Community Engagement newsletter, Faculty of Veterinary Science, Spring 2013

Community Engagement Day for Public Health / Thandi Fourie ; photos by Nicole Epstein -- Some TLC for our canine friends / Alison Cook, Bevin Meyer, Tessa Morris, Kelsey Skinner and Olivia McMurray -- Dog bite awareness / Bob Maswanganye -- Performing to fight animal abuse / Nadine Strydom, Megan Naude, Lise-Marie Roux and Charney Sargent -- All eyes on ears / Carine du Toit.Originally published as HTML file, converted to PDF with Adobe Acrobat 9 Pro Version 9.0.0.News articles with colour photos about the various community engagement projects of the Faculty of Veterinary Science, University of Pretoria.ab201

Community Engagement newsletter, Faculty of Veterinary Science, Winter, 2012

Mangaung community receives support from Onderstepoort / Willem Engelbrecht, Helzna Krikke, Ingrid Metz, Janine Lombard, Marelize Greyling and Willem Janson -- Fighting animal abuse one school at a time / Ruche Harmse, Taryn Light, Ansu Visser, Este van Coetzen, Megan Naude, Nadia Strydom and Tess Tjasink -- Veterinary education and “Vets for the kids” / Patrick Ntsibande, Nyeleti Manganyi, Noluthando Ndashe, Thapelo Makae, Khulekani Lukhele and Sabelo Magagula -- soVETo k9 Mobile clinic outreach / Daleen Bester, Gideon Stemmet, Ian Gibson, Kobus Rabe, Louw Grobler and Rhynard de RidderNews articles with colour photos about the various community engagement projects of the Faculty of Veterinary Science, University of Pretoria.ab201

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

An exploration of how first sandtrays facilitate a resilience diagnosis

The purpose of this mini-dissertation was to explore and describe how first sandtrays are useful in facilitating the operationalisation of Ungar’s diagnostic criteria for resilience among rural SiSwati-speaking South African adolescents. The study forms part of continuing investigation at the Centre for the Study of Resilience with regards to the nature of school-based Educational Psychology services in remote South Africa. My study draws on a subset of data that was generated when a group of Educational Psychology Masters students worked with a group of Grade 9 students at a rural school in Mpumalanga. I performed a qualitative secondary data analysis of the documentation obtained from the first sandtrays completed by 50 male and female Grade 9 learners as part of the psycho-educational assessments conducted in the 2015 Flourishing Learning Youth project. A qualitative exploratory design is used, and within this broad approach, I conduct a secondary data analysis to explore how first sandtrays are useful in facilitating a resilience diagnosis. The documentation relating to the first sandtrays includes visual data (photographs), client narratives and MEd (educational psychology) student reflections. A priori categories, which come directly from Ungar’s diagnostic criteria for resilience and relevant literature are used to categorise the coded data. The results showed that first sandtrays are useful in facilitating the operationalisation of Ungar’s diagnsotic criteria for resilience among rural SiSwati-speaking adolescents. Indicators of both individual and interpersonal risks and resources emerged during data analysis. Evidence from analysis of first sandtray documentation showed risks including adolescent life-stage, family violence, lack of safety and structural disadvantage. The most common of these was lack of safety in the community. Protective resources alluded to included personal strengths, supportive family systems, supportive teachers, community attachments and sharing of resources, supportive community structures, cultural values of Ubuntu and spiritual support. The findings indicate that first sandtrays can be used by the educational psychologist to diagnose resilience, and may be particularly useful in a multilingual and diverse context such as South Africa to understand which resources need to be sustained and which resources are absent and need to be amplified.Dissertation (MEd)--University of Pretoria, 2017.Educational PsychologyMEdUnrestricte

Development of a measure of work-related underload, The

Includes bibliographical references.2015 Fall.This study outlines the development of the construct of work-related underload as well as a scale to measure underload. Underload has been given limited attention in the stress literature but could be a significant source of stress and other negative outcomes in the workplace. After reviewing the literature and the theoretical background related to underload, a clear definition of underload was established based on employees' perceptions, expectations, and desires related to workload. This definition informed the development of a three-factor scale to measure underload. Data from two development samples was collected in order to evaluate the reliability and validity of the scale. The results provide evidence of the internal consistency and construct validity of the three-dimensional scale. The work-related underload scale may be used in the future to explore the antecedents and consequences associated with the experience of underload at work

Cognitive ability testing for employee selection: implications for age discrimination

2018 Summer.Includes bibliographical references.Existing theory and empirical research suggest that tests of fluid cognitive abilities have the potential to lead to age-based adverse impact and may be stronger predictors of job performance for younger job candidates compared to older job candidates. However, the evidence suggests that tests of crystallized cognitive abilities are not as susceptible to age-based adverse impact issues and should be strong predictors of job performance for candidates of any age. The two present studies used cognitive ability test scores collected from management employees in a large company in the United States in conjunction with supervisory performance ratings to examine adverse impact based on age, linear relations of test scores with age, and differential validity and prediction based on age. In the first study, a sample of N = 214 employees completed a test of fluid cognitive abilities, and in the second study, a sample of N = 232 employees completed a test of crystallized cognitive abilities. Contrary to hypotheses, results indicated that age-based adverse impact was more likely to be present for the test of crystallized abilities, age was negatively related to test performance for both tests, and neither test resulted in significant differential validity or prediction for the two age subgroups. Implications for theory and practice are discussed

Non-attendance of occupational and physiotherapy appointments at Western Cape Rehabilitation Centre : a description of associated factors

CITATION: De Klerk, S. et al. 2019. Non-attendance of occupational and physiotherapy appointments at Western Cape Rehabilitation Centre : a description of associated factors. South African Journal of Occupational Therapy, 49(3):54-63, doi:10.17159/2310-3833/2019/vol49n3a9.The original publication is available at http://www.sajot.co.zaIntroduction: Occupational therapists and physiotherapists use outpatient follow-up appointments to continue and monitor the effectiveness and outcome of therapy interventions. Attendance of follow-up appointments is essential, as non-attendance has negative implications for both the patient and the healthcare facility. Methodology: This retrospective, cross-sectional study made use of a period sample of all outpatients with scheduled appointments between January and December 2017 (n = 837) at the Western Cape Rehabilitation Centre (WCRC). Children under the age of 18 years were excluded. Descriptive statistics were used to describe the identified variables of the sample. Logistic regression was used to determine the adjusted odds ratio for the association between non-attendances and identified covariates. Results: The sample population of 837 patients, included 516 attenders and 321 non-attenders. Factors that had an association with non-attendance included hospital classification, diagnostic category and impairment according to ICD 10 coding (p ≤ 0.05). Conclusion: This article describe factors associated with non-attendance of outpatients to scheduled occupational therapy and physiotherapy appointments at the WCRC. Further research is needed to determine the reasons for non-attendance at institutions such as WCRC which will assist in the implementation of strategies to reduce high non-attendance rates.Publisher's versio

Safety and immunogenicity of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine against SARS-CoV-2: a preliminary report of a phase 1/2, single-blind, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The pandemic of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) might be curtailed by vaccination. We assessed the safety, reactogenicity, and immunogenicity of a viral vectored coronavirus vaccine that expresses the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2. METHODS: We did a phase 1/2, single-blind, randomised controlled trial in five trial sites in the UK of a chimpanzee adenovirus-vectored vaccine (ChAdOx1 nCoV-19) expressing the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein compared with a meningococcal conjugate vaccine (MenACWY) as control. Healthy adults aged 18-55 years with no history of laboratory confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection or of COVID-19-like symptoms were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 at a dose of 5 × 1010 viral particles or MenACWY as a single intramuscular injection. A protocol amendment in two of the five sites allowed prophylactic paracetamol to be administered before vaccination. Ten participants assigned to a non-randomised, unblinded ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 prime-boost group received a two-dose schedule, with the booster vaccine administered 28 days after the first dose. Humoral responses at baseline and following vaccination were assessed using a standardised total IgG ELISA against trimeric SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, a muliplexed immunoassay, three live SARS-CoV-2 neutralisation assays (a 50% plaque reduction neutralisation assay [PRNT50]; a microneutralisation assay [MNA50, MNA80, and MNA90]; and Marburg VN), and a pseudovirus neutralisation assay. Cellular responses were assessed using an ex-vivo interferon-γ enzyme-linked immunospot assay. The co-primary outcomes are to assess efficacy, as measured by cases of symptomatic virologically confirmed COVID-19, and safety, as measured by the occurrence of serious adverse events. Analyses were done by group allocation in participants who received the vaccine. Safety was assessed over 28 days after vaccination. Here, we report the preliminary findings on safety, reactogenicity, and cellular and humoral immune responses. The study is ongoing, and was registered at ISRCTN, 15281137, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324606. FINDINGS: Between April 23 and May 21, 2020, 1077 participants were enrolled and assigned to receive either ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (n=543) or MenACWY (n=534), ten of whom were enrolled in the non-randomised ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 prime-boost group. Local and systemic reactions were more common in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and many were reduced by use of prophylactic paracetamol, including pain, feeling feverish, chills, muscle ache, headache, and malaise (all p<0·05). There were no serious adverse events related to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19. In the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group, spike-specific T-cell responses peaked on day 14 (median 856 spot-forming cells per million peripheral blood mononuclear cells, IQR 493-1802; n=43). Anti-spike IgG responses rose by day 28 (median 157 ELISA units [EU], 96-317; n=127), and were boosted following a second dose (639 EU, 360-792; n=10). Neutralising antibody responses against SARS-CoV-2 were detected in 32 (91%) of 35 participants after a single dose when measured in MNA80 and in 35 (100%) participants when measured in PRNT50. After a booster dose, all participants had neutralising activity (nine of nine in MNA80 at day 42 and ten of ten in Marburg VN on day 56). Neutralising antibody responses correlated strongly with antibody levels measured by ELISA (R2=0·67 by Marburg VN; p<0·001). INTERPRETATION: ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 showed an acceptable safety profile, and homologous boosting increased antibody responses. These results, together with the induction of both humoral and cellular immune responses, support large-scale evaluation of this candidate vaccine in an ongoing phase 3 programme. FUNDING: UK Research and Innovation, Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Thames Valley and South Midland's NIHR Clinical Research Network, and the German Center for Infection Research (DZIF), Partner site Gießen-Marburg-Langen

The ASOS Surgical Risk Calculator: development and validation of a tool for identifying African surgical patients at risk of severe postoperative complications

Background: The African Surgical Outcomes Study (ASOS) showed that surgical patients in Africa have a mortality twice the global average. Existing risk assessment tools are not valid for use in this population because the pattern of risk for poor outcomes differs from high-income countries. The objective of this study was to derive and validate a simple, preoperative risk stratification tool to identify African surgical patients at risk for in-hospital postoperative mortality and severe complications. Methods: ASOS was a 7-day prospective cohort study of adult patients undergoing surgery in Africa. The ASOS Surgical Risk Calculator was constructed with a multivariable logistic regression model for the outcome of in-hospital mortality and severe postoperative complications. The following preoperative risk factors were entered into the model; age, sex, smoking status, ASA physical status, preoperative chronic comorbid conditions, indication for surgery, urgency, severity, and type of surgery. Results: The model was derived from 8799 patients from 168 African hospitals. The composite outcome of severe postoperative complications and death occurred in 423/8799 (4.8%) patients. The ASOS Surgical Risk Calculator includes the following risk factors: age, ASA physical status, indication for surgery, urgency, severity, and type of surgery. The model showed good discrimination with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.805 and good calibration with c-statistic corrected for optimism of 0.784. Conclusions: This simple preoperative risk calculator could be used to identify high-risk surgical patients in African hospitals and facilitate increased postoperative surveillance. © 2018 British Journal of Anaesthesia. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.Medical Research Council of South Africa gran