mHealth interventions to reduce maternal and child mortality in Sub-Saharan Africa and Southern Asia: A systematic literature review

Background: Reducing maternal mortality, neonatal mortality and under 5-year mortality are important targets addressed by the United Nations' Sustainable Development Goals. Despite studies reported an improvement in maternal and child health indicators, the progress achieved is not uniform across regions. Due to the increasing availability of mobile phones in low and middle-income countries, mHealth could impact considerably on reducing maternal and child mortality and maximizing women's access to quality care, from the antenatal stage to the post-natal period. Methods: A systematic literature review of mHealth interventions aimed at reducing maternal and child mortality in Sub-Saharan Africa and Southern Asia. Primary outcomes were maternal mortality, neonatal mortality, and under-five mortality. Secondary outcomes were skilled birth attendance, antenatal care (ANC) and post-natal care (PNC) attendance, and vaccination/immunization coverage. We searched for articles published from January 2010 to December 2020 in Embase, Medline and Web of Science. Quantitative comparative studies were included. The protocol was developed according to the PRISMA Checklist and published in PROSPERO [CRD42019109434]. The Quality Assessment Tool for Quantitative Studies was used to assess the quality of the eligible studies. Results: 23 studies were included in the review, 16 undertaken in Sub-Saharan Africa and 7 in Southern Asia. Most studies used SMS or voice message reminders for education purposes. Only two studies reported outcomes on neonatal mortality, with positive results. None of the studies reported results on maternal mortality or under-five mortality. Outcomes on skilled birth attendance, ANC attendance, PNC attendance, and vaccination coverage were reported in six, six, five, and eleven studies, respectively. Most of these studies showed a positive impact of mHealth interventions on the secondary outcomes. Conclusion: Simple mHealth educational interventions based on SMS and voice message reminders are effective at supporting behavior change of pregnant women and training of health workers, thus improving ANC and PNC attendance, vaccination coverage and skilled birth attendance. Higher quality studies addressing the role of mHealth in reducing maternal and child mortality in resource-limited settings are needed, especially in Southern Asia

Suitability of issuing sickness certificates in remote consultations during the COVID-19 pandemic. A mixed method study of GPs' experiences

Objective - To explore Norwegian GPs’ experiences with and perceived suitability of issuing sickness certifications in remote consultations during the COVID-19 pandemic. Design - We used a mixed methods research design. An online survey with 301 respondents was combined with qualitative interviews with ten GPs. Setting - Norwegian general practice. Results - Most GPs agreed it was difficult to assess a patient’s ability to work without physical attendance for a first-time certification in remote consultations. However, extending a certification was considered less problematic. If physical examinations were required, the GPs would ask the patient to come to the office. The most suitable diagnoses for remote certification were respiratory infections and COVID-19-related diagnoses, as well as known chronic and long-term diseases. The GPs emphasized the importance of knowing both the patient and the medical problem. The GP-patient relationship could be affected by remote consultations, and there were mixed views on the impact. Many GPs found it easier to deny a request for a sickness certification in remote consultations. The GPs expressed concern about the societal costs and an increased number of certifications if remote consultations were too easily accessible. The study was conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic, and the findings should be interpreted in that context. Conclusions - Our study shows that issuing sickness certifications in remote consultations were viewed to be suitable for COVID-19 related problems, for patients the GP has met before, for the follow-up of known medical problems, and the extension of sickness certifications. Not meeting the patient face-to-face may affect the GP-patient relationship as well as make the GPs’ dual role more challenging

Methods and measures used to evaluate patient-operated mobile health interventions:Scoping literature review

Background: Despite the prevalence of mobile health (mHealth) technologies and observations of their impacts on patients’ health, there is still no consensus on how best to evaluate these tools for patient self-management of chronic conditions. Researchers currently do not have guidelines on which qualitative or quantitative factors to measure or how to gather these reliable data. Objective: This study aimed to document the methods and both qualitative and quantitative measures used to assess mHealth apps and systems intended for use by patients for the self-management of chronic noncommunicable diseases. Methods: A scoping review was performed, and PubMed, MEDLINE, Google Scholar, and ProQuest Research Library were searched for literature published in English between January 1, 2015, and January 18, 2019. Search terms included combinations of the description of the intention of the intervention (eg, self-efficacy and self-management) and description of the intervention platform (eg, mobile app and sensor). Article selection was based on whether the intervention described a patient with a chronic noncommunicable disease as the primary user of a tool or system that would always be available for self-management. The extracted data included study design, health conditions, participants, intervention type (app or system), methods used, and measured qualitative and quantitative data. Results: A total of 31 studies met the eligibility criteria. Studies were classified as either those that evaluated mHealth apps (ie, single devices; n=15) or mHealth systems (ie, more than one tool; n=17), and one study evaluated both apps and systems. App interventions mainly targeted mental health conditions (including Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder), followed by diabetes and cardiovascular and heart diseases; among the 17 studies that described mHealth systems, most involved patients diagnosed with cardiovascular and heart disease, followed by diabetes, respiratory disease, mental health conditions, cancer, and multiple illnesses. The most common evaluation method was collection of usage logs (n=21), followed by standardized questionnaires (n=18) and ad-hoc questionnaires (n=13). The most common measure was app interaction (n=19), followed by usability/feasibility (n=17) and patient-reported health data via the app (n=15). Conclusions: This review demonstrates that health intervention studies are taking advantage of the additional resources that mHealth technologies provide. As mHealth technologies become more prevalent, the call for evidence includes the impacts on patients’ self-efficacy and engagement, in addition to traditional measures. However, considering the unstructured data forms, diverse use, and various platforms of mHealth, it can be challenging to select the right methods and measures to evaluate mHealth technologies. The inclusion of app usage logs, patient-involved methods, and other approaches to determine the impact of mHealth is an important step forward in health intervention research. We hope that this overview will become a catalogue of the possible ways in which mHealth has been and can be integrated into research practice

The NORDeHEALTH 2022 Patient Survey: Cross-Sectional Study of National Patient Portal Users in Norway, Sweden, Finland, and Estonia

Background: Although many surveys have been conducted on patients accessing their own health records in recent years, there is a limited amount of nationwide cross-country data available on patients’ views and preferences. To address this gap, an international survey of patient users was conducted in the Nordic eHealth project, NORDeHEALTH. Objective: We aimed to investigate the sociodemographic characteristics and experiences of patients who accessed their electronic health records (EHRs) through national patient portals in Norway, Sweden, Finland, and Estonia. Methods: A cross-sectional web-based survey was distributed using the national online health portals. The target participants were patients who accessed the national patient portals at the start of 2022 and who were aged ≥15 years. The survey included a mixture of close-ended and free-text questions about participant sociodemographics, usability experience, experiences with health care and the EHR, reasons for reading health records online, experience with errors, omissions and offense, opinions about security and privacy, and the usefulness of portal functions. In this paper, we summarized the data on participant demographics, past experience with health care, and the patient portal through descriptive statistics. Results: In total, 29,334 users completed the survey, of which 9503 (32.40%) were from Norway, 13,008 (44.35%) from Sweden, 4713 (16.07%) from Finland, and 2104 (7.17%) from Estonia. National samples were comparable according to reported gender, with about two-thirds identifying as women (19,904/29,302, 67.93%). Age distributions were similar across the countries, but Finland had older users while Estonia had younger users. The highest attained education and presence of health care education varied among the national samples. In all 4 countries, patients most commonly rated their health as “fair” (11,279/29,302, 38.48%). In Estonia, participants were more often inclined to rate their health positively, whereas Norway and Sweden had the highest proportion of negative health ratings. Across the whole sample, most patients received some care in the last 2 years (25,318/29,254, 86.55%). Mental health care was more common (6214/29,254, 21.24%) than oncological care (3664/29,254, 12.52%). Overall, most patients had accessed their health record “2 to 9 times” (11,546/29,306, 39.4%), with the most frequent users residing in Sweden, where about one-third of patients accessed it “more than 20 times” (4571/13,008, 35.14%). Conclusions: This is the first large-scale international survey to compare patient users’ sociodemographics and experiences with accessing their EHRs. Although the countries are in close geographic proximity and demonstrate similar advancements in giving their residents online records access, patient users in this survey differed. We will continue to investigate patients’ experiences and opinions about national patient-accessible EHRs through focused analyses of the national and combined data sets from the NORDeHEALTH 2022 Patient Survey

Diagnostic radiological examinations and risk of intracranial tumours in adults-findings from the Interphone Study.

Background Exposure to high doses of ionizing radiation is among the few well-established brain tumour risk factors. We used data from the Interphone study to evaluate the effects of exposure to low-dose radiation from diagnostic radiological examinations on glioma, meningioma and acoustic neuroma risk. Methods Brain tumour cases (2644 gliomas, 2236 meningiomas, 1083 neuromas) diagnosed in 2000-02 were identified through hospitals in 13 countries, and 6068 controls (population-based controls in most centres) were included in the analysis. Participation across all centres was 64% for glioma cases, 78% for meningioma cases, 82% for acoustic neuroma cases and 53% for controls. Information on previous diagnostic radiological examinations was obtained by interviews, including the frequency, timing and indication for the examinations. Typical brain doses per type of examination were estimated based on the literature. Examinations within the 5 years before the index date were excluded from the dose estimation. Adjusted odds ratios were estimated using conditional logistic regression. Results No materially or consistently increased odds ratios for glioma, meningioma or acoustic neuroma were found for any specific type of examination, including computed tomography of the head and cerebral angiography. The only indication of an elevated risk was an increasing trend in risk of meningioma with the number of isotope scans, but no such trends for other examinations were observed. No gradient was found in risk with estimated brain dose. Age at exposure did not substantially modify the findings. Sensitivity analyses gave results consistent with the main analysis. Conclusions There was no consistent evidence for increased risks of brain tumours with X-ray examinations, although error from selection and recall bias cannot be completely excluded. A cautious interpretation is warranted for the observed association between isotope scans and meningioma

Efficacy and safety of baricitinib in hospitalized adults with severe or critical COVID‑19 (Bari‑SolidAct): a randomised, double‑blind, placebo‑controlled phase 3 trial

Background Baricitinib has shown efcacy in hospitalized patients with COVID-19, but no placebo-controlled trials have focused specifcally on severe/critical COVID, including vaccinated participants. Methods Bari-SolidAct is a phase-3, multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, enrolling participants from June 3, 2021 to March 7, 2022, stopped prematurely for external evidence. Patients with severe/ critical COVID-19 were randomised to Baricitinib 4 mg once daily or placebo, added to standard of care. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality within 60 days. Participants were remotely followed to day 90 for safety and patient related outcome measures. Results Two hundred ninety-nine patients were screened, 284 randomised, and 275 received study drug or placebo and were included in the modifed intent-to-treat analyses (139 receiving baricitinib and 136 placebo). Median age was 60 (IQR 49–69) years, 77% were male and 35% had received at least one dose of SARS-CoV2 vaccine. There were 21 deaths at day 60 in each group, 15.1% in the baricitinib group and 15.4% in the placebo group (adjusted absolute diference and 95% CI −0.1% [−8·3 to 8·0]). In sensitivity analysis censoring observations after drug discontinuation or rescue therapy (tocilizumab/increased steroid dose), proportions of death were 5.8% versus 8.8% (−3.2% [−9.0 to 2.7]), respectively. There were 148 serious adverse events in 46 participants (33.1%) receiving baricitinib and 155 in 51 participants (37.5%) receiving placebo. In subgroup analyses, there was a potential interaction between vaccination status and treatment allocation on 60-day mortality. In a subsequent post hoc analysis there was a signifcant interac‑ tion between vaccination status and treatment allocation on the occurrence of serious adverse events, with more respiratory complications and severe infections in vaccinated participants treated with baricitinib. Vaccinated partici‑ pants were on average 11 years older, with more comorbidities. Conclusion This clinical trial was prematurely stopped for external evidence and therefore underpowered to con‑ clude on a potential survival beneft of baricitinib in severe/critical COVID-19. We observed a possible safety signal in vaccinated participants, who were older with more comorbidities. Although based on a post-hoc analysis, these fnd‑ ings warrant further investigation in other trials and real-world studies

Geographical and temporal distribution of SARS-CoV-2 clades in the WHO European Region, January to June 2020

We show the distribution of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) genetic clades over time and between countries and outline potential genomic surveillance objectives. We applied three genomic nomenclature systems to all sequence data from the World Health Organization European Region available until 10 July 2020. We highlight the importance of real-time sequencing and data dissemination in a pandemic situation, compare the nomenclatures and lay a foundation for future European genomic surveillance of SARS-CoV-2

Impact of COVID-19 on cardiovascular testing in the United States versus the rest of the world

Objectives: This study sought to quantify and compare the decline in volumes of cardiovascular procedures between the United States and non-US institutions during the early phase of the coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted the care of many non-COVID-19 illnesses. Reductions in diagnostic cardiovascular testing around the world have led to concerns over the implications of reduced testing for cardiovascular disease (CVD) morbidity and mortality. Methods: Data were submitted to the INCAPS-COVID (International Atomic Energy Agency Non-Invasive Cardiology Protocols Study of COVID-19), a multinational registry comprising 909 institutions in 108 countries (including 155 facilities in 40 U.S. states), assessing the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on volumes of diagnostic cardiovascular procedures. Data were obtained for April 2020 and compared with volumes of baseline procedures from March 2019. We compared laboratory characteristics, practices, and procedure volumes between U.S. and non-U.S. facilities and between U.S. geographic regions and identified factors associated with volume reduction in the United States. Results: Reductions in the volumes of procedures in the United States were similar to those in non-U.S. facilities (68% vs. 63%, respectively; p = 0.237), although U.S. facilities reported greater reductions in invasive coronary angiography (69% vs. 53%, respectively; p < 0.001). Significantly more U.S. facilities reported increased use of telehealth and patient screening measures than non-U.S. facilities, such as temperature checks, symptom screenings, and COVID-19 testing. Reductions in volumes of procedures differed between U.S. regions, with larger declines observed in the Northeast (76%) and Midwest (74%) than in the South (62%) and West (44%). Prevalence of COVID-19, staff redeployments, outpatient centers, and urban centers were associated with greater reductions in volume in U.S. facilities in a multivariable analysis. Conclusions: We observed marked reductions in U.S. cardiovascular testing in the early phase of the pandemic and significant variability between U.S. regions. The association between reductions of volumes and COVID-19 prevalence in the United States highlighted the need for proactive efforts to maintain access to cardiovascular testing in areas most affected by outbreaks of COVID-19 infection