9 research outputs found

    Using social media to support small group learning

    Get PDF
    Abstract Background Medical curricula are increasingly using small group learning and less didactic lecture-based teaching. This creates new challenges and opportunities in how students are best supported with information technology. We explored how university-supported and external social media could support collaborative small group working on our new undergraduate medical curriculum. Methods We made available a curation platform (Scoop.it) and a wiki within our virtual learning environment as part of year 1 Case-Based Learning, and did not discourage the use of other tools such as Facebook. We undertook student surveys to capture perceptions of the tools and information on how they were used, and employed software user metrics to explore the extent to which they were used during the year. Results Student groups developed a preferred way of working early in the course. Most groups used Facebook to facilitate communication within the group, and to host documents and notes. There were more barriers to using the wiki and curation platform, although some groups did make extensive use of them. Staff engagement was variable, with some tutors reviewing the content posted on the wiki and curation platform in face-to-face sessions, but not outside these times. A small number of staff posted resources and reviewed student posts on the curation platform. Conclusions Optimum use of these tools depends on sufficient training of both staff and students, and an opportunity to practice using them, with ongoing support. The platforms can all support collaborative learning, and may help develop digital literacy, critical appraisal skills, and awareness of wider health issues in society

    Persistent neuropsychiatric symptoms after COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

    Get PDF
    The nature and extent of persistent neuropsychiatric symptoms after COVID-19 are not established. To help inform mental health service planning in the pandemic recovery phase, we systematically determined the prevalence of neuropsychiatric symptoms in survivors of COVID-19. For this pre-registered systematic review and meta-analysis (PROSPERO ID CRD42021239750), we searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and PsycINFO to 20 February 2021, plus our own curated database. We included peer-reviewed studies reporting neuropsychiatric symptoms at post-acute or later time-points after COVID-19 infection and in control groups where available. For each study, a minimum of two authors extracted summary data. For each symptom, we calculated a pooled prevalence using generalized linear mixed models. Heterogeneity was measured with I 2. Subgroup analyses were conducted for COVID-19 hospitalization, severity and duration of follow-up. From 2844 unique titles, we included 51 studies (n = 18 917 patients). The mean duration of follow-up after COVID-19 was 77 days (range 14-182 days). Study quality was most commonly moderate. The most prevalent neuropsychiatric symptom was sleep disturbance [pooled prevalence = 27.4% (95% confidence interval 21.4-34.4%)], followed by fatigue [24.4% (17.5-32.9%)], objective cognitive impairment [20.2% (10.3-35.7%)], anxiety [19.1% (13.3-26.8%)] and post-traumatic stress [15.7% (9.9-24.1%)]. Only two studies reported symptoms in control groups, both reporting higher frequencies in COVID-19 survivors versus controls. Between-study heterogeneity was high (I 2 = 79.6-98.6%). There was little or no evidence of differential symptom prevalence based on hospitalization status, severity or follow-up duration. Neuropsychiatric symptoms are common and persistent after recovery from COVID-19. The literature on longer-term consequences is still maturing but indicates a particularly high prevalence of insomnia, fatigue, cognitive impairment and anxiety disorders in the first 6 months after infection

    Using social media to support small group learning

    Get PDF
    Abstract Background Medical curricula are increasingly using small group learning and less didactic lecture-based teaching. This creates new challenges and opportunities in how students are best supported with information technology. We explored how university-supported and external social media could support collaborative small group working on our new undergraduate medical curriculum. Methods We made available a curation platform (Scoop.it) and a wiki within our virtual learning environment as part of year 1 Case-Based Learning, and did not discourage the use of other tools such as Facebook. We undertook student surveys to capture perceptions of the tools and information on how they were used, and employed software user metrics to explore the extent to which they were used during the year. Results Student groups developed a preferred way of working early in the course. Most groups used Facebook to facilitate communication within the group, and to host documents and notes. There were more barriers to using the wiki and curation platform, although some groups did make extensive use of them. Staff engagement was variable, with some tutors reviewing the content posted on the wiki and curation platform in face-to-face sessions, but not outside these times. A small number of staff posted resources and reviewed student posts on the curation platform. Conclusions Optimum use of these tools depends on sufficient training of both staff and students, and an opportunity to practice using them, with ongoing support. The platforms can all support collaborative learning, and may help develop digital literacy, critical appraisal skills, and awareness of wider health issues in society

    Neurological and psychiatric presentations associated with human monkeypox virus infection: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

    Get PDF
    BACKGROUND: Neuropsychiatric presentations of monkeypox (MPX) infection have not been well characterised, despite evidence of nervous system involvement associated with the related smallpox infection. METHODS: In this pre-registered (PROSPERO ID 336649) systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, AMED and the preprint server MedRxiv up to 31/05/2022. Any study design of humans infected with MPX that reported a neurological or psychiatric presentation was included. For eligible symptoms, we calculated a pooled prevalence using an inverse variance approach and corresponding 95% confidence intervals. The degree of variability that could be explained by between-study heterogeneity was assessed using the I 2 statistic. Risk of bias was assessed with the Newcastle Ottawa Scale and the Joanna Briggs Institute quality assessment tool. FINDINGS: From 1705 unique studies, we extracted data on 19 eligible studies (1512 participants, 1031 with confirmed infection using CDC criteria or PCR testing) most of which were cohort studies and case series with no control groups. Study quality was generally moderate. Three clinical features were eligible for meta-analysis: seizure 2.7% (95% CI 0.7-10.2%, I2 0%), confusion 2.4% (95% CI 1.1-5.2%, I2 0%) and encephalitis 2.0% (95% 0.5-8.2%, I2 55.8%). Other frequently reported symptoms included myalgia, headache and fatigue, where heterogeneity was too high for estimation of pooled prevalences, possibly as a result of differences in viral clades and study methodology. INTERPRETATION: There is preliminary evidence for a range of neuropsychiatric presentations including severe neurological complications (encephalitis and seizure) and nonspecific neurological features (confusion, headache and myalgia). There is less evidence regarding the psychiatric presentations or sequelae of MPX. This may warrant surveillance within the current MPX outbreak, with prospective longitudinal studies evaluating the mid- to long-term sequelae of the virus. Robust methods to evaluate the potential causality of MPX with these clinical features are required. More evidence is necessary to explain heterogeneity in prevalence estimates. FUNDING: UKRI/MRC (MR/V03605X/1), MRC-CSF (MR/V007181/1), MRC/AMED (MR/T028750/1) and the Wellcome Trust (102186/B/13/Z) and (102186/B/13/Z) and UCLH BRC

    The impact of psychiatric comorbidity on Parkinson's disease outcomes:a systematic review and meta-analysis

    No full text
    Background: The burden of psychiatric symptoms in Parkinson's disease includes depression, anxiety, apathy, psychosis, and impulse control disorders. However, the relationship between psychiatric comorbidities and subsequent prognosis and neurological outcomes is not yet well understood. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, in individuals with Parkinson's disease, we aimed to characterise the association between specific psychiatric comorbidities and subsequent prognosis and neurological outcomes: cognitive impairment, death, disability, disease progression, falls or fractures and care home admission. Methods: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and AMED up to 13th November 2023 for longitudinal observational studies which measured disease outcomes in people with Parkinson's disease, with and without specific psychiatric comorbidities, and a minimum of two authors extracted summary data. Studies of individuals with other parkinsonian conditions and those with outcome measures that had high overlap with psychiatric symptoms were excluded to ensure face validity. For each exposure-outcome pair, a random-effects meta-analysis was conducted based on standardised mean difference, using adjusted effect sizes–where available–in preference to unadjusted effect sizes. Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale. Between-study heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 statistic and publication bias was assessed using funnel plots. PROSPERO Study registration number: CRD42022373072. Findings: There were 55 eligible studies for inclusion in meta-analysis (n = 165,828). Data on participants’ sex was available for 164,514, of whom 99,182 (60.3%) were male and 65,460 (39.7%) female. Study quality was mostly high (84%). Significant positive associations were found between psychosis and cognitive impairment (standardised mean difference [SMD] 0.44, [95% confidence interval [CI] 0.23–0.66], I2 30.9), psychosis and disease progression (SMD 0.46, [95% CI 0.12–0.80], I2 70.3%), depression and cognitive impairment (SMD 0.37 [95% CI 0.10–0.65], I2 27.1%), depression and disease progression (SMD 0.46 [95% CI 0.18–0.74], I2 52.2), depression and disability (SMD 0.42 [95% CI 0.25–0.60], I2 7.9%), and apathy and cognitive impairment (SMD 0.60 [95% CI 0.02–1.19], I2 27.9%). Between-study heterogeneity was moderately high. Interpretation: Psychosis, depression, and apathy in Parkinson's disease are all associated with at least one adverse outcome, including cognitive impairment, disease progression and disability. Whether this relationship is causal is not clear, but the mechanisms underlying these associations require exploration. Clinicians should consider these psychiatric comorbidities to be markers of a poorer prognosis in people with Parkinson's disease. Future studies should investigate the underlying mechanisms and which treatments for these comorbidities may affect Parkinson's disease outcomes. Funding:Wellcome Trust, UKNational Institute for Health Research (NIHR),National Institute for Health Research (NIHR)Biomedical Research Centre (BRC) atSouth London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust and King's College London,National Institute for Health Research (NIHR)Biomedical Research Centre (BRC) atUniversity College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, National Brain Appeal.</p

    Neurology and neuropsychiatry of COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the early literature reveals frequent CNS manifestations and key emerging narratives

    Get PDF
    There is accumulating evidence of the neurological and neuropsychiatric features of infection with SARS-CoV-2. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we aimed to describe the characteristics of the early literature and estimate point prevalences for neurological and neuropsychiatric manifestations. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and CINAHL up to 18 July 2020 for randomised controlled trials, cohort studies, case-control studies, cross-sectional studies and case series. Studies reporting prevalences of neurological or neuropsychiatric symptoms were synthesised into meta-analyses to estimate pooled prevalence. 13 292 records were screened by at least two authors to identify 215 included studies, of which there were 37 cohort studies, 15 case-control studies, 80 cross-sectional studies and 83 case series from 30 countries. 147 studies were included in the meta-analysis. The symptoms with the highest prevalence were anosmia (43.1% (95% CI 35.2% to 51.3%), n=15 975, 63 studies), weakness (40.0% (95% CI 27.9% to 53.5%), n=221, 3 studies), fatigue (37.8% (95% CI 31.6% to 44.4%), n=21 101, 67 studies), dysgeusia (37.2% (95% CI 29.8% to 45.3%), n=13 686, 52 studies), myalgia (25.1% (95% CI 19.8% to 31.3%), n=66 268, 76 studies), depression (23.0% (95% CI 11.8% to 40.2%), n=43 128, 10 studies), headache (20.7% (95% CI 16.1% to 26.1%), n=64 613, 84 studies), anxiety (15.9% (5.6% to 37.7%), n=42 566, 9 studies) and altered mental status (8.2% (95% CI 4.4% to 14.8%), n=49 326, 19 studies). Heterogeneity for most clinical manifestations was high. Neurological and neuropsychiatric symptoms of COVID-19 in the pandemic’s early phase are varied and common. The neurological and psychiatric academic communities should develop systems to facilitate high-quality methodologies, including more rapid examination of the longitudinal course of neuropsychiatric complications of newly emerging diseases and their relationship to neuroimaging and inflammatory biomarkers
    corecore