Does pre-COVID impulsive behaviour predict adherence to hygiene and social distancing measures in youths following the COVID-19 pandemic onset? Evidence from a South African longitudinal study

BACKGROUND: Engagement in protective behaviours relating to the COVID-19 pandemic has been proposed to be key to infection control. This is particularly the case for youths as key drivers of infections. A range of factors influencing adherence have been identified, including impulsivity and risk taking. We assessed the association between pre-COVID impulsivity levels and engagement in preventative measures during the COVID-19 pandemic in a longitudinal South African sample, in order to inform future pandemic planning. METHODS: Data were collected from N = 214 youths (mean age at baseline: M = 17.81 (SD = .71), 55.6% female) living in a South African peri-urban settlement characterised by high poverty and deprivation. Baseline assessments were taken in 2018/19 and the COVID follow-up was conducted in June–October 2020 via remote data collection. Impulsivity was assessed using the Balloon Analogue Task (BART), while hygiene and social distancing behaviours were captured through self-report. Stepwise hierarchical regression analyses were performed to estimate effects of impulsivity on measure adherence. RESULTS: Self-rated engagement in hygiene behaviours was high (67.1–86.1% “most of the time”, except for “coughing/sneezing into one’s elbow” at 33.3%), while engagement in social distancing behaviours varied (22.4–57.8% “most of the time”). Higher impulsivity predicted lower levels of hygiene (β = .14, p = .041) but not social distancing behaviours (β = −.02, p = .82). This association was retained when controlling for a range of demographic and COVID-related factors (β = .14, p = .047) and was slightly reduced when including the effects of a life-skills interventions on hygiene behaviour (β = −.13, p = .073). CONCLUSIONS: Our data indicate that impulsivity may predict adolescent engagement in hygiene behaviours post COVID-19 pandemic onset in a high risk, sub-Saharan African setting, albeit with a small effect size. For future pandemics, it is important to understand predictors of engagement, particularly in the context of adversity, where adherence may be challenging. Limitations include a small sample size and potential measure shortcomings

Randomised crossover trial of telemonitoring in chronic respiratory patients (TeleCRAFT trial).

OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of home telemonitoring on health service use and quality of life in patients with severe chronic lung disease. DESIGN: Randomised crossover trial with 6 months of standard best practice clinical care (control group) and 6 months with the addition of telemonitoring. PARTICIPANTS: 68 patients with chronic lung disease (38 with COPD; 30 with chronic respiratory failure due to other causes), who had a hospital admission for an exacerbation within 6 months of randomisation and either used long-term oxygen therapy or had an arterial oxygen saturation (SpO2) of <90% on air during the previous admission. Individuals received telemonitoring (second-generation system) via broadband link to a hospital-based care team. OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome measure was time to first hospital admission for an acute exacerbation. Secondary outcome measures were hospital admissions, general practitioner (GP) consultations and home visits by nurses, quality of life measured by EuroQol-5D and hospital anxiety and depression (HAD) scale, and self-efficacy score (Stanford). RESULTS: Median (IQR) number of days to first admission showed no difference between the two groups-77 (114) telemonitoring, 77.5 (61) control (p=0.189). Hospital admission rate at 6 months increased (0.63 telemonitoring vs 0.32 control p=0.026). Home visits increased during telemonitoring; GP consultations were unchanged. Self-efficacy fell, while HAD depression score improved marginally during telemonitoring. CONCLUSIONS: Telemonitoring added to standard care did not alter time to next acute hospital admission, increased hospital admissions and home visits overall, and did not improve quality of life in chronic respiratory patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02180919 (ClinicalTrials.gov)

The effects of integrated care: a systematic review of UK and international evidence

BACKGROUND: Healthcare systems around the world have been responding to the demand for better integrated models of service delivery. However, there is a need for further clarity regarding the effects of these new models of integration, and exploration regarding whether models introduced in other care systems may achieve similar outcomes in a UK national health service context. METHODS: The study aimed to carry out a systematic review of the effects of integration or co-ordination between healthcare services, or between health and social care on service delivery outcomes including effectiveness, efficiency and quality of care. Electronic databases including MEDLINE; Embase; PsycINFO; CINAHL; Science and Social Science Citation Indices; and the Cochrane Library were searched for relevant literature published between 2006 to March 2017. Online sources were searched for UK grey literature, and citation searching, and manual reference list screening were also carried out. Quantitative primary studies and systematic reviews, reporting actual or perceived effects on service delivery following the introduction of models of integration or co-ordination, in healthcare or health and social care settings in developed countries were eligible for inclusion. Strength of evidence for each outcome reported was analysed and synthesised using a four point comparative rating system of stronger, weaker, inconsistent or limited evidence. RESULTS: One hundred sixty seven studies were eligible for inclusion. Analysis indicated evidence of perceived improved quality of care, evidence of increased patient satisfaction, and evidence of improved access to care. Evidence was rated as either inconsistent or limited regarding all other outcomes reported, including system-wide impacts on primary care, secondary care, and health care costs. There were limited differences between outcomes reported by UK and international studies, and overall the literature had a limited consideration of effects on service users. CONCLUSIONS: Models of integrated care may enhance patient satisfaction, increase perceived quality of care, and enable access to services, although the evidence for other outcomes including service costs remains unclear. Indications of improved access may have important implications for services struggling to cope with increasing demand. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Prospero registration number: 42016037725