What can local authorities do to improve the social care-related quality of life of older adults living at home? Evidence from the Adult Social Care Survey

Local authorities spend considerable resources on social care at home for older adults. Given the expected growth in the population of older adults and budget cuts on local government, it is important to find efficient ways of maintaining and improving the quality of life of older adults. The ageing in place literature suggests that policies in other functions of local authorities may have a significant role to play. This study aims to examine the associations between social care-related quality of life (SCRQoL) in older adults and three potential policy targets for local authorities: (i) accessibility of information and advice, (ii) design of the home and (iii) accessibility of the local area. We used cross-sectional data from the English national Adult Social Care Survey (ASCS) 2010/2011 on service users aged 65 years and older and living at home (N=29,935). To examine the association between SCRQoL, as measured by the ASCOT, and three single-item questions about accessibility of information, design of the home and accessibility of the local area, we estimate linear and quantile regression models. After adjusting for physical and mental health factors and other confounders our findings indicate that SCRQoL is significantly lower for older adults who find it more difficult to find information and advice, for those who report that their home design is inappropriate for their needs and for those who find it more difficult to get around their local area. In addition, these three variables are as strongly associated with SCRQoL as physical and mental health factors. We conclude that in seeking to find ways to maintain and improve the quality of life of social care users living at home, local authorities could look more broadly across their responsibilities. Further research is required to explore the cost-effectiveness of these options compared to standard social care services

Health Care Providers’ and Professionals’ Experiences With Telehealth Oncology Implementation During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Qualitative Study

Background: Rapid implementation of telehealth for cancer care during COVID-19 required innovative and adaptive solutions among oncology health care providers and professionals (HPPs). Objective: The aim of this qualitative study was to explore oncology HPPs’ experiences with telehealth implementation during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: This study was conducted at Moffitt Cancer Center (Moffitt), an NCI (National Cancer Institute)-Designated Comprehensive Cancer Center. Prior to COVID-19, Moffitt piloted telehealth visits on a limited basis. After COVID-19, Moffitt rapidly expanded telehealth visits. Telehealth visits included real-time videoconferencing between HPPs and patients and virtual check-ins (ie, brief communication with an HPP by telephone only). We conducted semistructured interviews with 40 oncology HPPs who implemented telehealth during COVID-19. The interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed for themes using Dedoose software (version 4.12). Results: Approximately half of the 40 participants were physicians (n=22, 55%), and one-quarter of the participants were advanced practice providers (n=10, 25%). Other participants included social workers (n=3, 8%), psychologists (n=2, 5%), dieticians (n=2, 5%), and a pharmacist (n=1, 3%). Five key themes were identified: (1) establishing and maintaining patient-HPP relationships, (2) coordinating care with other HPPs and informal caregivers, (3) adapting in-person assessments for telehealth, (4) developing workflows and allocating resources, and (5) future recommendations. Participants described innovative strategies for implementing telehealth, such as coordinating interdisciplinary visits with multiple HPPs and inviting informal caregivers (eg, spouse) to participate in telehealth visits. Health care workers discussed key challenges, such as workflow integration, lack of physical exam and biometric data, and overcoming the digital divide (eg, telehealth accessibility among patients with communication-related disabilities). Participants recommended policy advocacy to support telehealth (eg, medical licensure policies) and monitoring how telehealth affects patient outcomes and health care delivery. Conclusions: To support telehealth growth, implementation strategies are needed to ensure that HPPs and patients have the tools necessary to effectively engage in telehealth. At the same time, cancer care organizations will need to engage in advocacy to ensure that policies are supportive of oncology telehealth and develop systems to monitor the impact of telehealth on patient outcomes, health care quality, costs, and equity

Assessing the feasibility of interrupting the transmission of soil-transmitted helminths through mass drug administration: The DeWorm3 cluster randomized trial protocol

DeWorm3 collectionThe file attached is the Published/publisher’s pdf version of the article.© 2018 Ásbjörnsdóttir et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited

Track A Basic Science

Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/138319/1/jia218438.pd

Imatinib in patients with severe COVID-19: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, clinical trial

Background The major complication of COVID-19 is hypoxaemic respiratory failure from capillary leak and alveolar oedema. Experimental and early clinical data suggest that the tyrosine-kinase inhibitor imatinib reverses pulmonary capillary leak.Methods This randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, clinical trial was done at 13 academic and non-academic teaching hospitals in the Netherlands. Hospitalised patients (aged >= 18 years) with COVID-19, as confirmed by an RT-PCR test for SARS-CoV-2, requiring supplemental oxygen to maintain a peripheral oxygen saturation of greater than 94% were eligible. Patients were excluded if they had severe pre-existing pulmonary disease, had pre-existing heart failure, had undergone active treatment of a haematological or non-haematological malignancy in the previous 12 months, had cytopenia, or were receiving concomitant treatment with medication known to strongly interact with imatinib. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either oral imatinib, given as a loading dose of 800 mg on day 0 followed by 400 mg daily on days 1-9, or placebo. Randomisation was done with a computer-based clinical data management platform with variable block sizes (containing two, four, or six patients), stratified by study site. The primary outcome was time to discontinuation of mechanical ventilation and supplemental oxygen for more than 48 consecutive hours, while being alive during a 28-day period. Secondary outcomes included safety, mortality at 28 days, and the need for invasive mechanical ventilation. All efficacy and safety analyses were done in all randomised patients who had received at least one dose of study medication (modified intention-to-treat population). This study is registered with the EU Clinical Trials Register (EudraCT 2020-001236-10).Findings Between March 31, 2020, and Jan 4, 2021, 805 patients were screened, of whom 400 were eligible and randomly assigned to the imatinib group (n=204) or the placebo group (n=196). A total of 385 (96%) patients (median age 64 years [IQR 56-73]) received at least one dose of study medication and were included in the modified intention-to-treat population. Time to discontinuation of ventilation and supplemental oxygen for more than 48 h was not significantly different between the two groups (unadjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0.95 [95% CI 0.76-1.20]). At day 28, 15 (8%) of 197 patients had died in the imatinib group compared with 27 (14%) of 188 patients in the placebo group (unadjusted HR 0.51 [0.27-0.95]). After adjusting for baseline imbalances between the two groups (sex, obesity, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease) the HR for mortality was 0.52 (95% CI 0.26-1.05). The HR for mechanical ventilation in the imatinib group compared with the placebo group was 1.07 (0.63-1.80; p=0.81). The median duration of invasive mechanical ventilation was 7 days (IQR 3-13) in the imatinib group compared with 12 days (6-20) in the placebo group (p=0.0080). 91 (46%) of 197 patients in the imatinib group and 82 (44%) of 188 patients in the placebo group had at least one grade 3 or higher adverse event. The safety evaluation revealed no imatinib-associated adverse events.Interpretation The study failed to meet its primary outcome, as imatinib did not reduce the time to discontinuation of ventilation and supplemental oxygen for more than 48 consecutive hours in patients with COVID-19 requiring supplemental oxygen. The observed effects on survival (although attenuated after adjustment for baseline imbalances) and duration of mechanical ventilation suggest that imatinib might confer clinical benefit in hospitalised patients with COVID-19, but further studies are required to validate these findings. Copyright (C) 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.Pathogenesis and treatment of chronic pulmonary disease