How does moving public engagement with research online change audience diversity? Comparing inclusion indicators for 2019 & 2020 European Researchers' night events

Taking place annually in more than 400 cities, European Researchers’ Night is a pan- European synchronized event that aims to bring researchers closer to the public. In this paper audience profiles are compared from events in 2019 and 2020. In 2019, face-to-face events reached an estimated 1.6 million attendees, while in 2020, events shifted online due to the COVID-19 pandemic and reached an estimated 2.3 million attendees. Focusing on social inclusion metrics, survey data is analyzed across two national contexts (Ireland and Malta) in 2019 (n = 656) and 2020 (n = 506). The results from this exploratory, descriptive study shed light on how moving public engagement with research online shifted audience profiles. Based on prior research about the digital divide in access and use of online media, hypotheses were proposed that online European Researchers’ Night events would attract audiences with higher educational attainment levels and greater self-reported, subjective economic well-being. While changes were observed from 2019 to 2020, results for each hypothesis show a mixed picture. The first hypothesis was upheld for the highest education levels but failed for the lowest levels suggesting that the pivot to online events simultaneously attracted participants with no formal education and those with postgraduate qualifications, while attracting less of those with undergraduate or lower levels of education. The second hypothesis was not upheld, with online European Researchers’ Night events attracting audiences with slightly higher levels of economic well-being compared to face-to-face events. The findings of this study indicate that European Researchers’ Night events present a clear opportunity to measure the effects of the digital divide in relation to public engagement with research across Europe.peer-reviewe

So round the spiral again: a reflective participatory research project with children and young people

Historically the voices of children in research have been silent. They are often seen as victims or beneficiaries of research rather than co-researchers or partners. This is beginning to change with rowing awareness that involving children in the design, delivery and evaluation of services can make services more accessible to them and their peers. This article reviews the processes involved n a research project commissioned by Children’s Fund, which investigated the use and non-use of services within a local area. The involvement of children was paramount and resulted in the recruitment f nine young researchers between the ages of 7–13. Various cycles of participatory action research evolved throughout the project and this article focuses specifically on two—recruiting the researcher and training young researchers. We consider the cycles of reflection and action crucial to any participatory project and discuss how lessons were learned to inform further stages of the process. Themes such as challenges, power and participation are discussed throughout

Long COVID and episodic disability: advancing the conceptualisation, measurement and knowledge of episodic disability among people living with Long COVID - protocol for a mixed-methods study

Introduction- As the prevalence of Long COVID increases, there is a critical need for a comprehensive assessment of disability. Our aims are to: (1) characterise disability experiences among people living with Long COVID in Canada, UK, USA and Ireland; and (2) develop a patient-reported outcome measure to assess the presence, severity and episodic nature of disability with Long COVID. Methods and analysis- In phase 1, we will conduct semistructured interviews with adults living with Long COVID to explore experiences of disability (dimensions, uncertainty, trajectories, influencing contextual factors) and establish an episodic disability (ED) framework in the context of Long COVID (n~10 each country). Using the conceptual framework, we will establish the Long COVID Episodic Disability Questionnaire (EDQ). In phase 2, we will examine the validity (construct, structural) and reliability (internal consistency, test–retest) of the EDQ for use in Long COVID. We will electronically administer the EDQ and four health status criterion measures with adults living with Long COVID, and readminister the EDQ 1 week later (n~170 each country). We will use Rasch analysis to refine the EDQ, and confirm structural and cross-cultural validity. We will calculate Cronbach’s alphas (internal consistency reliability), and intraclass correlation coefficients (test–retest reliability), and examine correlations for hypotheses theorising relationships between EDQ and criterion measure scores (construct validity). Using phase 2 data, we will characterise the profile of disability using structural equation modelling techniques to examine relationships between dimensions of disability and the influence of intrinsic and extrinsic contextual factors. This research involves an academic–clinical–community partnership building on foundational work in ED measurement, Long COVID and rehabilitation. Ethics and dissemination- This study was approved by the University of Toronto Research Ethics Board. Knowledge translation will occur with community collaborators in the form of presentations and publications in open access peer-reviewed journals and presentations

Necessity of Hippocampal Neurogenesis for the Therapeutic Action of Antidepressants in Adult Nonhuman Primates

Rodent studies show that neurogenesis is necessary for mediating the salutary effects of antidepressants. Nonhuman primate (NHP) studies may bridge important rodent findings to the clinical realm since NHP-depression shares significant homology with human depression and kinetics of primate neurogenesis differ from those in rodents. After demonstrating that antidepressants can stimulate neurogenesis in NHPs, our present study examines whether neurogenesis is required for antidepressant efficacy in NHPs. MATERIALS/METHODOLOGY: Adult female bonnets were randomized to three social pens (N = 6 each). Pen-1 subjects were exposed to control-conditions for 15 weeks with half receiving the antidepressant fluoxetine and the rest receiving saline-placebo. Pen-2 subjects were exposed to 15 weeks of separation-stress with half receiving fluoxetine and half receiving placebo. Pen-3 subjects 2 weeks of irradiation (N = 4) or sham-irradiation (N = 2) and then exposed to 15 weeks of stress and fluoxetine. Dependent measures were weekly behavioral observations and postmortem neurogenesis levels.Exposing NHPs to repeated separation stress resulted in depression-like behaviors (anhedonia and subordinance) accompanied by reduced hippocampal neurogenesis. Treatment with fluoxetine stimulated neurogenesis and prevented the emergence of depression-like behaviors. Ablation of neurogenesis with irradiation abolished the therapeutic effects of fluoxetine. Non-stressed controls had normative behaviors although the fluoxetine-treated controls had higher neurogenesis rates. Across all groups, depression-like behaviors were associated with decreased rates of neurogenesis but this inverse correlation was only significant for new neurons in the anterior dentate gyrus that were at the threshold of completing maturation.We provide evidence that induction of neurogenesis is integral to the therapeutic effects of fluoxetine in NHPs. Given the similarity between monkeys and humans, hippocampal neurogenesis likely plays a similar role in the treatment of clinical depression. Future studies will examine several outstanding questions such as whether neuro-suppression is sufficient for producing depression and whether therapeutic neuroplastic effects of fluoxetine are specific to antidepressants

Obesity in adults: a 2022 adapted clinical practice guideline for Ireland

This Clinical Practice Guideline (CPG) for the management of obesity in adults in Ireland, adapted from the Canadian CPG, defines obesity as a complex chronic disease characterised by excess or dysfunctional adiposity that impairs health. The guideline reflects substantial advances in the understanding of the determinants, pathophysiology, assessment, and treatment of obesity. It shifts the focus of obesity management toward improving patient-centred health outcomes, functional outcomes, and social and economic participation, rather than weight loss alone. It gives recommendations for care that are underpinned by evidence-based principles of chronic disease management; validate patients' lived experiences; move beyond simplistic approaches of "eat less, move more" and address the root drivers of obesity. People living with obesity face substantial bias and stigma, which contribute to increased morbidity and mortality independent of body weight. Education is needed for all healthcare professionals in Ireland to address the gap in skills, increase knowledge of evidence-based practice, and eliminate bias and stigma in healthcare settings. We call for people living with obesity in Ireland to have access to evidence-informed care, including medical, medical nutrition therapy, physical activity and physical rehabilitation interventions, psychological interventions, pharmacotherapy, and bariatric surgery. This can be best achieved by resourcing and fully implementing the Model of Care for the Management of Adult Overweight and Obesity. To address health inequalities, we also call for the inclusion of obesity in the Structured Chronic Disease Management Programme and for pharmacotherapy reimbursement, to ensure equal access to treatment based on health-need rather than ability to pay

Safety, immunogenicity, and reactogenicity of BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 COVID-19 vaccines given as fourth-dose boosters following two doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 or BNT162b2 and a third dose of BNT162b2 (COV-BOOST): a multicentre, blinded, phase 2, randomised trial

Background Some high-income countries have deployed fourth doses of COVID-19 vaccines, but the clinical need, effectiveness, timing, and dose of a fourth dose remain uncertain. We aimed to investigate the safety, reactogenicity, and immunogenicity of fourth-dose boosters against COVID-19.Methods The COV-BOOST trial is a multicentre, blinded, phase 2, randomised controlled trial of seven COVID-19 vaccines given as third-dose boosters at 18 sites in the UK. This sub-study enrolled participants who had received BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) as their third dose in COV-BOOST and randomly assigned them (1:1) to receive a fourth dose of either BNT162b2 (30 µg in 0·30 mL; full dose) or mRNA-1273 (Moderna; 50 µg in 0·25 mL; half dose) via intramuscular injection into the upper arm. The computer-generated randomisation list was created by the study statisticians with random block sizes of two or four. Participants and all study staff not delivering the vaccines were masked to treatment allocation. The coprimary outcomes were safety and reactogenicity, and immunogenicity (antispike protein IgG titres by ELISA and cellular immune response by ELISpot). We compared immunogenicity at 28 days after the third dose versus 14 days after the fourth dose and at day 0 versus day 14 relative to the fourth dose. Safety and reactogenicity were assessed in the per-protocol population, which comprised all participants who received a fourth-dose booster regardless of their SARS-CoV-2 serostatus. Immunogenicity was primarily analysed in a modified intention-to-treat population comprising seronegative participants who had received a fourth-dose booster and had available endpoint data. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, 73765130, and is ongoing.Findings Between Jan 11 and Jan 25, 2022, 166 participants were screened, randomly assigned, and received either full-dose BNT162b2 (n=83) or half-dose mRNA-1273 (n=83) as a fourth dose. The median age of these participants was 70·1 years (IQR 51·6–77·5) and 86 (52%) of 166 participants were female and 80 (48%) were male. The median interval between the third and fourth doses was 208·5 days (IQR 203·3–214·8). Pain was the most common local solicited adverse event and fatigue was the most common systemic solicited adverse event after BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273 booster doses. None of three serious adverse events reported after a fourth dose with BNT162b2 were related to the study vaccine. In the BNT162b2 group, geometric mean anti-spike protein IgG concentration at day 28 after the third dose was 23 325 ELISA laboratory units (ELU)/mL (95% CI 20 030–27 162), which increased to 37 460 ELU/mL (31 996–43 857) at day 14 after the fourth dose, representing a significant fold change (geometric mean 1·59, 95% CI 1·41–1·78). There was a significant increase in geometric mean anti-spike protein IgG concentration from 28 days after the third dose (25 317 ELU/mL, 95% CI 20 996–30 528) to 14 days after a fourth dose of mRNA-1273 (54 936 ELU/mL, 46 826–64 452), with a geometric mean fold change of 2·19 (1·90–2·52). The fold changes in anti-spike protein IgG titres from before (day 0) to after (day 14) the fourth dose were 12·19 (95% CI 10·37–14·32) and 15·90 (12·92–19·58) in the BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 groups, respectively. T-cell responses were also boosted after the fourth dose (eg, the fold changes for the wild-type variant from before to after the fourth dose were 7·32 [95% CI 3·24–16·54] in the BNT162b2 group and 6·22 [3·90–9·92] in the mRNA-1273 group).Interpretation Fourth-dose COVID-19 mRNA booster vaccines are well tolerated and boost cellular and humoral immunity. Peak responses after the fourth dose were similar to, and possibly better than, peak responses after the third dose

COVID-19 symptoms at hospital admission vary with age and sex: results from the ISARIC prospective multinational observational study

Background: The ISARIC prospective multinational observational study is the largest cohort of hospitalized patients with COVID-19. We present relationships of age, sex, and nationality to presenting symptoms. Methods: International, prospective observational study of 60 109 hospitalized symptomatic patients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 recruited from 43 countries between 30 January and 3 August 2020. Logistic regression was performed to evaluate relationships of age and sex to published COVID-19 case definitions and the most commonly reported symptoms. Results: ‘Typical’ symptoms of fever (69%), cough (68%) and shortness of breath (66%) were the most commonly reported. 92% of patients experienced at least one of these. Prevalence of typical symptoms was greatest in 30- to 60-year-olds (respectively 80, 79, 69%; at least one 95%). They were reported less frequently in children (≤ 18 years: 69, 48, 23; 85%), older adults (≥ 70 years: 61, 62, 65; 90%), and women (66, 66, 64; 90%; vs. men 71, 70, 67; 93%, each P < 0.001). The most common atypical presentations under 60 years of age were nausea and vomiting and abdominal pain, and over 60 years was confusion. Regression models showed significant differences in symptoms with sex, age and country. Interpretation: This international collaboration has allowed us to report reliable symptom data from the largest cohort of patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19. Adults over 60 and children admitted to hospital with COVID-19 are less likely to present with typical symptoms. Nausea and vomiting are common atypical presentations under 30 years. Confusion is a frequent atypical presentation of COVID-19 in adults over 60 years. Women are less likely to experience typical symptoms than men