107 research outputs found

    Social health and change in cognitive capability among older adults:findings from four European longitudinal studies

    Get PDF
    Introduction: In this study we examine whether social health markers measured at baseline are associated with differences in cognitive capability and in the rate of cognitive decline over an 11-to-18-year period among older adults and compare results across studies. Methods: We applied an integrated data analysis approach to 16,858 participants (mean age 65 years; 56% female) from the National Survey for Health and Development (NSHD), the English Longitudinal Study of Aging (ELSA), the Swedish National Study on Aging and Care in Kungsholmen (SNAC-K), and the Rotterdam Study. We used multilevel models to examine social health in relation to cognitive capability and the rate of cognitive decline. Results: Pooled estimates show distinct relationships between markers of social health and cognitive domains e.g., a large network size (≥6 people vs none) was associated with higher executive function (0.17 SD[95%CI:0.0, 0.34], I2=27%) but not with memory (0.08 SD[95%CI: -0.02, 0.18], I2=19%). We also observed pooled associations between being married or cohabiting, having a large network size and participating in social activities with slower decline in cognitive capability, however estimates were close to zero e.g., 0.01SD/year [95%CI: 0.01 to 0.02] I2=19% for marital status and executive function. There were clear study-specific differences: results for average processing speed were the most homogenous and results for average memory were the most heterogenous. Conclusion: Overall, markers of good social health have a positive association with cognitive capability. However, we found differential associations between specific markers of social health and cognitive domains and differences between studies. These findings highlight the importance of examining between study differences and considering context specificity of findings in developing and deploying any intervention

    Eurythmy Therapy in clinical studies: a systematic literature review

    Get PDF
    <p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>We aimed to overview the current literature on eurythmy therapy (EYT) which is an integral part of Anthroposophic Medicine. EYT can be described as a movement therapy in which speech movements are transposed into exercises which address the patient's capability to soul expression and strengthen his salutogenetic resources.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We searched several databases such as Cochrane, EMBASE, NCCAM, NLM, DIMDI, CAMbase, and Medline for case-control studies, cohort studies and randomised controlled trials on the treatment effects of EYT in a clinical setting. In a second search we included journal databases from Karger, Kluwer, Springer, Thieme, and Merkurstab archive.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>We found 8 citations which met the inclusion criterion: 4 publications referring to a prospective cohort study without control group (the AMOS study), and 4 articles referring to 2 explorative pre-post studies without control group, 1 prospective, non-randomized comparative study, and 1 descriptive study with a control group. The methodological quality of studies ranged in from poor to good, and in sample size from 5 to 898 patients. In most studies, EYT was used as an add-on, not as a mono-therapy. The studies described positive treatment effects with clinically relevant effect sizes in most cases.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Indications, study designs and the usage of additional treatments within the identified studies were quite heterogeneous. Despite of this, EYT can be regarded as a potentially relevant add-on in a therapeutic concept, although its specific relevance remains to be clarified. Well performed controlled studies on this unique treatment are highly recommended.</p

    Does type of hospital ownership influence physicians' daily work schedules? An observational real-time study in German hospital departments

    Get PDF
    Background: During the last two decades the German hospital sector has been engaged in a constant process of transformation. One obvious sign of this is the growing amount of hospital privatization. To date, most research studies have focused on the effects of privatization regarding financial outcomes and quality of care, leaving important organizational issues unexplored. Yet little attention has been devoted to the effects of privatization on physicians' working routines. The aim of this observational real-time study is to deliver exact data about physicians' work at hospitals of different ownership. By analysing working hours, further impacts of hospital privatization can be assessed and areas of improvement identified. Methods: Observations were made by shadowing 100 physicians working in private, for-profit or non-profit as well as public hospital departments individually during whole weekday shifts in urban German settings. A total of 300 days of observations were conducted. All working activities were recorded, accurate to the second, by using a mobile personal computer. Results: Results have shown significant differences in physicians' working activities, depending on hospital ownership, concerning working hours and time spent on direct and indirect patient care. Conclusion: This is the first real-time analysis on differences in work activities depending on hospital ownership. The study provides an objective insight into physicians' daily work routines at hospitals of different ownership, with additional information on effects of hospital privatization

    Fenoldopam use in a burn intensive care unit: a retrospective study

    Get PDF
    <p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Fenoldopam mesylate is a highly selective dopamine-1 receptor agonist approved for the treatment of hypertensive emergencies that may have a role at low doses in preserving renal function in those at high risk for or with acute kidney injury (AKI). There is no data on low-dose fenoldopam in the burn population. The purpose of our study was to describe our use of low-dose fenoldopam (0.03-0.09 ÎĽg/kg/min) infusion in critically ill burn patients with AKI.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We performed a retrospective analysis of consecutive patients admitted to our burn intensive care unit (BICU) with severe burns from November 2005 through September 2008 who received low-dose fenoldopam. Data obtained included systolic blood pressure, serum creatinine, vasoactive medication use, urine output, and intravenous fluid. Patients on concomitant continuous renal replacement therapy were excluded. Modified inotrope score and vasopressor dependency index were calculated. One-way analysis of variance with repeated measures, Wilcoxson signed rank, and chi-square tests were used. Differences were deemed significant at p < 0.05.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Seventy-seven patients were treated with low-dose fenoldopam out of 758 BICU admissions (10%). Twenty (26%) were AKI network (AKIN) stage 1, 14 (18%) were AKIN stage 2, 42 (55%) were AKIN stage 3, and 1 (1%) was AKIN stage 0. Serum creatinine improved over the first 24 hours and continued to improve through 48 hours (<it>p </it>< 0.05). There was an increase in systolic blood pressure in the first 24 hours that was sustained through 48 hours after initiation of fenoldopam (<it>p </it>< 0.05). Urine output increased after initiation of fenoldopam without an increase in intravenous fluid requirement (<it>p </it>< 0.05; <it>p </it>= NS). Modified inotrope score and vasopressor dependency index both decreased over 48 hours (<it>p </it>< 0.0001; <it>p </it>= 0.0012).</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>These findings suggest that renal function was preserved and that urine output improved without a decrease in systolic blood pressure, increase in vasoactive medication use, or an increase in resuscitation requirement in patients treated with low-dose fenoldopam. A randomized controlled trial is required to establish the efficacy of low-dose fenoldopam in critically ill burn patients with AKI.</p

    Whole-genome sequencing reveals host factors underlying critical COVID-19

    Get PDF
    Critical COVID-19 is caused by immune-mediated inflammatory lung injury. Host genetic variation influences the development of illness requiring critical care1 or hospitalization2–4 after infection with SARS-CoV-2. The GenOMICC (Genetics of Mortality in Critical Care) study enables the comparison of genomes from individuals who are critically ill with those of population controls to find underlying disease mechanisms. Here we use whole-genome sequencing in 7,491 critically ill individuals compared with 48,400 controls to discover and replicate 23 independent variants that significantly predispose to critical COVID-19. We identify 16 new independent associations, including variants within genes that are involved in interferon signalling (IL10RB and PLSCR1), leucocyte differentiation (BCL11A) and blood-type antigen secretor status (FUT2). Using transcriptome-wide association and colocalization to infer the effect of gene expression on disease severity, we find evidence that implicates multiple genes—including reduced expression of a membrane flippase (ATP11A), and increased expression of a mucin (MUC1)—in critical disease. Mendelian randomization provides evidence in support of causal roles for myeloid cell adhesion molecules (SELE, ICAM5 and CD209) and the coagulation factor F8, all of which are potentially druggable targets. Our results are broadly consistent with a multi-component model of COVID-19 pathophysiology, in which at least two distinct mechanisms can predispose to life-threatening disease: failure to control viral replication; or an enhanced tendency towards pulmonary inflammation and intravascular coagulation. We show that comparison between cases of critical illness and population controls is highly efficient for the detection of therapeutically relevant mechanisms of disease

    Determinants of recovery from post-COVID-19 dyspnoea: analysis of UK prospective cohorts of hospitalised COVID-19 patients and community-based controls

    Get PDF
    Background The risk factors for recovery from COVID-19 dyspnoea are poorly understood. We investigated determinants of recovery from dyspnoea in adults with COVID-19 and compared these to determinants of recovery from non-COVID-19 dyspnoea. Methods We used data from two prospective cohort studies: PHOSP-COVID (patients hospitalised between March 2020 and April 2021 with COVID-19) and COVIDENCE UK (community cohort studied over the same time period). PHOSP-COVID data were collected during hospitalisation and at 5-month and 1-year follow-up visits. COVIDENCE UK data were obtained through baseline and monthly online questionnaires. Dyspnoea was measured in both cohorts with the Medical Research Council Dyspnoea Scale. We used multivariable logistic regression to identify determinants associated with a reduction in dyspnoea between 5-month and 1-year follow-up. Findings We included 990 PHOSP-COVID and 3309 COVIDENCE UK participants. We observed higher odds of improvement between 5-month and 1-year follow-up among PHOSP-COVID participants who were younger (odds ratio 1.02 per year, 95% CI 1.01–1.03), male (1.54, 1.16–2.04), neither obese nor severely obese (1.82, 1.06–3.13 and 4.19, 2.14–8.19, respectively), had no pre-existing anxiety or depression (1.56, 1.09–2.22) or cardiovascular disease (1.33, 1.00–1.79), and shorter hospital admission (1.01 per day, 1.00–1.02). Similar associations were found in those recovering from non-COVID-19 dyspnoea, excluding age (and length of hospital admission). Interpretation Factors associated with dyspnoea recovery at 1-year post-discharge among patients hospitalised with COVID-19 were similar to those among community controls without COVID-19. Funding PHOSP-COVID is supported by a grant from the MRC-UK Research and Innovation and the Department of Health and Social Care through the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) rapid response panel to tackle COVID-19. The views expressed in the publication are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the National Health Service (NHS), the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care. COVIDENCE UK is supported by the UK Research and Innovation, the National Institute for Health Research, and Barts Charity. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the funders
    • …
    corecore