Distinguishing Characteristics between Pandemic 2009–2010 Influenza A (H1N1) and Other Viruses in Patients Hospitalized with Respiratory Illness

BACKGROUND: Differences in clinical presentation and outcomes among patients infected with pandemic 2009 influenza A H1N1 (pH1N1) compared to other respiratory viruses have not been fully elucidated. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: A retrospective study was performed of all hospitalized patients at the peak of the pH1N1 season in whom a single respiratory virus was detected by a molecular assay targeting 18 viruses/subtypes (RVP, Luminex xTAG). Fifty-two percent (615/1192) of patients from October, 2009 to December, 2009 had a single respiratory virus (291 pH1N1; 207 rhinovirus; 45 RSV A/B; 37 parainfluenza; 27 adenovirus; 6 coronavirus; and 2 metapneumovirus). No seasonal influenza A or B was detected. Individuals with pH1N1, compared to other viruses, were more likely to present with fever (92% & 70%), cough (92% & 86%), sore throat (32% & 16%), nausea (31% & 8%), vomiting (39% & 30%), abdominal pain (14% & 7%), and a lower white blood count (8,500/L & 13,600/L, all p-values<0.05). In patients with cough and gastrointestinal complaints, the presence of subjective fever/chills independently raised the likelihood of pH1N1 (OR 10). Fifty-five percent (336/615) of our cohort received antibacterial agents, 63% (385/615) received oseltamivir, and 41% (252/615) received steroids. The mortality rate of our cohort was 1% (7/615) and was higher in individuals with pH1N1 compared to other viruses (2.1% & 0.3%, respectively; p = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: During the peak pandemic 2009-2010 influenza season in Rhode Island, nearly half of patients admitted with influenza-like symptoms had respiratory viruses other than influenza A. A high proportion of patients were treated with antibiotics and pH1N1 infection had higher mortality compared to other respiratory viruses

Social media in undergraduate medical education: A systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: There are over 3.81 billion worldwide active social media (SoMe) users. SoMe are ubiquitous in medical education, with roles across undergraduate programmes, including professionalism, blended learning, well being and mentoring. Previous systematic reviews took place before recent explosions in SoMe popularity and revealed a paucity of high-quality empirical studies assessing its effectiveness in medical education. This review aimed to synthesise evidence regarding SoMe interventions in undergraduate medical education, to identify features associated with positive and negative outcomes. METHODS: Authors searched 31 key terms through seven databases, in addition to references, citation and hand searching, between 16 June and 16 July 2020. Studies describing SoMe interventions and research on exposure to existing SoMe were included. Title, abstract and full paper screening were undertaken independently by two reviewers. Included papers were assessed for methodological quality using the Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument (MERSQI) and/or the Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research (SRQR) instrument. Extracted data were synthesised using narrative synthesis. RESULTS: 112 studies from 26 countries met inclusion criteria. Methodological quality of included studies had not significantly improved since 2013. Engagement and satisfaction with SoMe platforms in medical education are described. Students felt SoMe flattened hierarchies and improved communication with educators. SoMe use was associated with improvement in objective knowledge assessment scores and self-reported clinical and professional performance, however evidence for long term knowledge retention was limited. SoMe use was occasionally linked to adverse impacts upon mental and physical health. Professionalism was heavily investigated and considered important, though generally negative correlations between SoMe use and medical professionalism may exist. CONCLUSIONS: Social media is enjoyable for students who may improve short term knowledge retention and can aid communication between learners and educators. However, higher-quality study is required to identify longer-term impact upon knowledge and skills, provide clarification on professionalism standards and protect against harms