Singing for lung health in COPD: a multicentre randomised controlled trial of online delivery.

BACKGROUND: Singing for lung health (SLH) is an arts-based breathing control and movement intervention for people with long-term respiratory conditions, intended to improve symptoms and quality of life. Online, remotely delivered programmes might improve accessibility; however, no previous studies have assessed the effectiveness of this approach. METHODS: We conducted an assessor-blind randomised controlled trial comparing the impact of 12 weeks of once-weekly online SLH sessions against usual care on health-related quality of life, assessed using the RAND 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) Mental Health Composite (MHC) and Physical Health Composite (PHC) scores. RESULTS: We enrolled 115 people with stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), median (IQR) age 69 (62-74), 56.5% females, 80% prior pulmonary rehabilitation, Medical Research Council dyspnoea scale 4 (3-4), forced expiratory volume in 1 s % predicted 49 (35-63). 50 participants in each arm completed the study. The intervention arm experienced improvements in physical but not mental health components of RAND SF-36; PHC (regression coefficient (95% CI): 1.77 (95% CI 0.11 to 3.44); p=0.037), but not MHC (0.86 (95% CI -1.68 to 3.40); p=0.504). A prespecified responder analysis based on achieving a 10% improvement from baseline demonstrated a response rate for PHC of 32% in the SLH arm and 12.7% for usual care (p=0.024). A between-group difference in responder rate was not found in relation to the MHC (19.3% vs 25.9%; p=0.403). DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: A 12-week online SLH programme can improve the physical component of quality of life for people with COPD, but the overall effect is relatively modest compared with the impact seen in research using face-to-face group sessions. Further work on the content, duration and dose of online interventions may be useful. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04034212.

Cognition and Memory after Covid-19 in a Large Community Sample.

BACKGROUND: Cognitive symptoms after coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19), the disease caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), are well-recognized. Whether objectively measurable cognitive deficits exist and how long they persist are unclear. METHODS: We invited 800,000 adults in a study in England to complete an online assessment of cognitive function. We estimated a global cognitive score across eight tasks. We hypothesized that participants with persistent symptoms (lasting ≥12 weeks) after infection onset would have objectively measurable global cognitive deficits and that impairments in executive functioning and memory would be observed in such participants, especially in those who reported recent poor memory or difficulty thinking or concentrating ("brain fog"). RESULTS: Of the 141,583 participants who started the online cognitive assessment, 112,964 completed it. In a multiple regression analysis, participants who had recovered from Covid-19 in whom symptoms had resolved in less than 4 weeks or at least 12 weeks had similar small deficits in global cognition as compared with those in the no-Covid-19 group, who had not been infected with SARS-CoV-2 or had unconfirmed infection (-0.23 SD [95% confidence interval {CI}, -0.33 to -0.13] and -0.24 SD [95% CI, -0.36 to -0.12], respectively); larger deficits as compared with the no-Covid-19 group were seen in participants with unresolved persistent symptoms (-0.42 SD; 95% CI, -0.53 to -0.31). Larger deficits were seen in participants who had SARS-CoV-2 infection during periods in which the original virus or the B.1.1.7 variant was predominant than in those infected with later variants (e.g., -0.17 SD for the B.1.1.7 variant vs. the B.1.1.529 variant; 95% CI, -0.20 to -0.13) and in participants who had been hospitalized than in those who had not been hospitalized (e.g., intensive care unit admission, -0.35 SD; 95% CI, -0.49 to -0.20). Results of the analyses were similar to those of propensity-score-matching analyses. In a comparison of the group that had unresolved persistent symptoms with the no-Covid-19 group, memory, reasoning, and executive function tasks were associated with the largest deficits (-0.33 to -0.20 SD); these tasks correlated weakly with recent symptoms, including poor memory and brain fog. No adverse events were reported. CONCLUSIONS: Participants with resolved persistent symptoms after Covid-19 had objectively measured cognitive function similar to that in participants with shorter-duration symptoms, although short-duration Covid-19 was still associated with small cognitive deficits after recovery. Longer-term persistence of cognitive deficits and any clinical implications remain uncertain. (Funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research and others.).

Long-term health impacts of COVID-19 among 242,712 adults in England.

The COVID-19 pandemic is having a lasting impact on health and well-being. We compare current self-reported health, quality of life and symptom profiles for people with ongoing symptoms following COVID-19 to those who have never tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection and those who have recovered from COVID-19. Overall, 276,840/800,000 (34·6%) of invited participants took part. Mental health and health-related quality of life were worse among participants with ongoing persistent symptoms post-COVID compared with those who had never had COVID-19 or had recovered. In this study, median duration of COVID-related symptoms (N = 130,251) was 1·3 weeks (inter-quartile range 6 days to 2 weeks), with 7·5% and 5·2% reporting ongoing symptoms ≥12 weeks and ≥52 weeks respectively. Female sex, ≥1 comorbidity and being infected when Wild-type variant was dominant were associated with higher probability of symptoms lasting ≥12 weeks and longer recovery time in those with persistent symptoms. Although COVID-19 is usually of short duration, some adults experience persistent and burdensome illness.

"I'd rather wait and see what's around the corner": A multi-perspective qualitative study of treatment escalation planning in frailty.

INTRODUCTION: People living with frailty risk adverse outcomes following even minor illnesses. Admission to hospital or the intensive care unit is associated with potentially burdensome interventions and poor outcomes. Decision-making during an emergency is fraught with complexity and potential for conflict between patients, carers and clinicians. Advance care planning is a process of shared decision-making which aims to ensure patients are treated in line with their wishes. However, planning for future care is challenging and those living with frailty are rarely given the opportunity to discuss their preferences. The aim of the ProsPECT (Prospective Planning for Escalation of Care and Treatment) study was to explore perspectives on planning for treatment escalation in the context of frailty. We spoke to people living with frailty, their carers and clinicians across primary and secondary care. METHODS: In-depth online or telephone interviews and online focus groups. The topic guide explored frailty, acute decision-making and planning for the future. Data were thematically analysed using the Framework Method. Preliminary findings were presented to a sample of study participants for feedback in two online workshops. RESULTS: We spoke to 44 participants (9 patients, 11 carers and 24 clinicians). Four main themes were identified: frailty is absent from treatment escalation discussions, planning for an uncertain future, escalation in an acute crisis is 'the path of least resistance', and approaches to facilitating treatment escalation planning in frailty. CONCLUSION: Barriers to treatment escalation planning include a lack of shared understanding of frailty and uncertainty about the future. Emergency decision-making is focussed on survival or risk aversion and patient preferences are rarely considered. To improve planning discussions, we recommend frailty training for non-specialist clinicians, multi-disciplinary support, collaborative working between patients, carers and clinicians as well as broader public engagement.

Perspectives of healthcare professionals and older patients on shared decision-making for treatment escalation planning in the acute hospital setting: a systematic review and qualitative thematic synthesis.

Background: Shared Decision-Making (SDM) between patients and clinicians is increasingly considered important. Treament Escalation Plans (TEP) are individualised documents outlining life-saving interventions to be considered in the event of clinical deterioration. SDM can inform subjective goals of care in TEP but it remains unclear how much it is considered beneficial by patients and clinicians. We aimed to synthesise the existing knowledge of clinician and older patient (generally aged ≥65 years) perspectives on patient involvement in TEP in the acute setting. Methods: Systematic database search was performed in MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycInfo and CINAHL databases as well as grey literature from database inception to June 8, 2023, using the Sample (older patients, clinicians, acute setting; studies relating to patients whose main diagnosis was cancer or single organ failure were excluded as these conditions may have specific TEP considerations), Phenomenon of Interest (Treatment Escalation Planning), Design (any including interview, observational, survey), Evaluation (Shared Decision-Making), Research type (qualitative, quantitative, mixed methods) tool. Primary data (published participant quotations, field notes, survey results) and descriptive author comments were extracted and qualitative thematic synthesis was performed to generate analytic themes. Quality assessment was made using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme and Mixed Methods Appraisal Tools. The GRADE-CERQual (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation-Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research) approach was used to assess overall confidence in each thematic finding according to methodology, coherence, adequacy and relevance of the contributing studies. The study protocol was registered on PROSPERO, CRD42022361593. Findings: Following duplicate exclusion there were 1916 studies screened and ultimately 13 studies were included, all from European and North American settings. Clinician-orientated themes were: treatment escalation is a medical decision (high confidence); clinicians want the best for their patients amidst uncertainty (high confidence); involving patients and families in decisions is not always meaningful and can involve conflict (high confidence); treatment escalation planning exists within the clinical environment, organisation and society (moderate confidence). Patient-orientated themes were: patients' relationships with Treatment Escalation Planning are complex (low confidence); interactions with doctors are important but communication is not always easy (moderate confidence); patients are highly aware of their families when considering TEP (moderate confidence). Interpretation: Based on current evidence, TEP decisions appear dominated by clinicians' perspectives, motivated by achieving the best for patients and challenged by complex decisions, communication and environmental factors; older patients' perspectives have seldom been explored, but their input on decisions may be modest. Presenting the context and challenge of SDM during professional education may allow reflection and a more nuanced approach. Future research should seek to understand what approach to TEP decision-making patients and clinicians consider to be optimum in the acute setting so that a mutually acceptable standard can be defined in policy. Funding: HCA International and the NIHR Imperial Biomedical Research Centre.

The influence of personality on psychological safety, the presence of stress and chosen professional roles in the healthcare environment.

Healthcare teams are expected to deliver high quality and safe clinical care, a goal facilitated by an environment of psychological safety. We hypothesised that an individual's personality would influence psychological safety, perceived stressors in the clinical environment and confer a suitability for different professional roles. Staff members were recruited from the Emergency or Critical Care Departments of one National Health Service Trust. Qualitative interviews explored participants' experiences of personality, incorporating quantitative surveys to evaluate psychological safety and perceived stressors. The 16 Primary Factor Assessment provided a quantitative measure of personality. Participants demonstrated midrange scores for most personality traits, highlighting an ability to adapt to changing environments and requirements. There was a signal that different personality traits predominated between the two professional groups, and that certain traits were significantly associated with higher psychological safety and certain perceived stressors. Personality was described as having a strong influence on teamwork, the working environment and leadership ability. Our analysis highlights that personality can influence team dynamics and the suitability of individuals for certain clinical roles. Understanding the heterogeneity of personalities of team members and their likely responses to challenge may help leaders to support staff in times of challenge and improve team cohesiveness.

Barriers and facilitators to HIV Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis (PrEP) in Specialist Sexual Health Services in the United Kingdom: A systematic review using the PrEP Care Continuum.

OBJECTIVES: HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) delivery in the UK is inequitable; over 95% of PrEP users were men who have sex with men (MSM) despite making up less than 50% of new HIV diagnoses. We conducted a systematic review to identify modifiable barriers and facilitators to PrEP delivery in the UK among underserved populations. METHODS: We searched bibliographic/conference databases using the terms HIV, PrEP, barriers, facilitators, underserved populations, and UK. Modifiable factors were mapped along the PrEP Care Continuum (PCC) to identify targets for interventions. RESULTS: In total, 44 studies were eligible: 29 quantitative, 12 qualitative and three mixed-methods studies. Over half (n = 24 [54.5%]) exclusively recruited MSM, whereas 11 were in mixed populations (all included MSM as a sub-population) and the other nine were in other underserved populations (gender and ethnicity minorities, women, and people who inject drugs). Of the 15 modifiable factors identified, two-thirds were at the PrEP contemplation and PrEParation steps of the PCC. The most reported barriers were lack of PrEP awareness (n = 16), knowledge (n = 19), willingness (n = 16), and access to a PrEP provider (n = 16), whereas the more reported facilitators were prior HIV testing (n = 8), agency and self-care (n = 8). All but three identified factors were at the patient rather than provider or structural level. CONCLUSIONS: This review highlights that the bulk of the scientific literature focuses on MSM and on patient-level factors. Future research needs to ensure underserved populations are included and prioritized (e.g. ethnicity and gender minorities, people who inject drugs) and provider and structural factors are investigated.

Awareness and perceptions of Long COVID among people in the REACT programme: Early insights from a pilot interview study.

BACKGROUND: Long COVID is a patient-made term describing new or persistent symptoms experienced following SARS-CoV-2 infection. The Real-time Assessment of Community Transmission-Long COVID (REACT-LC) study aims to understand variation in experiences following infection, and to identify biological, social, and environmental factors associated with Long COVID. We undertook a pilot interview study to inform the design, recruitment approach, and topic guide for the REACT-LC qualitative study. We sought to gain initial insights into the experience and attribution of new or persistent symptoms and the awareness or perceived applicability of the term Long COVID. METHODS: People were invited to REACT-LC assessment centres if they had taken part in REACT, a random community-based prevalence study, and had a documented history of SARS-CoV-2 infection. We invited people from REACT-LC assessment centres who had reported experiencing persistent symptoms for more than 12 weeks to take part in an interview. We conducted face to face and online semi-structured interviews which were transcribed and analysed using Thematic Analysis. RESULTS: We interviewed 13 participants (6 female, 7 male, median age 31). Participants reported a wide variation in both new and persistent symptoms which were often fluctuating or unpredictable in nature. Some participants were confident about the link between their persistent symptoms and COVID-19; however, others were unclear about the underlying cause of symptoms or felt that the impact of public health measures (such as lockdowns) played a role. We found differences in awareness and perceived applicability of the term Long COVID. CONCLUSION: This pilot has informed the design, recruitment approach and topic guide for our qualitative study. It offers preliminary insights into the varied experiences of people living with persistent symptoms including differences in symptom attribution and perceived applicability of the term Long COVID. This variation shows the value of recruiting from a nationally representative sample of participants who are experiencing persistent symptoms.

An online breathing and wellbeing programme (ENO Breathe) for people with persistent symptoms following COVID-19: a parallel-group, single-blind, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: There are few evidence-based interventions for long COVID; however, holistic approaches supporting recovery are advocated. We assessed whether an online breathing and wellbeing programme improves health related quality-of-life (HRQoL) in people with persisting breathlessness following COVID-19. METHODS: We conducted a parallel-group, single-blind, randomised controlled trial in patients who had been referred from one of 51 UK-based collaborating long COVID clinics. Eligible participants were aged 18 years or older; were recovering from COVID-19 with ongoing breathlessness, with or without anxiety, at least 4 weeks after symptom onset; had internet access with an appropriate device; and were deemed clinically suitable for participation by one of the collaborating COVID-19 clinics. Following clinical assessment, potential participants were given a unique online portal code. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to either immediate participation in the English National Opera (ENO) Breathe programme or to usual care. Randomisation was done by the research team using computer-generated block randomisation lists, with block size 10. The researcher responsible for randomisation was masked to responses. Participants in the ENO Breathe group participated in a 6-week online breathing and wellbeing programme, developed for people with long COVID experiencing breathlessness, focusing on breathing retraining using singing techniques. Those in the deferred group received usual care until they exited the trial. The primary outcome, assessed in the intention-to-treat population, was change in HRQoL, assessed using the RAND 36-item short form survey instrument mental health composite (MHC) and physical health composite (PHC) scores. Secondary outcome measures were the chronic obstructive pulmonary disease assessment test score, visual analogue scales (VAS) for breathlessness, and scores on the dyspnoea-12, the generalised anxiety disorder 7-item scale, and the short form-6D. A thematic analysis exploring participant experience was also conducted using qualitative data from focus groups, survey responses, and email correspondence. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04830033. FINDINGS: Between April 22 and May 25, 2021, 158 participants were recruited and randomly assigned. Of these, eight (5%) individuals were excluded and 150 participants were allocated to a treatment group (74 in the ENO Breathe group and 76 in the usual care group). Compared with usual care, ENO Breathe was associated with an improvement in MHC score (regression coefficient 2·42 [95% CI 0·03 to 4·80]; p=0·047), but not PHC score (0·60 [-1·33 to 2·52]; p=0·54). VAS for breathlessness (running) favoured ENO Breathe participation (-10·48 [-17·23 to -3·73]; p=0·0026). No other statistically significant between-group differences in secondary outcomes were observed. One minor self-limiting adverse event was reported by a participant in the ENO Breathe group who felt dizzy using a computer for extended periods. Thematic analysis of ENO Breathe participant experience identified three key themes: (1) improvements in symptoms; (2) feeling that the programme was complementary to standard care; and (3) the particular suitability of singing and music to address their needs. INTERPRETATION: Our findings suggest that an online breathing and wellbeing programme can improve the mental component of HRQoL and elements of breathlessness in people with persisting symptoms after COVID-19. Mind-body and music-based approaches, including practical, enjoyable, symptom-management techniques might have a role supporting recovery. FUNDING: Imperial College London.

The physiology of singing and implications for 'Singing for Lung Health' as a therapy for individuals with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

Singing is an increasingly popular activity for people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Research to date suggests that 'Singing for Lung Health' may improve various health measures, including health-related quality-of-life. Singing and breathing are closely linked processes affecting one another. In this narrative review, we explore the physiological rationale for 'Singing for Lung Health' as an intervention, focusing on the abnormalities of pulmonary mechanics seen in COPD and how these might be impacted by singing. The potential beneficial physiological mechanisms outlined here require further in-depth evaluation.

Lived experiences of healthcare workers on the front line during the COVID-19 pandemic: a qualitative interview study.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to investigate the presence of perceived stressors, psychological safety and teamwork in healthcare professionals. As the timeframe for this study spanned the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, data were captured demonstrating the impact of the pandemic on these factors. DESIGN: Qualitative interview study. SETTING: All staff working within the emergency and critical care departments of one National Health Service Trust in London, UK. PARTICIPANTS: Forty-nine participants were recruited using a purposive sampling technique and interviewed when the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic had subsided. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Evaluation of changes in perceived stressors, psychological safety and teamwork in individuals working during the COVID-19 pandemic. RESULTS: The thematic analysis relating to a participant's lived experiences while working during COVID-19 led to the construction of five key themes, including 'psychological effects' and 'changes in team dynamics'. Several psychological effects were described, including the presence of psychological distress and insights into the aetiology of moral injury. There was marked heterogeneity in participants' response to COVID-19, particularly with respect to changes in team dynamics and the perception of a psychologically safe environment. Descriptions of improved team cohesiveness and camaraderie contrasted with stories of new barriers, notably due to the high workload and the impact of personal protective equipment. Building on these themes, a map of key changes arising due to the pandemic was developed, highlighting potential opportunities to provide targeted support. CONCLUSIONS: Working on the front line of a pandemic can have significant implications for healthcare workers, putting them at risk of psychological distress and moral injury, as well as affecting team dynamics. There is striking heterogeneity in the manifestation of these challenges. Team leaders can use the themes and qualitative data from this study to help identify areas for management focus and individual and team support.

Moving singing for lung health online in response to COVID-19: experience from a randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Singing for lung health (SLH) is a popular arts-in-health activity for people with long-term respiratory conditions. Participants report biopsychosocial benefits, however, research on impact is limited. The 'SLH: Improving Experiences of Lung Disease trial', a randomised controlled, single (assessor) blind, trial of 12 weeks SLH versus usual care for people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) (n=120) was setup to help to address this. The first group (n=18, nine singing and nine controls) started face-to-face (five sessions) before changing to online delivery (seven sessions) due to COVID-19-related physical distancing measures. As such, the experience of this group is here reported as a pilot study to inform further research in this area. METHODS: We conducted semistructured interviews and thematic analysis regarding barriers, facilitators and key considerations for transitioning from face-to-face to online delivery. Pilot quantitative outcomes include attendance, premeasures and postmeasures of quality of life and disease impact (Short Form 36 Health Survey, COPD Assessment Test score), breathlessness (Medical Research Council breathlessness scale, Dyspnoea-12), depression (Patient Health Questionnaire-9, PHQ-9), anxiety (Generalised Anxiety Disorder-7), balance confidence (Activity specific Balance Confidence, ABC scale) and physical activity (clinical visit PROactive physical activity in COPD tool, combining subjective rating and actigraphy). RESULTS: Attendance was 69% overall, (90% of the face-to-face sessions, 53% online sessions). Analysis of semistructured interviews identified three themes regarding participation in SLH delivered face to face and online, these where (1) perceived benefits; (2) digital barriers (online) and (3) digital facilitators (online). Findings were summarised into key considerations for optimising transitioning singing groups from face-to-face to online delivery. Pilot quantitative data suggested possible improvements in depression (treatment effect -4.78 PHQ-9 points, p<0.05, MCID 5) and balance confidence (treatment effect +17.21 ABC scale points, p=0.04, MCID 14.2). DISCUSSION: This study identifies key considerations regarding the adaptation of SLH from face-to-face to online delivery. Pilot data suggest online group singing for people with COPD may deliver benefits related to reducing depression and improved balance confidence.