Impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic and self-isolation on students and staff in higher education: A qualitative study

This qualitative study explored the impact of COVID-19 self-isolation and social restriction measures on university students, through the perspectives of both students and the staff supporting them. The study comprised 11 focus groups (students) and 26 individual interviews (staff) at a higher education institution in England during a period of national lockdown (January–March 2021). Participants were university students (n = 52) with self-isolation experiences and university staff (n = 26) with student-facing support roles. Focus group and interview data were combined and analysed using an inductive thematic approach. Four themes emerged: ‘Adaptation during the pandemic’, ‘Practical, environmental, and emotional challenges of self-isolating’, ‘Social factors and their impact on COVID-19 testing and self-isolation adherence’, and ‘Supporting self-isolation’. Students and staff struggled with the imposed restrictions and shift to online education. Students found it difficult to adapt to new expectations for university life and reported missing out on professional and social experiences. Students and staff noted concerns about the impact of online teaching on educational outcomes. Students endorsed varied emotional responses to self-isolation; some felt unaffected whilst others experienced lowered mood and loneliness. Students were motivated by pro-social attitudes; campaigns targeting these factors may encourage continued engagement in protective behaviours. Staff struggled to manage their increased workloads delivering support for self-isolating students. Universities must consider the support needs of students during self-isolation and prepare for the long-term impacts of the pandemic on student wellbeing and educational attainment. Greater support should be provided for staff during transitional periods, with ongoing monitoring of workforce stress levels warranted

Safety and immunogenicity of heterologous versus homologous prime-boost schedules with an adenoviral vectored and mRNA COVID-19 vaccine (Com-COV): a single-blind, randomised, non-inferiority trial

Background: Use of heterologous prime-boost COVID-19 vaccine schedules could facilitate mass COVID-19 immunisation. However, we have previously reported that heterologous schedules incorporating an adenoviral vectored vaccine (ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, AstraZeneca; hereafter referred to as ChAd) and an mRNA vaccine (BNT162b2, Pfizer–BioNTech; hereafter referred to as BNT) at a 4-week interval are more reactogenic than homologous schedules. Here, we report the safety and immunogenicity of heterologous schedules with the ChAd and BNT vaccines. Methods: Com-COV is a participant-blinded, randomised, non-inferiority trial evaluating vaccine safety, reactogenicity, and immunogenicity. Adults aged 50 years and older with no or well controlled comorbidities and no previous SARS-CoV-2 infection by laboratory confirmation were eligible and were recruited at eight sites across the UK. The majority of eligible participants were enrolled into the general cohort (28-day or 84-day prime-boost intervals), who were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1:1:1:1:1) to receive ChAd/ChAd, ChAd/BNT, BNT/BNT, or BNT/ChAd, administered at either 28-day or 84-day prime-boost intervals. A small subset of eligible participants (n=100) were enrolled into an immunology cohort, who had additional blood tests to evaluate immune responses; these participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) to the four schedules (28-day interval only). Participants were masked to the vaccine received but not to the prime-boost interval. The primary endpoint was the geometric mean ratio (GMR) of serum SARS-CoV-2 anti-spike IgG concentration (measured by ELISA) at 28 days after boost, when comparing ChAd/BNT with ChAd/ChAd, and BNT/ChAd with BNT/BNT. The heterologous schedules were considered non-inferior to the approved homologous schedules if the lower limit of the one-sided 97·5% CI of the GMR of these comparisons was greater than 0·63. The primary analysis was done in the per-protocol population, who were seronegative at baseline. Safety analyses were done among participants receiving at least one dose of a study vaccine. The trial is registered with ISRCTN, 69254139. Findings: Between Feb 11 and Feb 26, 2021, 830 participants were enrolled and randomised, including 463 participants with a 28-day prime-boost interval, for whom results are reported here. The mean age of participants was 57·8 years (SD 4·7), with 212 (46%) female participants and 117 (25%) from ethnic minorities. At day 28 post boost, the geometric mean concentration of SARS-CoV-2 anti-spike IgG in ChAd/BNT recipients (12 906 ELU/mL) was non-inferior to that in ChAd/ChAd recipients (1392 ELU/mL), with a GMR of 9·2 (one-sided 97·5% CI 7·5 to ∞). In participants primed with BNT, we did not show non-inferiority of the heterologous schedule (BNT/ChAd, 7133 ELU/mL) against the homologous schedule (BNT/BNT, 14 080 ELU/mL), with a GMR of 0·51 (one-sided 97·5% CI 0·43 to ∞). Four serious adverse events occurred across all groups, none of which were considered to be related to immunisation. Interpretation: Despite the BNT/ChAd regimen not meeting non-inferiority criteria, the SARS-CoV-2 anti-spike IgG concentrations of both heterologous schedules were higher than that of a licensed vaccine schedule (ChAd/ChAd) with proven efficacy against COVID-19 disease and hospitalisation. Along with the higher immunogenicity of ChAd/BNT compared with ChAD/ChAd, these data support flexibility in the use of heterologous prime-boost vaccination using ChAd and BNT COVID-19 vaccines. Funding: UK Vaccine Task Force and National Institute for Health Research

Understanding the Value of a Proactive Telecare System in Supporting Older Adults’ Independence at Home : Qualitative Interview Study Among Key Interest Groups

Background: Telecare is claimed to support people to live in their own homes for longer by providing monitoring services that enable responses to emergencies at home. Although most telecare technologies commissioned in the United Kingdom predominantly supply reactive services, there has been recent interest among policy makers to develop proactive telecare services to provide additional understanding of older adults’ health and well-being needs to provide a means for more preventive interventions. Proactive telecare refers to providing regular well-being calls or encouraging users to regularly confirm their well-being to anticipate and prevent crises through an increased understanding of individuals’ needs and by building social relationships with older adults. Such technologies have already begun to be introduced, yet little research has explored the potential value of proactive telecare. Objective: This study explores the perceptions of different interest groups to understand the extent to which using a proactive telecare service can support older adults to live independently, what potential health and well-being benefits may be elicited from its use, and what the limitations are. Methods: Semistructured interviews were conducted with older people (those with experience in using proactive telecare and those without), family members of proactive telecare users, and proactive telecare staff regarding their perceptions and opinions about the value of a proactive telecare service. Data were analyzed using inductive thematic analysis. Results: A total of 30 individuals participated in this study. Older adults described the value of proactive telecare in feeling safe and in control and appreciated feeling connected. Family members and staff valued the potential to detect early health deterioration in older adults, and all participants highlighted the benefit of strengthening access to social networks, particularly for socially isolated older people. However, telecare is often viewed as a last resort, and therefore, anticipatory care may not suit all populations, as demonstrated by the mixed acceptance of the technology among older adults who did not have experience using it. Participants also reported limitations, including the requirement for family, friends, or neighbors to assist older adults during an emergency and the need for financial resources to fund the service. Conclusions: This study presents the first known qualitative inquiry about a proactive telecare system, which provides rich and detailed insights from different perspectives into the potential benefits of this intervention. Proactive telecare may promote and facilitate the accumulation of social and technological resources as individuals prepare to cope with age-related challenges, thus helping to avoid negative outcomes prematurely. However, similar to reactive telecare, proactive telecare must be matched to individual preferences and existing financial and social resources

Understanding the impacts of online mental health peer support forums:A realist synthesis

BackgroundOnline forums are widely used for mental health peer support. However, evidence of their safety and effectiveness is mixed. Further research focused on articulating the contexts in which positive and negative impacts emerge from forum use is required to inform innovations in implementation.ObjectiveTo develop a realist programme theory to explain the impacts of online mental health peer support forums on users.MethodsRealist synthesis of literature published 2019-2023 and 18 stakeholder interviews with forum staff. ResultsSynthesis of 102 evidence sources and 18 interviews produced an overarching programme theory comprising 22 context-mechanism-outcome configurations. Findings indicate that users’ perceptions of psychological safety and the personal relevance of forum content are foundational to ongoing engagement. Safe and active forums that provide convenient access to information and advice can lead to improvements in mental health self-efficacy. Within the context of welcoming and non-judgmental communities, users may benefit from the opportunity to explore personal difficulties with peers, experience reduced isolation and normalization of mental health experiences, and engage in mutual encouragement. The programme theory highlights the vital role of moderators in creating facilitative online spaces, stimulating community engagement, and limiting access to distressing content. A key challenge for organizations that host mental health forums lies in balancing forum openness and anonymity with the need to enforce rules, such as restrictions on what users can discuss, in order to promote community safety.ConclusionThis is the first realist synthesis of online mental health peer support forums. The novel programme theory highlights how successful implementation depends on establishing protocols for enhancing safety and strategies for maintaining user engagement to promote forum sustainability.<br/

Understanding the Impacts of Online Mental Health Peer Support Forums : Realist Synthesis

BACKGROUND: Online forums are widely used for mental health peer support. However, evidence of their safety and effectiveness is mixed. Further research focused on articulating the contexts in which positive and negative impacts emerge from forum use is required to inform innovations in implementation. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to develop a realist program theory to explain the impacts of online mental health peer support forums on users. METHODS: We conducted a realist synthesis of literature published between 2019 and 2023 and 18 stakeholder interviews with forum staff. RESULTS: Synthesis of 102 evidence sources and 18 interviews produced an overarching program theory comprising 22 context-mechanism-outcome configurations. Findings indicate that users' perceptions of psychological safety and the personal relevance of forum content are foundational to ongoing engagement. Safe and active forums that provide convenient access to information and advice can lead to improvements in mental health self-efficacy. Within the context of welcoming and nonjudgmental communities, users may benefit from the opportunity to explore personal difficulties with peers, experience reduced isolation and normalization of mental health experiences, and engage in mutual encouragement. The program theory highlights the vital role of moderators in creating facilitative online spaces, stimulating community engagement, and limiting access to distressing content. A key challenge for organizations that host mental health forums lies in balancing forum openness and anonymity with the need to enforce rules, such as restrictions on what users can discuss, to promote community safety. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first realist synthesis of online mental health peer support forums. The novel program theory highlights how successful implementation depends on establishing protocols for enhancing safety and strategies for maintaining user engagement to promote forum sustainability. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42022352528; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=352528

Estimated Effectiveness of JYNNEOS Vaccine in Preventing Mpox: A Multijurisdictional Case-Control Study — United States, August 19, 2022–March 31, 2023

As of March 31, 2023, more than 30,000 monkeypox (mpox) cases had been reported in the United States in an outbreak that has disproportionately affected gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM) and transgender persons (1). JYNNEOS vaccine (Modified Vaccinia Ankara vaccine, Bavarian Nordic) was approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2019 for the prevention of smallpox and mpox via subcutaneous injection as a 2-dose series (0.5 mL per dose, administered 4 weeks apart) (2). To expand vaccine access, an Emergency Use Authorization was issued by FDA on August 9, 2022, for dose-sparing intradermal injection of JYNNEOS as a 2-dose series (0.1 mL per dose, administered 4 weeks apart) (3). Vaccination was available to persons with known or presumed exposure to a person with mpox (postexposure prophylaxis [PEP]), as well as persons at increased risk for mpox or who might benefit from vaccination (preexposure mpox prophylaxis [PrEP]) (4). Because information on JYNNEOS vaccine effectiveness (VE) is limited, a matched case-control study was conducted in 12 U.S. jurisdictions,† including nine Emerging Infections Program sites and three Epidemiology and Laboratory Capacity sites,§ to evaluate VE against mpox among MSM and transgender adults aged 18-49 years. During August 19, 2022-March 31, 2023, a total of 309 case-patients were matched to 608 control patients. Adjusted VE was 75.2% (95% CI&nbsp;=&nbsp;61.2% to 84.2%) for partial vaccination (1 dose) and 85.9% (95% CI&nbsp;=&nbsp;73.8% to 92.4%) for full vaccination (2 doses). Adjusted VE for full vaccination by subcutaneous, intradermal, and heterologous routes of administration was 88.9% (95% CI&nbsp;=&nbsp;56.0% to 97.2%), 80.3% (95% CI&nbsp;=&nbsp;22.9% to 95.0%), and 86.9% (95% CI&nbsp;=&nbsp;69.1% to 94.5%), respectively. Adjusted VE for full vaccination among immunocompromised participants was 70.2% (95% CI&nbsp;=&nbsp;-37.9% to 93.6%) and among immunocompetent participants was 87.8% (95% CI&nbsp;=&nbsp;57.5% to 96.5%). JYNNEOS is effective at reducing the risk for mpox. Because duration of protection of 1 versus 2 doses remains unknown, persons at increased risk for mpox exposure should receive the 2-dose series as recommended by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP),¶ regardless of administration route or immunocompromise status