to assess, manage, and monitor violence risk, with over half of risk assessments in the past 12 months conducted using such an instrument. Respondents in Asia and South America reported conducting fewer structured assessments, and psychologists reported using instruments more than psychiatrists or nurses. Feedback regarding outcomes was not common: respondents who conducted structured risk assessments reported receiving feedback on accuracy in under 40% of cases, and those who used instruments to develop management plans reported feedback on whether plans were implemented in under 50% of cases. When information on the latter was obtained, risk management plans were not implemented in over a third of cases. Results suggest that violence risk assessment is a global phenomenon, as is the use of instruments to assist in this task. Improved feedback following risk assessments and the development of risk management plans could improve the efficacy of health services