The association between the Multiple Sclerosis Screening Questionnaire and objective measures of cognition: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis

IntroductionThe Multiple Sclerosis Screening Questionnaire (MSNQ) is a self-report measure used to assess cognitive difficulties in people with Multiple Sclerosis (PwMS). The aim of this systematic review was to determine the associations between the MSNQ and: objective measures of cognition, measures of mood, and quality of life measures.MethodA comprehensive search was done across three databases (PsycINFO, MEDLINE, and CINAHL). A total of 15 studies, including 1992 participants, were selected for final inclusion. Meta-analyses were conducted to determine the pooled effect size of associations. Where data were not available for meta-analyses, a narrative synthesis approach was taken.ResultsSignificant, but small (r = −0.17), associations were found between the MSNQ and objective measures of cognition. Significant, moderate associations (r = 0.47) were found between the MSNQ and measures of mood.ConclusionsThe small association between the MSNQ and objective measures of cognition shows that the measures do not converge well. However, their divergence may be important to map the broad construct of “cognitive ability” more fully. Limitations include a lack of reporting of non-significant effect sizes in individual studies. Clinical implications include the potential for the MSNQ to be used beyond being solely a proxy measure for objective cognition. Future research should investigate the associations between the informant version of the MSNQ and objective measures

The INSIGHT project: reflections on the co-production of a quality recognition programme to showcase excellence in public involvement in health and care research

Background: The quality of Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) in healthcare research varies considerably and is frequently tokenistic. We aimed to co-produce the Insight | Public Involvement Quality Recognition and Awards programme, based on the UK Standards for Public Involvement (UKSPI) alongside an incremental scale designed by Expert Citizens (a lived experience-led community group), to incentivise and celebrate continuous improvement in PPI. Methods: We used Task and Finish Groups (19/44 [43%] public contributor membership) to co-produce the programme which we piloted in three organisations with different healthcare research models. We used surveys and review sessions to capture learning and reflections. Results: We co-created:A Quality descriptor matrix comprising four incremental quality levels (Welcoming, Listening, Learning, Leading) for each UKSPI standard. An assessment framework including guidance materials, self-assessment form and final report template. An assessor training package. The quality awards event format and nomination form. These materials were modified based on pilot-site feedback. Of survey respondents: 94.4% felt they had made at least ‘Some’ personal contribution (half said ‘Quite a lot’/‘A great deal’), 88.9% said they were ‘Always’/‘Often’ able to express their views freely and, 100% stated the programme would have ‘A lot of impact’/‘Quite a bit of impact’. During the project, we identified the importance of taking time to explain project aims and contributor roles, adapting to the needs of individual contributors and, using smaller bespoke sessions outside the main Task and Finish Groups. Conclusions: We co-produced and piloted a quality recognition programme to incentivise and celebrate continuous quality improvement in PPI. One public contributor stated, “I feel strongly that the Insight framework and awards will raise awareness of the [public involvement] work going on in many community settings. [It] is likely to result in better sharing of positive practice, incentivising research groups of any size to start work or to improve the quality of [PPI] could be one of the main benefits. I’m excited that if this initiative takes off, regionally and then in the longer term nationally, it could be a significant step in advancing the [public] voice.

Suicide, self-harm and suicidal ideation during COVID-19: A systematic review

We aimed to do a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies describing suicidal ideation, suicide attempts and suicide and associated risk factors during COVID-19 pandemic. We searched following electronic databases using relevant search terms: Medline, Embase, PsycInfo and CINAHL and systematically reviewed the evidence following PRISMA guidelines. The meta-analysis of prevalence of suicidal ideation was done using random effect model. The search returned 972 records, we examined 106 in full text and included 38 studies describing 120,076 participants. Nineteen studies described suicide or attempted self-harm, mostly in case reports. Out of 19 studies describing suicidal ideations, 12 provided appropriate data for meta-analysis. The pooled prevalence of suicidal ideation in these studies was 12.1% (CI 9.3–15.2). Main risk factors for suicidal ideations were: low social support, high physical and mental exhaustion and poorer self-reported physical health in frontline medical workers, sleep disturbances, quarantine and exhaustion, loneliness, and mental health difficulties. We provide first meta-analytic estimate of suicidal ideation based on large sample from different countries and populations. The rate of suicidal ideations during COVID pandemic is higher than that reported in studies on general population prior to pandemic and may result in higher suicide rates in future