PHP4 - Patient references toward health services provided by the general practioner

OBJECTIVES: In the Dutch health care system, like many other countries, the general practitioner (GP) plays a key role in securing equity and effectiveness in delivering health care. Nowadays, GPs are often part of primary care centers and it is foreseen that these centers will play an even more important role in future health service delivery. A European comparison in nine different countries concluded patients favour small practices and full time GPs. The percentage of GPs working in small practices varies between countries. In the UK the percentage is 16% whereas in Belgium the percentage is 69% and in Netherlands the percentage is 39%. Continuity of care and access is highly appreciated by patients. For instance, it has been shown that patients are more satisfied with primary care if they always have the same GP and if they experience short waiting times. Given the development of larger primary care centers, people are hesitant if the current GP service levels can be maintained. On the other hand, an advantage of primary care centers is that they do offer multiple medical services like pharmacy and physiotherapy. The\ud purpose of this study was two-fold. First, it was questioned which type of services is preferred by patients in three different GP settings and if people would be willing to pay for these services. Second, we wish to investigate differences between patients in different GP settings. The selected GP settings were 1) a single person GP practice (SP); 2) a healthservice with multiple\ud independent GPs (GP); and 3) a multi-disciplinary and comprehensive primary care center supervised by one management (PCC).\ud \ud METHODS:\ud A discrete choice experiment (DCE) was carried out among 164 patients in the three different GP settings. The DCE comprised 6 attributes including 1) time to appointment; 2) choice of time; 3) access by telephone; 4) consultation time; 5) availability of other medical services and; 6) WTP. Sample size for the DCE was estimated at about 45 patients in each GP setting. The DCE included 6 attributes. The maximum number of levels for an attribute was three, allowing 72 choice combinations. The DCE survey used 15 random and 2 fixed choicesets. Following the DCE, all 164 and an extra group of 114 patients (278 in total) were interviewed by a research assistent. Sampling was carried out to obtain equal group sizes (approx. 55) in each of the GP settings (SP, GP and PCC). DCE data were analyzed using sawtooth software. This abstract reports the first preliminary analyses of the complete dataset.\ud \ud RESULTS:\ud Socioeconomic (income and education) and demographic data (age and gender) of patients in each of the GP settings were comparable. The DCE showed preference for improved telephone services and time to appointment as most important attributes. Except for “time to appointment” no large differences were found between the GP settings. Only patients in the GP group accepted longer waiting times compared to SP and PCC. SP and PCC patients did prefer to have access within 24 hours, whereas GP patients accepted longer waiting times. Overall, most important attributes were “time to appointment”, “access of service by telephone” and “WTP”. The availability of pharmacy services was preferred by all patients. About 50% of all patients werent willing to pay for additional services. However, some 35% was willing to pay an extra amount of €9 for each consult if they would receive additional services.\ud \ud CONCLUSIONS:\ud This study shows a similar outcome compared to previous studies on access to GP services. “Time to first appointment” and “access by telephone” are most important factors to consider by patients. However, an interesting finding was that one third of all patients were willing to pay for improved services. The DCE study didn’t show big differences in preferences between patients in the different GP settings. In some aspects (e.g. accessability) the SP scored better compared to PCC and GP

Existence and stability of viscoelastic shock profiles

We investigate existence and stability of viscoelastic shock profiles for a class of planar models including the incompressible shear case studied by Antman and Malek-Madani. We establish that the resulting equations fall into the class of symmetrizable hyperbolic--parabolic systems, hence spectral stability implies linearized and nonlinear stability with sharp rates of decay. The new contributions are treatment of the compressible case, formulation of a rigorous nonlinear stability theory, including verification of stability of small-amplitude Lax shocks, and the systematic incorporation in our investigations of numerical Evans function computations determining stability of large-amplitude and or nonclassical type shock profiles.Comment: 43 pages, 12 figure

Antiferromagnetic ordering in a 90 K copper oxide superconductor

Using elastic neutron scattering, we evidence a commensurate antiferromagnetic Cu(2) order (AF) in the superconducting (SC) high-$\rm T_c$ cuprate $\rm YBa_2(Cu_{1-y}Co_y)_3O_{7+\delta}$ (y=0.013, $\rm T_c$=93 K). As in the Co-free system, the spin excitation spectrum is dominated by a magnetic resonance peak at 41 meV but with a reduced spectral weight. The substitution of Co thus leads to a state where AF and SC cohabit showing that the CuO$_2$ plane is a highly antiferromagnetically polarizable medium even for a sample where T$_c$ remains optimum.Comment: 3 figure

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

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