Los juegos verbales y la expresión oral en niños y niñas de cuatro y cinco años de la institución educativa inicial “900 Niño Jesús de Praga” - de Camaná - Arequipa 2018

El empleo de los juegos verbales en el nivel inicial pretende desarrollar la función lúdica y creativa del desarrollo de la expresión oral, por otro lado, esta estrategia ayuda a los niños y niñas a tener conciencia lingüística y comunicativa discriminando los sonidos finales de cada uno de los juegos realizados. Por ello en el presente trabajo de investigación nos propusimos el siguiente objetivo determinar el nivel de incidencia de los juegos verbales en el fortalecimiento de la expresión oral en niños y niñas de cuatro y cinco años de la institución educativa Inicial 900, Camaná - Arequipa 2018. El trabajo de investigación obedece a un enfoque cuantitativo ya que para poder realizar las descripciones de los datos obtenidos se ha empleado datos numéricos, corresponde al nivel descriptivo correlacional ya que a lo largo del trabajo de investigación se describe el comportamiento de cada una de las variables en relación a los sujetos objeto de estudio, es de tipo no experimental porque para comprobar la incidencia de la variable los juegos verbales no manipulamos intencionalmente para comprobar el nivel de influencia, sino que las describimos de manera individual en cuanto a su comportamiento, es de diseño descriptivo correlacional ya que se pretende determinar qué grado de relación existe entre ambas variables. La muestra lo conformaron 37 niños y niñas de cuatro y cinco años y 05 docentes. Para la recolección de los datos se empleó para ambas variables se empleó la encuesta y como instrumento el cuestionario debidamente validado a través de juicio de expertos. Luego de realizar el análisis de los datos obtenidos se llegó a la conclusión de que existe una correlación positiva media entre los juegos verbales y la expresión oral en niños y niñas de cuatro y cinco años de la institución educativa Inicial 900 Camaná - Arequipa 2018, tomando como referencia el puntaje logrado a través del coeficiente correlación de r de Pearson 0,640 le corresponde una correlación positiva débil

Time, monetary and other costs of participation in family-based child weight management interventions: qualitative and systematic review evidence.

BACKGROUND: Childhood overweight and obesity have health and economic impacts on individuals and the wider society. Families participating in weight management programmes may foresee or experience monetary and other costs which deter them from signing up to or completing programmes. This is recognised in the health economics literature, though within this sparse body of work, costs to families are often narrowly defined and not fully accounted for. A societal perspective incorporating a broader array of costs may provide a more accurate picture. This paper brings together a review of the health economics literature on the costs to families attending child weight management programmes with qualitative data from families participating in a programme to manage child overweight and obesity. METHODS: A search identified economic evaluation studies of lifestyle interventions in childhood obesity. The qualitative work drew on interviews with families who attended a weight management intervention in three UK regions. RESULTS: We identified four cost-effectiveness analyses that include information on costs to families. These were categorised as direct (e.g. monetary) and indirect (e.g. time) costs. Our analysis of qualitative data demonstrated that, for families who attended the programme, costs were associated both with participation on the scheme and with maintaining a healthy lifestyle afterwards. Respondents reported three kinds of cost: time-related, social/emotional and monetary. CONCLUSION: Societal approaches to measuring cost-effectiveness provide a framework for assessing the monetary and non-monetary costs borne by participants attending treatment programmes. From this perspective, all costs should be considered in any analysis of cost-effectiveness. Our data suggest that family costs are important, and may act as a barrier to the uptake, completion and maintenance of behaviours to reduce child obesity. These findings have implications for the development and implementation of child weight initiatives in particular, in relation to reducing inequalities in health

Healthcare resource utilisation and costs of agitation in people with dementia living in care homes in England:The Managing Agitation and Raising QUality of LifE in Dementia (MARQUE) study

<div><p>Background</p><p>People with dementia living in care homes often experience clinically significant agitation; however, little is known about its economic impact.</p><p>Objective</p><p>To calculate the cost of agitation in people with dementia living in care homes.</p><p>Methods</p><p>We used the baseline data from 1,424 residents with dementia living in care homes (part of <b>M</b>anaging <b>A</b>gitation and <b>R</b>aising <b>QU</b>ality of lif<b>E</b> in dementia (MARQUE) study) that had Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory (CMAI) scores recorded. We investigated the relationship between residents’ health and social care costs and severity of agitation based on the CMAI total score. In addition, we assessed resource utilisation and compared costs of residents with and without clinically significant symptoms of agitation using the CMAI over and above the cost of the care home.</p><p>Results</p><p>Agitation defined by the CMAI was a significant predictor of costs. On average, a one-point increase in the CMAI will lead to a 0.5 percentage points (cost ratio 1.005, 95%CI 1.001 to 1.010) increase in the annual costs. The excess annual cost associated with agitation per resident with dementia was £1,125.35. This suggests that, on average, agitation accounts for 44% of the annual health and social care costs of dementia in people living in care homes.</p><p>Conclusion</p><p>Agitation in people with dementia living in care homes contributes significantly to the overall costs increasing as the level of agitation increases. Residents with the highest level of agitation cost nearly twice as much as those with the lowest levels of agitation, suggesting that effective strategies to reduce agitation are likely to be cost-effective in this setting.</p></div

WAFER trial: a study protocol for a feasibility randomised controlled trial comparing wide-awake local anaesthesia no tourniquet (WALANT) to general and regional anaesthesia with tourniquet for flexor tendon repair

Introduction: Flexor tendons are traditionally repaired under either general anaesthesia (GA) or regional anaesthesia (RA), allowing for the use of an arm tourniquet to minimise blood loss and establish a bloodless surgical field. However, the use of tourniquets exposes the patient to certain risks, including skin, muscle and nerve injuries. A recent advancement in anaesthesia delivery involves the use of a wide-awake approach where no sedation nor tourniquets are used (wide-awake local anaesthesia no tourniquet (WALANT)). WALANT uses local anaesthetic with epinephrine to provide pain relief and vasoconstriction, reducing operative bleeding. Several studies revealed potential benefits for WALANT compared with GA or RA. However, there remains a paucity of high-quality evidence to support the use of WALANT. As a result of this uncertainty, the clinical practice varies considerably. We aim to evaluate the feasibility of WALANT as an alternative to GA and RA in patients undergoing surgical repair of flexor tendon injuries. This involves addressing factors such as clinician and patient support for a trial, clinical equipoise, trial recruitment and dropout and the most relevant outcomes measures for a future definitive trial. // Methods and analysis: WAFER is a multicentre, single-blinded, parallel group, randomised controlled trial (RCT) to assess the feasibility of WALANT versus RA and GA. The target population is patients with acute traumatic flexor tendon injuries, across 3 major hand surgery units in England involving a total of 60 participants. Outcome assessors will be blinded. The primary outcome will be the ability to recruit patients into the trial, while secondary outcomes include difference in functional outcome, patient-reported outcome measures, health-related quality of life, cost-effectiveness and complication rates. // Ethics and dissemination: Ethical approval was obtained from the London—City and East Research Ethics Committee (22/PR/1197). Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publication, conferences, patient information websites and social media networks

Protocol for the COG-UK hospital-onset COVID-19 infection (HOCI) multicentre interventional clinical study: evaluating the efficacy of rapid genome sequencing of SARS-CoV-2 in limiting the spread of COVID-19 in UK NHS hospitals

OBJECTIVES: Nosocomial transmission of SARS-CoV-2 has been a significant cause of mortality in National Health Service (NHS) hospitals during the COVID-19 pandemic. The COG-UK Consortium Hospital-Onset COVID-19 Infections (COG-UK HOCI) study aims to evaluate whether the use of rapid whole-genome sequencing of SARS-CoV-2, supported by a novel probabilistic reporting methodology, can inform infection prevention and control (IPC) practice within NHS hospital settings. DESIGN: Multicentre, prospective, interventional, superiority study. SETTING: 14 participating NHS hospitals over winter–spring 2020/2021 in the UK. PARTICIPANTS: Eligible patients must be admitted to hospital with first-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 PCR-positive test result &gt;48 hour from time of admission, where COVID-19 diagnosis not suspected on admission. The projected sample size is 2380 patients. INTERVENTION: The intervention is the return of a sequence report, within 48 hours in one phase (rapid local lab processing) and within 5–10 days in a second phase (mimicking central lab), comparing the viral genome from an eligible study participant with others within and outside the hospital site. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcomes are incidence of Public Health England (PHE)/IPC-defined SARS-CoV-2 hospital-acquired infection during the baseline and two interventional phases, and proportion of hospital-onset cases with genomic evidence of transmission linkage following implementation of the intervention where such linkage was not suspected by initial IPC investigation. Secondary outcomes include incidence of hospital outbreaks, with and without sequencing data; actual and desirable changes to IPC actions; periods of healthcare worker (HCW) absence. Health economic analysis will be conducted to determine cost benefit of the intervention. A process evaluation using qualitative interviews with HCWs will be conducted alongside the study. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN50212645. Pre-results stage. This manuscript is based on protocol V.6.0. 2 September 2021

Cost-effectiveness of a community-delivered multicomponent intervention compared with enhanced standard care of obese adolescents: cost-utility analysis alongside a randomised controlled trial (the HELP trial)

Objective To undertake a cost-utility analysis of a motivational multicomponent lifestyle-modification intervention in a community setting (the Healthy Eating Lifestyle Programme (HELP)) compared with enhanced standard care. Design Cost-utility analysis alongside a randomised controlled trial. Setting Community settings in Greater London, England. Participants 174 young people with obesity aged 12–19 years. Interventions Intervention participants received 12 one to-one sessions across 6months, addressing lifestyle behaviours and focusing on motivation to change and self esteem rather than weight change, delivered by trained graduate health workers in community settings. Control participants received a single 1-hour one-to-one nurse delivered session providing didactic weight-management advice. Main outcome measures Mean costs and quality adjusted life years (QALYs) per participant over a 1-year period using resource use data and utility values collected during the trial. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated and non-parametric bootstrapping was conducted to generate a cost-effectiveness acceptability curve (CEAC). Results Mean intervention costs per participant were £918 for HELP and £68 for enhanced standard care. There were no significant differences between the two groups in mean resource use per participant for any type of healthcare contact. Adjusted costs were significantly higher in the intervention group (mean incremental costs for HELP vs enhanced standard care £1003 (95% CI £837 to £1168)). There were no differences in adjusted QALYs between groups (mean QALYs gained 0.008 (95% CI −0.031 to 0.046)). The ICER of the HELP versus enhanced standard care was £120 630 per QALY gained. The CEAC shows that the probability that HELP was cost-effective relative to the enhanced standard care was 0.002 or 0.046, at a threshold of £20 000 or £30 000 per QALY gained. Conclusions We did not find evidence that HELP was more effective than a single educational session in improving quality of life in a sample of adolescents with obesity. HELP was associated with higher costs, mainly due to the extra costs of delivering the intervention and therefore is not cost-effective

Evaluating the cost implications of integrating SARS-CoV-2 genome sequencing for infection prevention and control investigation of nosocomial transmission within hospitals

OBJECTIVES: The COG-UK hospital-onset COVID-19 infection (HOCI) trial evaluated the impact of SARS-CoV-2 whole genome sequencing (WGS) on acute infection, prevention, and control (IPC) investigation of nosocomial transmission within hospitals. We estimated the cost implications of using the information from the sequencing reporting tool (SRT), used to determine likelihood of nosocomial infection in IPC practice. METHODS: We conducted a micro-costing approach for SARS-CoV-2 WGS. Data on IPC management resource use and costs were collected from interviews with IPC teams from 14 participating sites and used to assign cost estimates for IPC activities as collected in the trial. Activities included IPC specific actions following a suspicion of healthcare-associated infection (HAI) or outbreak, as well as changes to practice following the return of data via SRT. RESULTS: The mean per sample costs of SARS-CoV-2 sequencing was estimated at £77.10 for rapid and £66.94 for longer turnaround phases. Over the 3 months interventional phases, the total management cost of IPC-defined HAIs and outbreak events across the sites was estimated at £225,070 and £416,447, respectively. Main cost drivers were bed-day lost due to wards closures because of outbreaks followed by outbreak meetings and bed-day lost due to cohorting contacts. Actioning SRTs, the cost of HAIs increased by £5,178 due to unidentified cases and the cost of outbreaks lowered by £11,246 as SRTs excluded hospital outbreaks. CONCLUSIONS: Although, SARS-CoV-2 WGS adds to the total IPC management cost, additional information provided could balance out the additional cost, depending on identified design improvements and effective deployment

A community-based motivational personalised lifestyle intervention to reduce BMI in obese adolescents: results from the Healthy Eating and Lifestyle Programme (HELP) randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: Approximately 7% of children and young people aged 5-15 years in the UK have obesity at a level likely to be associated with comorbidities. The majority of multicomponent lifestyle programmes have limited applicability and generalisability for British adolescents.The Healthy Eating and Lifestyle Programme (HELP) was a specific adolescent-focused intervention, designed for obese 12 to 18-year-olds seeking help to manage their weight. Participants were randomised to the 12-session HELP intervention or standard care. The primary outcome was difference in mean body mass index (BMI) (kg/m2) between groups at week 26 adjusted for baseline BMI, age and sex. SUBJECTS: 174 subjects were randomised (87 in each arm), of whom 145 (83%) provided primary outcome data at week 26. RESULTS: At week 26 there were no significant effects of the intervention on BMI (mean change in BMI 0.18 kg/m2 for the intervention arm, 0.25 kg/m2 for the control arm; adjusted difference between groups: -0.11 kg/m2 (95% CI -0.62 to 0.40), p=0.7). At weeks 26 and 52 there were no significant differences between groups in any secondary outcomes. CONCLUSION: At minimum this study reinforces the need for higher level, structured interventions to tackle the growing public health burden of obesity in the UK and internationally.The HELP intervention was no more effective than a single educational session for reducing BMI in a community sample of obese adolescents.Further work is needed to understand how weight management programmes can be delivered effectively to young people from diverse and deprived backgrounds in which childhood obesity is common. The study has significant implications in terms of informing public health interventions to tackle childhood obesity. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN: ISRCTN99840111

Cost-effectiveness of a community-delivered multicomponent intervention compared with enhanced standard care of obese adolescents: cost-utility analysis alongside a randomised controlled trial (the HELP trial).

OBJECTIVE: To undertake a cost-utility analysis of a motivational multicomponent lifestyle-modification intervention in a community setting (the Healthy Eating Lifestyle Programme (HELP)) compared with enhanced standard care. DESIGN: Cost-utility analysis alongside a randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Community settings in Greater London, England. PARTICIPANTS: 174 young people with obesity aged 12-19 years. INTERVENTIONS: Intervention participants received 12 one-to-one sessions across 6 months, addressing lifestyle behaviours and focusing on motivation to change and self-esteem rather than weight change, delivered by trained graduate health workers in community settings. Control participants received a single 1-hour one-to-one nurse-delivered session providing didactic weight-management advice. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Mean costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) per participant over a 1-year period using resource use data and utility values collected during the trial. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated and non-parametric bootstrapping was conducted to generate a cost-effectiveness acceptability curve (CEAC). RESULTS: Mean intervention costs per participant were £918 for HELP and £68 for enhanced standard care. There were no significant differences between the two groups in mean resource use per participant for any type of healthcare contact. Adjusted costs were significantly higher in the intervention group (mean incremental costs for HELP vs enhanced standard care £1003 (95% CI £837 to £1168)). There were no differences in adjusted QALYs between groups (mean QALYs gained 0.008 (95% CI -0.031 to 0.046)). The ICER of the HELP versus enhanced standard care was £120 630 per QALY gained. The CEAC shows that the probability that HELP was cost-effective relative to the enhanced standard care was 0.002 or 0.046, at a threshold of £20 000 or £30 000 per QALY gained. CONCLUSIONS: We did not find evidence that HELP was more effective than a single educational session in improving quality of life in a sample of adolescents with obesity. HELP was associated with higher costs, mainly due to the extra costs of delivering the intervention and therefore is not cost-effective. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN9984011.This work was supported by the NIHR under its Programme Grants for Applied Research programme (Grant Reference Number RP-PG-0608-10035)—the Paediatric Research in Obesity Multi-model Intervention and Service Evaluation (PROMISE) programme). The HELP research team acknowledges the support of the NIHR through the Primary Care Research Network. TJC was funded by MRC grant MR/M012069/1

Effectiveness of rapid SARS-CoV-2 genome sequencing in supporting infection control for hospital-onset COVID-19 infection : multicenter, prospective study

Background: Viral sequencing of SARS-CoV-2 has been used for outbreak investigation, but there is limited evidence supporting routine use for infection prevention and control (IPC) within hospital settings. Methods: We conducted a prospective non-randomised trial of sequencing at 14 acute UK hospital trusts. Sites each had a 4-week baseline data-collection period, followed by intervention periods comprising 8 weeks of 'rapid' (<48h) and 4 weeks of 'longer-turnaround' (5-10 day) sequencing using a sequence reporting tool (SRT). Data were collected on all hospital onset COVID-19 infections (HOCIs; detected ≥48h from admission). The impact of the sequencing intervention on IPC knowledge and actions, and on incidence of probable/definite hospital-acquired infections (HAIs) was evaluated. Results: A total of 2170 HOCI cases were recorded from October 2020-April 2021, corresponding to a period of extreme strain on the health service, with sequence reports returned for 650/1320 (49.2%) during intervention phases. We did not detect a statistically significant change in weekly incidence of HAIs in longer-turnaround (incidence rate ratio 1.60, 95%CI 0.85-3.01; P=0.14) or rapid (0.85, 0.48-1.50; P=0.54) intervention phases compared to baseline phase. However, IPC practice was changed in 7.8% and 7.4% of all HOCI cases in rapid and longer-turnaround phases, respectively, and 17.2% and 11.6% of cases where the report was returned. In a 'per-protocol' sensitivity analysis there was an impact on IPC actions in 20.7% of HOCI cases when the SRT report was returned within 5 days. Capacity to respond effectively to insights from sequencing was breached in most sites by the volume of cases and limited resources. Conclusion: While we did not demonstrate a direct impact of sequencing on the incidence of nosocomial transmission, our results suggest that sequencing can inform IPC response to HOCIs, particularly when returned within 5 days. Funding: COG-UK is supported by funding from the Medical Research Council (MRC) part of UK Research & Innovation (UKRI), the National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) [grant code: MC_PC_19027], and Genome Research Limited, operating as the Wellcome Sanger Institute. Clinical trial number: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04405934