Reasonable adjustments: collecting user experiences for a "solutions database"

The Disability Discrimination Act (1995) states that employers must make ‘reasonable adjustments’ to the workplace for employees with disabilities. To help provide advice on this subject a project was undertaken to build a database of work related ‘solutions’ that would supply information to those that support people with disabilities about their potential work related needs. This paper presents one of a series of studies designed to determine the information requirements that would assist people with disabilities to join or rejoin the workforce

AbilityMatch - building a disability management system

Results from preliminary studies have indicated that locating appropriate information on how to accommodate people with disabilities in the workplace can be a difficult and time consuming task. To help improve this situation research is being conducted to contribute to a comprehensive computer system for managing disabilities in the workplace. This is being done by using an integrated assessment of a person’s abilities combined with the requirements of a job to then identify workplace solutions or advice on how to overcome barriers, ultimately working towards the creation of an expert system of reasonable accommodations. This paper outlines the ongoing development of a solutions database for an existing assessment system, AbilityMatch

Acute blood biomarker profiles predict cognitive deficits 6 and 12 months after COVID-19 hospitalization

Post-COVID cognitive deficits, including ‘brain fog’, are clinically complex, with both objective and subjective components. They are common and debilitating, and can affect the ability to work, yet their biological underpinnings remain unknown. In this prospective cohort study of 1,837 adults hospitalized with COVID-19, we identified two distinct biomarker profiles measured during the acute admission, which predict cognitive outcomes 6 and 12 months after COVID-19. A first profile links elevated fibrinogen relative to C-reactive protein with both objective and subjective cognitive deficits. A second profile links elevated D-dimer relative to C-reactive protein with subjective cognitive deficits and occupational impact. This second profile was mediated by fatigue and shortness of breath. Neither profile was significantly mediated by depression or anxiety. Results were robust across secondary analyses. They were replicated, and their specificity to COVID-19 tested, in a large-scale electronic health records dataset. These findings provide insights into the heterogeneous biology of post-COVID cognitive deficits

Post-acute COVID-19 neuropsychiatric symptoms are not associated with ongoing nervous system injury

A proportion of patients infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 experience a range of neuropsychiatric symptoms months after infection, including cognitive deficits, depression and anxiety. The mechanisms underpinning such symptoms remain elusive. Recent research has demonstrated that nervous system injury can occur during COVID-19. Whether ongoing neural injury in the months after COVID-19 accounts for the ongoing or emergent neuropsychiatric symptoms is unclear. Within a large prospective cohort study of adult survivors who were hospitalized for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection, we analysed plasma markers of nervous system injury and astrocytic activation, measured 6 months post-infection: neurofilament light, glial fibrillary acidic protein and total tau protein. We assessed whether these markers were associated with the severity of the acute COVID-19 illness and with post-acute neuropsychiatric symptoms (as measured by the Patient Health Questionnaire for depression, the General Anxiety Disorder assessment for anxiety, the Montreal Cognitive Assessment for objective cognitive deficit and the cognitive items of the Patient Symptom Questionnaire for subjective cognitive deficit) at 6 months and 1 year post-hospital discharge from COVID-19. No robust associations were found between markers of nervous system injury and severity of acute COVID-19 (except for an association of small effect size between duration of admission and neurofilament light) nor with post-acute neuropsychiatric symptoms. These results suggest that ongoing neuropsychiatric symptoms are not due to ongoing neural injury

Acute blood biomarker profiles predict cognitive deficits 6 and 12 months after COVID-19 hospitalization

Post-COVID cognitive deficits, including ‘brain fog’, are clinically complex, with both objective and subjective components. They are common and debilitating, and can affect the ability to work, yet their biological underpinnings remain unknown. In this prospective cohort study of 1,837 adults hospitalized with COVID-19, we identified two distinct biomarker profiles measured during the acute admission, which predict cognitive outcomes 6 and 12 months after COVID-19. A first profile links elevated fibrinogen relative to C-reactive protein with both objective and subjective cognitive deficits. A second profile links elevated D-dimer relative to C-reactive protein with subjective cognitive deficits and occupational impact. This second profile was mediated by fatigue and shortness of breath. Neither profile was significantly mediated by depression or anxiety. Results were robust across secondary analyses. They were replicated, and their specificity to COVID-19 tested, in a large-scale electronic health records dataset. These findings provide insights into the heterogeneous biology of post-COVID cognitive deficits

Post-acute COVID-19 neuropsychiatric symptoms are not associated with ongoing nervous system injury

A proportion of patients infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 experience a range of neuropsychiatric symptoms months after infection, including cognitive deficits, depression and anxiety. The mechanisms underpinning such symptoms remain elusive. Recent research has demonstrated that nervous system injury can occur during COVID-19. Whether ongoing neural injury in the months after COVID-19 accounts for the ongoing or emergent neuropsychiatric symptoms is unclear. Within a large prospective cohort study of adult survivors who were hospitalized for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection, we analysed plasma markers of nervous system injury and astrocytic activation, measured 6 months post-infection: neurofilament light, glial fibrillary acidic protein and total tau protein. We assessed whether these markers were associated with the severity of the acute COVID-19 illness and with post-acute neuropsychiatric symptoms (as measured by the Patient Health Questionnaire for depression, the General Anxiety Disorder assessment for anxiety, the Montreal Cognitive Assessment for objective cognitive deficit and the cognitive items of the Patient Symptom Questionnaire for subjective cognitive deficit) at 6 months and 1 year post-hospital discharge from COVID-19. No robust associations were found between markers of nervous system injury and severity of acute COVID-19 (except for an association of small effect size between duration of admission and neurofilament light) nor with post-acute neuropsychiatric symptoms. These results suggest that ongoing neuropsychiatric symptoms are not due to ongoing neural injury

Post-acute COVID-19 neuropsychiatric symptoms are not associated with ongoing nervous system injury

A proportion of patients infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 experience a range of neuropsychiatric symptoms months after infection, including cognitive deficits, depression and anxiety. The mechanisms underpinning such symptoms remain elusive. Recent research has demonstrated that nervous system injury can occur during COVID-19. Whether ongoing neural injury in the months after COVID-19 accounts for the ongoing or emergent neuropsychiatric symptoms is unclear. Within a large prospective cohort study of adult survivors who were hospitalized for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection, we analysed plasma markers of nervous system injury and astrocytic activation, measured 6 months post-infection: neurofilament light, glial fibrillary acidic protein and total tau protein. We assessed whether these markers were associated with the severity of the acute COVID-19 illness and with post-acute neuropsychiatric symptoms (as measured by the Patient Health Questionnaire for depression, the General Anxiety Disorder assessment for anxiety, the Montreal Cognitive Assessment for objective cognitive deficit and the cognitive items of the Patient Symptom Questionnaire for subjective cognitive deficit) at 6 months and 1 year post-hospital discharge from COVID-19. No robust associations were found between markers of nervous system injury and severity of acute COVID-19 (except for an association of small effect size between duration of admission and neurofilament light) nor with post-acute neuropsychiatric symptoms. These results suggest that ongoing neuropsychiatric symptoms are not due to ongoing neural injury.</p

1-year health outcomes associated with systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19:a longitudinal cohort study

BACKGROUND: In patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) requiring supplemental oxygen, dexamethasone reduces acute severity and improves survival, but longer-term effects are unknown. We hypothesised that systemic corticosteroid administration during acute COVID-19 would be associated with improved health-related quality of life (HRQoL) 1 year after discharge.METHODS: Adults admitted to hospital between February 2020 and March 2021 for COVID-19 and meeting current guideline recommendations for dexamethasone treatment were included using two prospective UK cohort studies (Post-hospitalisation COVID-19 and the International Severe Acute Respiratory and emerging Infection Consortium). HRQoL, assessed by the EuroQol-Five Dimensions-Five Levels utility index (EQ-5D-5L UI), pre-hospital and 1 year after discharge were compared between those receiving corticosteroids or not after propensity weighting for treatment. Secondary outcomes included patient-reported recovery, physical and mental health status, and measures of organ impairment. Sensitivity analyses were undertaken to account for survival and selection bias.FINDINGS: Of the 1888 participants included in the primary analysis, 1149 received corticosteroids. There was no between-group difference in EQ-5D-5L UI at 1 year (mean difference 0.004, 95% CI -0.026-0.034). A similar reduction in EQ-5D-5L UI was seen at 1 year between corticosteroid exposed and nonexposed groups (mean±sd change -0.12±0.22 versus -0.11±0.22). Overall, there were no differences in secondary outcome measures. After sensitivity analyses modelled using a cohort of 109 318 patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19, EQ-5D-5L UI at 1 year remained similar between the two groups.INTERPRETATION: Systemic corticosteroids for acute COVID-19 have no impact on the large reduction in HRQoL 1 year after hospital discharge. Treatments to address the persistent reduction in HRQoL are urgently needed.</p

The contribution of advisory committees and public involvement to large studies: case study

Background: Many large studies have complex advisory committee structures, yet there is no empirical evidence regarding their optimal composition, scope and contribution. The aim of this study was to inform the committee and advice infrastructure for future research studies. Methods: In the context of a five-year study funded by the UK National Institute for Health Research, three advisory committees were formed. In addition, advice was obtained from individual experts. All recommendations received in the start-up phase (first seven months) of the study were recorded, along with the decision about implementation of the recommendation. A particular focus was on the impact of public involvement. Results: A total of 172 recommendations were made, including 70 from 20 individual experts. The recommendations were grouped into five emergent themes: Scientific, Pragmatic, Resources, Committee and Collaboration. Most recommendations related to strengthening existing components or adding new components to the study protocol. Very few recommendations either proposed removing study components or contradicted other recommendations. Three 'implementation criteria' were identified: scientific value, pragmatic feasibility, and paradigmatic consistency. 103 (60%) of recommendations were implemented and 25 (15%) were not implemented. The benefits identified by the research team were improved quality and confidence, and the costs were increased cognitive demands, protocol revision time, and slower progress. Conclusions: The findings are discussed in the context of the wider literature on public involvement in research. Six recommendations are identified. First, have a clear rationale for each advisory committee expressed as terms of reference, and consider the best balance between committees and individual consultation with experts. Second, an early concern of committees is inter-committee communication, so consider cross-representation and copying minutes between committees. Third, match the scope of advisory committees to the study, with a less complex advisory structure for studies with more finalised designs. Fourth, public involvement has a mixed impact, and relies on relationships of trust, which take time to develop. Fifth, carefully consider the match between the scientific paradigm applied in the study and the contribution of different types of knowledge and expertise, and how this will impact on possibilities for taking on advice. Finally, responding to recommendations uses up research team resources, and the costs can be reduced by using the three implementation criteria