Visiting and Office Home Care Workers’ Occupational Health: An Analysis of Workplace Flexibility and Worker Insecurity Measures Associated with Emotional and Physical Health

The home health care sector in Canada experienced major restructuring in the mid-1990s creating a variety of flexibilities for organizations and insecurities for workers. This paper examines the emotional and physical health consequences of employer flexibilities and worker insecurities on home health care workers. For emotional health the focus is on stress and for physical health the focus is on selfreported musculoskeletal disorders. Data come from our survey of home health care workers in a mid-sized city in Ontario, Canada. Data are analyzed separately for 990 visiting and 300 office workers. For visiting workers, results showed that none of the ‘objective’ flexibility/insecurity measures are associated with stress or musculoskeletal disorders controlling for other factors. However, ‘subjective’ flexibility/insecurity factors, i.e. feelings of job insecurity and labour market insecurity, are significantly and positively associated with stress. When stress is included in the analysis, for visiting workers stress mediates the effects of ‘subjective’ flexibility/insecurity with musculoskeletal disorders. For office workers, none of the objective flexibility/insecurity factors are associated with stress but subjective flexibility/insecurity factor of feelings of job insecurity is positively and significantly associated with stress. For office home care workers, work on call is negatively and significantly associated with musculoskeletal disorders. Feeling job insecurity is mediated through stress in affecting musculoskeletal disorders. Feeling labour market insecurity is significantly and positively associated with musculoskeletal disorders for office home care workers. Decision-makers in home care field are recommended to pay attention to insecurities felt by workers to reduce occupational health problems of stress and musculoskeletal disorders.home health care workers, stress, worker insecurity

Visiting and office home care workers' occupational health: An analysis of workplace flexibility and worker insecurity measures associated with emotional and physical health

The home health care sector in Canada experienced major restructuring in the mid-1990s creating a variety of flexibilities for organizations and insecurities for workers. This paper examines the emotional and physical health consequences of employer flexibilities and worker insecurities on home health care workers. For emotional health the focus is on stress and for physical health the focus is on selfreported musculoskeletal disorders. Data come from our survey of home health care workers in a mid-sized city in Ontario, Canada. Data are analyzed separately for 990 visiting and 300 office workers. For visiting workers, results showed that none of the objective flexibility/insecurity measures are associated with stress or musculoskeletal disorders controlling for other factors. However, subjective flexibility/insecurity factors, i.e. feelings of job insecurity and labour market insecurity, are significantly and positively associated with stress. When stress is included in the analysis, for visiting workers stress mediates the effects of subjective flexibility/insecurity with musculoskeletal disorders. For office workers, none of the objective flexibility/insecurity factors are associated with stress but subjective flexibility/insecurity factor of feelings of job insecurity is positively and significantly associated with stress. For office home care workers, work on call is negatively and significantly associated with musculoskeletal disorders. Feeling job insecurity is mediated through stress in affecting musculoskeletal disorders. Feeling labour market insecurity is significantly and positively associated with musculoskeletal disorders for office home care workers. Decision-makers in home care field are recommended to pay attention to insecurities felt by workers to reduce occupational health problems of stress and musculoskeletal disorders

Right from the start: protocol for a pilot study for a randomised trial of the New Baby Programme for improving outcomes for children born to socially vulnerable mothers:protocol for a pilot study for a randomised trial of the New Baby Programme for improving outcomes for children born to socially vulnerable mothers

Background: Children born to mothers who experience social complexity (e.g. substance misuse, intimate partner violence, mental ill health, a history of maltreatment) are at increased risk for a range of adverse outcomes at birth and during development. Home visiting programmes have been advocated as a strategy for improving outcomes for disadvantaged mothers and children, such as the Nurse-Family Partnership for young, socially disadvantaged first-time mothers. However, no evidence-based programme is available for multiparous women or older first-time mothers. The New Baby Programme was developed in Northern Ireland. It augments the universal health visiting service available in the UK with a content designed to promote maternal health and well-being in pregnancy, maximise secure attachments of children and parents and enhance sensitive parenting and infant cognitive development.Methods/Design: This pilot study is designed to investigate whether it is possible to recruit and retain socially vulnerable mothers in a randomised trial that compares the effects of the New Baby Programme with standard antenatal and postnatal care. Feasibility issues include the referral/recruitment pathway (including inclusion and exclusion criteria), the consent and randomisation, the ability to maintain researcher blinding, the acceptability of the intervention to participants, and the feasibility and acceptability of the outcome measures. The results of the study will inform a definitive phase-3 RCT.Discussion: Trials of complex social interventions often encounter challenges that lead to the trial being abandoned (e.g. because of problems in recruitment) or present considerable analytic challenges relating to dropout, attrition and bias. This pilot study aims to maximise the chances of successful implementation.Trial registration: ISRCTN35456296 retrospectively registered.</p

Social Innovation and Social Work:A Case Study of the Early Intervention Support Service

In a national and international context where there is a concern about the effectiveness of social care services for children and families to address chronic, enduring social problems and where there are finite resources available, the concept of social innovation in social work policy and practice to address need in new ways is receiving increased attention. While an attractive term, social innovation in child and family services is not without its challenges in terms of conceptualisation, operationalisation, implementation and evidencing impact. This article reports on the development and evaluation of the Early Intervention Support Service (EISS), a newly designed family support service in Northern Ireland set up as part of a government supported innovation and transformation programme that aims to deliver a voluntary, targeted, flexible and time limited service to families experiencing emergent problems. Using the EISS as a case study, the challenges, benefits in terms of addressing policy imperatives and future direction of social innovation in social work practice are reflected upon

Reducing opioid related deaths for individuals who are at high risk of death from overdose: a co-production study with people housed within prison and hostel accommodation during Covid-19

Background: A record number of Opioid-related deaths occurred in Northern Ireland in 2021 and it is acknowledged that the Covid-19 pandemic compounded drugs related deaths crisis. This co-production study set out to refine the design of a wearable device for Opioid users to detect and subsequently prevent a potential overdose situation. Method: Purposive sampling was used to recruit people who had substance use disorders and were living in a hostel and prison during the Covid-19 pandemic. Principles of co-production influenced the study, which encompassed a focus group phase and a wearable phase. The initial phase included three focus groups with participants who inject Opioids and one focus group with workers from a street injector support service. During the wearable phase, the participant group tested the feasibility of the wearable technology in a controlled environment. This included testing the transferability of data from the device to a backend server on the cloud. Results: All focus group participants expressed an interest in the wearable technology when it was presented to them and agreed, that in principle, such a device would be extremely beneficial to help reduce the risk of overdose within the active drug using community. Participants outlined factors which would help or hinder the design of this proposed device and their decision to wear it, if it were readily available to them. Findings from wearable phase indicated that it was feasible to use a wearable device for monitoring Opioid users’ biomarkers remotely. The provision of information regarding the specific functionality of the device was considered key and could be disseminated via front line services. The data acquisition and transfer process would not be a barrier for future research. Conclusion: Understanding the benefit and disadvantages of technologies such as a wearable device to prevent Opioid-related deaths will be critical for mitigating the risk of overdose for people who use Heroin. It was also clear that this would be particularly relevant during Covid-19 lock-down periods, when the effects of the pandemic further exacerbated the isolation and solitude experienced by people who use Heroin

Effect of Hydrocortisone on Mortality and Organ Support in Patients With Severe COVID-19: The REMAP-CAP COVID-19 Corticosteroid Domain Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Evidence regarding corticosteroid use for severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is limited. Objective: To determine whether hydrocortisone improves outcome for patients with severe COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: An ongoing adaptive platform trial testing multiple interventions within multiple therapeutic domains, for example, antiviral agents, corticosteroids, or immunoglobulin. Between March 9 and June 17, 2020, 614 adult patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 were enrolled and randomized within at least 1 domain following admission to an intensive care unit (ICU) for respiratory or cardiovascular organ support at 121 sites in 8 countries. Of these, 403 were randomized to open-label interventions within the corticosteroid domain. The domain was halted after results from another trial were released. Follow-up ended August 12, 2020. Interventions: The corticosteroid domain randomized participants to a fixed 7-day course of intravenous hydrocortisone (50 mg or 100 mg every 6 hours) (n = 143), a shock-dependent course (50 mg every 6 hours when shock was clinically evident) (n = 152), or no hydrocortisone (n = 108). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was organ support-free days (days alive and free of ICU-based respiratory or cardiovascular support) within 21 days, where patients who died were assigned -1 day. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model that included all patients enrolled with severe COVID-19, adjusting for age, sex, site, region, time, assignment to interventions within other domains, and domain and intervention eligibility. Superiority was defined as the posterior probability of an odds ratio greater than 1 (threshold for trial conclusion of superiority >99%). Results: After excluding 19 participants who withdrew consent, there were 384 patients (mean age, 60 years; 29% female) randomized to the fixed-dose (n = 137), shock-dependent (n = 146), and no (n = 101) hydrocortisone groups; 379 (99%) completed the study and were included in the analysis. The mean age for the 3 groups ranged between 59.5 and 60.4 years; most patients were male (range, 70.6%-71.5%); mean body mass index ranged between 29.7 and 30.9; and patients receiving mechanical ventilation ranged between 50.0% and 63.5%. For the fixed-dose, shock-dependent, and no hydrocortisone groups, respectively, the median organ support-free days were 0 (IQR, -1 to 15), 0 (IQR, -1 to 13), and 0 (-1 to 11) days (composed of 30%, 26%, and 33% mortality rates and 11.5, 9.5, and 6 median organ support-free days among survivors). The median adjusted odds ratio and bayesian probability of superiority were 1.43 (95% credible interval, 0.91-2.27) and 93% for fixed-dose hydrocortisone, respectively, and were 1.22 (95% credible interval, 0.76-1.94) and 80% for shock-dependent hydrocortisone compared with no hydrocortisone. Serious adverse events were reported in 4 (3%), 5 (3%), and 1 (1%) patients in the fixed-dose, shock-dependent, and no hydrocortisone groups, respectively. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with severe COVID-19, treatment with a 7-day fixed-dose course of hydrocortisone or shock-dependent dosing of hydrocortisone, compared with no hydrocortisone, resulted in 93% and 80% probabilities of superiority with regard to the odds of improvement in organ support-free days within 21 days. However, the trial was stopped early and no treatment strategy met prespecified criteria for statistical superiority, precluding definitive conclusions. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02735707

Effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and angiotensin receptor blocker initiation on organ support-free days in patients hospitalized with COVID-19

IMPORTANCE Overactivation of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) may contribute to poor clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. Objective To determine whether angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) initiation improves outcomes in patients hospitalized for COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS In an ongoing, adaptive platform randomized clinical trial, 721 critically ill and 58 non–critically ill hospitalized adults were randomized to receive an RAS inhibitor or control between March 16, 2021, and February 25, 2022, at 69 sites in 7 countries (final follow-up on June 1, 2022). INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized to receive open-label initiation of an ACE inhibitor (n = 257), ARB (n = 248), ARB in combination with DMX-200 (a chemokine receptor-2 inhibitor; n = 10), or no RAS inhibitor (control; n = 264) for up to 10 days. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was organ support–free days, a composite of hospital survival and days alive without cardiovascular or respiratory organ support through 21 days. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model. Odds ratios (ORs) greater than 1 represent improved outcomes. RESULTS On February 25, 2022, enrollment was discontinued due to safety concerns. Among 679 critically ill patients with available primary outcome data, the median age was 56 years and 239 participants (35.2%) were women. Median (IQR) organ support–free days among critically ill patients was 10 (–1 to 16) in the ACE inhibitor group (n = 231), 8 (–1 to 17) in the ARB group (n = 217), and 12 (0 to 17) in the control group (n = 231) (median adjusted odds ratios of 0.77 [95% bayesian credible interval, 0.58-1.06] for improvement for ACE inhibitor and 0.76 [95% credible interval, 0.56-1.05] for ARB compared with control). The posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitors and ARBs worsened organ support–free days compared with control were 94.9% and 95.4%, respectively. Hospital survival occurred in 166 of 231 critically ill participants (71.9%) in the ACE inhibitor group, 152 of 217 (70.0%) in the ARB group, and 182 of 231 (78.8%) in the control group (posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitor and ARB worsened hospital survival compared with control were 95.3% and 98.1%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this trial, among critically ill adults with COVID-19, initiation of an ACE inhibitor or ARB did not improve, and likely worsened, clinical outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT0273570