Fatigue during the COVID-19 pandemic - prevalence and predictors: findings from a prospective cohort study.

The COVID-19 pandemic and consequent lockdowns had a substantial impact on mental health. Distress and fatigue are highly correlated. However, little is known about the determinants of fatigue in the general population during the pandemic. This study aimed to examine the prevalence and predictors of fatigue during the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK population. Online surveys were completed by a UK community cohort in April 2020 (wave 1), July-September 2020 (wave 2) and November-December 2020 (wave 3). In total, 3097 participants completed the wave 1 survey, and 1385 and 1087 participants (85.4% women) completed wave 2 and 3 surveys respectively. Fatigue was assessed using the Chalder Fatigue Scale at waves 2 and 3. Hair samples were provided by 827 participants (90.6% women) at wave 1 and wave 2, which were analyzed to indicate HairE (stress hormone). The mean total fatigue score during wave 2 was 14.7 (SD = 4.7), significantly higher than pre-pandemic levels observed in the community (mean difference 0.50, p = .003). At wave 2, 614 (44.3%) participants met the case definition for fatigue, only 15.6% of whom indicated that fatigue lasted for more than 6 months (suggesting it had started prior to the pandemic). Predictors of fatigue at wave 3 included being in a risk group, depression and belief in having COVID-19, which explained 23.8% of the variability in fatigue scores. Depression at wave 1 was the only significant predictor of remaining a fatigue case at wave 3. Fatigue was highly prevalent in the UK community during the COVID-19 pandemic and limited people's daily function. Depression and sociodemographic variables were significant predictors of fatigue.

Fatigue levels between July-December 2020 were higher compared to pre-pandemic levels.Predictors of fatigue levels 7-8 months later included being a clinical risk group, depression and belief in having had COVID-19.HairE was not associated with fatigue.Depression was the only significant predictor of remaining a fatigue case.

Humoral and cellular immunity in patients with rare autoimmune rheumatic diseases following SARS-CoV-2 vaccination.

OBJECTIVES: Coronavirus 2019 vaccine responses in rare autoimmune rheumatic diseases (RAIRDs) remain poorly understood; in particular there is little known about whether people develop effective T cell responses. We conducted an observational study to evaluate the short-term humoral and cell-mediated T cell response after the second severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccination in RAIRD patients compared with healthy controls (HCs). METHODS: Blood samples were collected after the second dose and anti-spike, anti-nucleocapsid antibody levels and SARS-CoV-2-specific T cell responses were measured and compared with those of HCs. Activation-induced marker and deep phenotyping assays were used to identify differences in T cells between high and no/low antibody groups, followed by multidimensional clustering. RESULTS: A total of 50 patients with RAIRDs were included (31 with AAV, 4 with other systemic vasculitis, 9 with SLE and 6 with myositis). The median anti-spike levels were significantly lower in RAIRD patients compared with HCs (P < 0.0001). Fifteen (33%) patients had undetectable levels and 26 (57%) had levels lower than the lowest HC. Rituximab in the last 12 months (P = 0.003) was associated with reduced immunogenicity compared with a longer pre-vaccination period. There was a significant difference in B cell percentages (P = 0.03) and spike-specific CD4+ T cells (P = 0.02) between no/low antibody vs high antibody groups. Patients in the no/low antibody group had a higher percentage of terminally differentiated (exhausted) T cells. CONCLUSIONS: Following two doses, most RAIRD patients have lower antibody levels than the lowest HC and lower anti-spike T cells. RAIRD patients with no/low antibodies have diminished numbers and poor quality of memory T cells that lack proliferative and functional capacities.

Relationship Between Anxiety, Depression, and Susceptibility to Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Infection: Proof of Concept.

BACKGROUND: Psychological factors can influence susceptibility to viral infections. We examined whether such influences are evident in severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. METHODS: Participants (n = 102) completed measures of anxiety, depression, positive mood, and loneliness and provided a blood sample for the measurement of antibodies to the SARS-CoV-2 spike and nucleocapsid proteins. RESULTS: SARS-CoV-2 was significantly negatively associated with anxiety and depression. The model remained significant after adjustment for age and gender, although anxiety and depression were no longer significant independent predictors. CONCLUSIONS: These findings offer early support for the hypothesis that psychological factors may influence susceptibility to SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Psychological Predictors of Self-reported COVID-19 Outcomes: Results From a Prospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Previous research has shown that psychological factors, such as stress and social support, are associated with greater susceptibility to viral respiratory illnesses and more severe symptoms. During the COVID-19 pandemic there has been a well-documented deterioration in psychological well-being and increased social isolation. This raises questions as to whether those experiencing psychological adversity during the pandemic are more at risk of contracting and/or experiencing COVID-19 symptoms. PURPOSE: To examine the relationship between psychological factors and the risk of COVID-19 self-reported infection and the symptomatic experience of SARS-CoV-2 (indicated by the number and severity of symptoms). METHODS: As part of a longitudinal prospective observational cohort study, 1,087 adults completed validated measures of psychological well-being during April 2020 and self-reported incidence of COVID-19 infection and symptom experience across the pandemic through to December 2020. Regression models were used to explore these relationships controlling for demographic and occupational factors. RESULTS: Greater psychological distress during the early phase of the pandemic was significantly associated with subsequent self-reported SARS-CoV-2 infection as well as the experience of a greater number and more severe symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 infection and symptoms may be more common among those experiencing elevated psychological distress. Further research to elucidate the mechanisms underlying these associations is needed.

Effects of Brief Mood-Improving Interventions on Immunity: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Positive mood has been associated with enhanced immune function. Interventions that improve mood could therefore provide a mechanism for optimizing immune-related health outcomes. Brief interventions that improve mood, also known as mood inductions, potentially offer a pragmatic approach to enhancing immune function for finite periods where this would be beneficial to health (e.g., in advance of vaccination or surgery). This review sought to systematically examine the evidence regarding the effects of brief, single-session positive mood interventions on immunity. METHODS: Systematic searches of electronic databases were performed from earliest records to July 25, 2018. We identified 42 interventions suitable for inclusion, 6 of which were tested in multiple subpopulations. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed for pre-post experimental group immune outcomes measured in at least five intervention studies. RESULTS: Although interventions were heterogeneous, 81% resulted in a statistically significant change in at least one immune parameter after the positive mood intervention for one or more of the subpopulations examined. However, studies were, in general, of low-to-moderate quality with small sample sizes (median n = 32) and did not examine the persistence or clinical relevance of the immune changes observed. Random-effects meta-analyses showed a significant medium-sized effect of interventions on increasing secretory IgA concentration (g = 0.65), a small but statistically significant effect for increased Interleukin-6 production (g = 0.12), and nonsignificant effects on natural killer cell activity (g = 0.15). CONCLUSIONS: The current literature suggests that improvements in mood resulting from brief interventions can influence some immune parameters in ways indicative of enhanced immune function. However, there is a need for higher-quality research in this area that focuses on clinically relevant immune outcomes and mechanisms.

Young people, mental health and COVID-19 infection: the canaries we put in the coal mine.

OBJECTIVES: The number of people testing positive for Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-COV-2) in the UK, particularly among young adults, is increasing. We report here on the mental health of young adults and related psychological and behavioural responses to the pandemic and consider the role of these factors in fuelling the increase in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in this group. METHODS: An online survey was completed during the first six weeks of the first UK-wide lockdown by 3097 respondents, including data for 364 respondents aged 18-24 years. The survey included measures of mental health and indices capturing related psychological and behavioural responses to the pandemic. RESULTS: The mental health of 18- to 24-years-olds in the first 6 weeks of lockdown was significantly poorer than that of older respondents and previously published norms: with 84% reporting symptoms of depression and 72% reporting symptoms of anxiety. Young adults also reported significantly greater loneliness and reduced positive mood, both of which were also associated with greater mental health difficulties. CONCLUSIONS: We contend that the combination of mental health, social and economic considerations may have contributed to the rise of COVID-19 infections in young adults, and ascribing blame to this group will not aid our efforts to regain control of the disease.

Positive mood on the day of influenza vaccination predicts vaccine effectiveness: A prospective observational cohort study.

Influenza vaccination is estimated to only be effective in 17-53% of older adults. Multiple patient behaviors and psychological factors have been shown to act as 'immune modulators' sufficient to influence vaccination outcomes. However, the relative importance of such factors is unknown as they have typically been examined in isolation. The objective of the present study was to explore the effects of multiple behavioral (physical activity, nutrition, sleep) and psychological influences (stress, positive mood, negative mood) on the effectiveness of the immune response to influenza vaccination in the elderly. A prospective, diary-based longitudinal observational cohort study was conducted. One hundred and thirty-eight community-dwelling older adults (65-85years) who received the 2014/15 influenza vaccination completed repeated psycho-behavioral measures over the two weeks prior, and four weeks following influenza vaccination. IgG responses to vaccination were measured via antigen microarray and seroprotection via hemagglutination inhibition assays at 4 and 16weeks post-vaccination. High pre-vaccination seroprotection levels were observed for H3N2 and B viral strains. Positive mood on the day of vaccination was a significant predictor of H1N1 seroprotection at 16weeks post-vaccination and IgG responses to vaccination at 4 and 16weeks post-vaccination, controlling for age and gender. Positive mood across the 6-week observation period was also significantly associated with post-vaccination H1N1 seroprotection and IgG responses to vaccination at 16weeks post-vaccination, but in regression models the proportion of variance explained was lower than for positive mood on the day of vaccination alone. No other factors were found to significantly predict antibody responses to vaccination. Greater positive mood in older adults, particularly on the day of vaccination, is associated with enhanced responses to vaccination.

Optimizing mood prior to influenza vaccination in older adults: A three-arm randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: This trial explored the psychological and immunological effects of two brief interventions, targeting improving positive mood, administered to older adults immediately prior to influenza vaccination. The primary aim was to examine whether the interventions resulted in greater positive mood compared to usual care, and if so, which was superior. Secondary outcomes included antibody responses to vaccination and feasibility of collecting clinical outcome data (e.g., respiratory infections). METHOD: Six hundred and fifty-four older adults (65-85 years) participated in a three-arm, parallel, randomized controlled trial between September 2019 and May 2020. Immediately prior to receiving an adjuvanted trivalent influenza vaccine (Fluad, Seqirus UK Ltd), participants viewed one of two brief (15-min) video-based positive mood interventions (one fixed content, one allowing participant choice) or received usual care. State affect was measured immediately prior to, and following, intervention exposure or usual care. Antibody responses were measured prevaccination and 4 weeks postvaccination. Clinical outcomes were extracted from primary care records for 6 months following vaccination. RESULTS: Both interventions were equally effective at improving mood prior to vaccination compared to usual care. Antibody responses were highly robust with postvaccination seroprotection rates of > 88% observed for all vaccine strains. Antibody responses did not significantly differ between groups. Clinical outcome data were feasible to collect. CONCLUSIONS: Brief psychological interventions can improve mood prior to vaccination. However, altering antibody responses to highly immunogenic adjuvanted vaccines may require more targeted or prolonged interventions. The provision of choice did not notably enhance the interventions impact on mood or antibody outcomes. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

Increases in stress hormone levels in a UK population during the COVID-19 pandemic: A prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Research suggests that psychological factors may influence vulnerability to SARS-CoV-2 infection, although the mechanisms are unclear. PURPOSE: We examined whether the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis may be a possible mechanism, by measuring the relationship between indices of psychological distress and cortisone in hair (hairE) in a UK cohort during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: Participants (N = 827) provided two 3 cm hair samples over a 6-month period between April-September 2020. Samples reflected hairE in the 3 months prior to the collection date. RESULTS: HairE in the first samples (T1: commenced April 2020) did not differ significantly from pre-pandemic population norms. However, hairE in the second samples (T2: commenced July 2020) were significantly higher than T1 and pre-pandemic population norms, with a 23% increase between T1 and T2. Linear regressions, controlling for age and gender, demonstrated that at both timepoints, hairE levels were greatest in people with a history of mental health difficulties. In addition, stress reported at T1 predicted greater hairE at T2 and a greater change in hairE between T1 and T2. CONCLUSIONS: These findings demonstrate that during the COVID-19 pandemic hairE was substantially elevated across a large community cohort, with greatest levels in those with a history of mental health difficulties and greatest changes in those reporting greatest levels of stress early in the pandemic. Further research is required with verified SARS-CoV-2 outcomes to determine whether the HPA axis is among the mechanisms by which a history of mental health difficulties and stress influence SARS-CoV-2 outcomes.

A meta-analysis of the associations between insufficient sleep duration and antibody response to vaccination.

Vaccination is a major strategy to control a viral pandemic. Simple behavioral interventions that might boost vaccine responses have yet to be identified. We conducted meta-analyses to summarize the evidence linking the amount of sleep obtained in the days surrounding vaccination to antibody response in healthy adults. Authors of the included studies provided the information needed to accurately estimate the pooled effect size (ES) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) and to examine sex differences.1,2,3,4,5,6,7 The association between self-reported short sleep (<6 h/night) and reduced vaccine response did not reach our pre-defined statistical significant criteria (total n = 504, ages 18-85; overall ES [95% CI] = 0.29 [-0.04, 0.63]). Objectively assessed short sleep was associated with a robust decrease in antibody response (total n = 304, ages 18-60; overall ES [95% CI] = 0.79 [0.40, 1.18]). In men, the pooled ES was large (overall ES [95% CI] = 0.93 [0.54, 1.33]), whereas it did not reach significance in women (overall ES [95% CI] = 0.42 [-0.49, 1.32]). These results provide evidence that insufficient sleep duration substantially decreases the response to anti-viral vaccination and suggests that achieving adequate amount of sleep during the days surrounding vaccination may enhance and prolong the humoral response. Large-scale well-controlled studies are urgently needed to define (1) the window of time around inoculation when optimizing sleep duration is most beneficial, (2) the causes of the sex disparity in the impact of sleep on the response, and (3) the amount of sleep needed to protect the response.

Psychology Meets Biology in COVID-19: What We Know and Why It Matters for Public Health.

Psychosocial factors are related to immune, viral, and vaccination outcomes. Yet, this knowledge has been poorly represented in public health initiatives during the COVID-19 pandemic. This review provides an overview of biopsychosocial links relevant to COVID-19 outcomes by describing seminal evidence about these associations known prepandemic as well as contemporary research conducted during the pandemic. This focuses on the negative impact of the pandemic on psychosocial health and how this in turn has likely consequences for critically relevant viral and vaccination outcomes. We end by looking forward, highlighting the potential of psychosocial interventions that could be leveraged to support all people in navigating a postpandemic world and how a biopsychosocial approach to health could be incorporated into public health responses to future pandemics.

The effect of choice interventions on retention-related, behavioural and mood outcomes: a systematic review with meta-analysis.

The provision of choice within interventions has been associated with increased motivation, engagement and interest, as well as improved clinical outcomes. Existing reviews are limited by their wide inclusion criteria or by not assessing behaviour change and mood outcomes. This review examines whether participant-driven choice-based interventions specifically are more likely to be enjoyed and accepted by participants compared to no-choice interventions, and whether this impacts on intervention outcomes in terms of behaviour change or mood. Forty-four randomised controlled trials were identified for inclusion. Random effects meta-analyses were performed for retention-related outcomes (drop-out, adherence and satisfaction), and aggregate behaviour change and mood outcomes. Choice-based interventions resulted in significantly less participant drop-out and increased adherence compared to interventions not offering choice. Results for the behaviour change and mood analyses were mixed. This meta-analytic review demonstrates that choice-based interventions may enhance participant retention and adherence, thus researchers and clinicians alike should consider the provision of choice when designing research and interventions. The evidence for the role of choice in behaviour change and mood is less convincing, and there is a need for more, higher quality research in this area.

The prevalence, incidence, prognosis and risk factors for symptoms of depression and anxiety in a UK cohort during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has had profound consequences for population mental health. However, it is less clear for whom these effects are sustained. AIMS: To investigate the prevalence, incidence, prognosis and risk factors for symptoms of depression and anxiety in a UK cohort over three distinct periods in the pandemic in 2020. METHOD: An online survey was completed by a UK community cohort at three points (n = 3097 at baseline, n = 878 completed all surveys): April (baseline), July to September (time point 2) and November to December (time point 3). Participants completed validated measures of depression and anxiety on each occasion, and we prospectively explored the role of sociodemographic and psychological factors (loneliness, positive mood and perceived risk of and worry about COVID-19) as risk factors. RESULTS: Depression (Patient Health Questionnaire-9 means: baseline, 7.69; time point 2, 5.53; time point 3, 6.06) and anxiety scores (Generalised Anxiety Disorder-7 means: baseline, 6.59; time point 2, 4.60; time point 3, 4.98) were considerably greater than pre-pandemic population norms at all time points. Women reported greater depression and anxiety symptoms than men. Younger age, history of mental health disorder, more COVID-19-related negative life events, greater loneliness and lower positive mood at baseline were all significant predictors of poorer mental health at time point 3. CONCLUSIONS: The negative impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on mental health has persisted to some degree. Younger people and individuals with prior mental health disorders are at greatest risk. Easing of restrictions and resumption of social interaction could mitigate the risk factors of loneliness and positive mood.

Depression, anxiety and stress during the COVID-19 pandemic: results from a New Zealand cohort study on mental well-being.

OBJECTIVES: The COVID-19 pandemic has caused unprecedented disruption to daily life. This study investigated depression, anxiety and stress in New Zealand (NZ) during the first 10 weeks of the COVID-19 pandemic, and associated psychological and behavioural factors. It also compares the results with a similar cross-sectional study in the UK. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING: NZ community cohort. PARTICIPANTS: N=681 adults (≥18 years) in NZ. The cohort was predominantly female (89%) with a mean age of 42 years (range 18-87). Most (74%) identified as NZ European and almost half (46%) were keyworkers. Most were non-smokers (95%) and 20% identified themselves as having clinical risk factors which would put them at increased or greatest risk of COVID-19. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Depression, anxiety, stress, positive mood and engagement in health behaviours (smoking, exercise, alcohol consumption). RESULTS: Depression and anxiety significantly exceeded population norms (p<0.0001). Being younger (p<0.0001) and most at risk of COVID-19 (p<0.05) were associated with greater depression, anxiety and stress. Greater positive mood, lower loneliness and greater exercise were protective factors for all outcomes (p<0.0001). Smoking (p=0.037) and alcohol consumption (p<0.05) were associated with increased anxiety. Pet ownership was associated with lower depression (p=0.006) and anxiety (p=0.008). When adjusting for age and gender differences, anxiety (p=0.002) and stress (p=0.007) were significantly lower in NZ than in the UK. The NZ sample reported lower perceived risk (p<0.0001) and worry about COVID-19 (p<0.0001) than the UK sample. CONCLUSIONS: The NZ population had higher depression and anxiety compared with population norms. Younger people and those most at risk of COVID-19 reported poorer mental health. Interventions should promote frequent exercise, and reduce loneliness and unhealthy behaviours.

Students' Views towards Sars-Cov-2 Mass Asymptomatic Testing, Social Distancing and Self-Isolation in a University Setting during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Qualitative Study.

We aimed to explore university students' perceptions and experiences of SARS-CoV-2 mass asymptomatic testing, social distancing and self-isolation, during the COVID-19 pandemic. This qualitative study comprised of four rapid online focus groups conducted at a higher education institution in England, during high alert (tier 2) national COVID-19 restrictions. Participants were purposively sampled university students (n = 25) representing a range of gender, age, living circumstances (on/off campus), and SARS-CoV-2 testing/self-isolation experiences. Data were analysed using an inductive thematic approach. Six themes with 16 sub-themes emerged from the analysis of the qualitative data: 'Term-time Experiences', 'Risk Perception and Worry', 'Engagement in Protective Behaviours', 'Openness to Testing', 'Barriers to Testing' and 'General Wellbeing'. Students described feeling safe on campus, believed most of their peers are adherent to protective behaviours and were positive towards asymptomatic testing in university settings. University communications about COVID-19 testing and social behaviours need to be timely and presented in a more inclusive way to reach groups of students who currently feel marginalised. Barriers to engagement with SARS-CoV-2 testing, social distancing and self-isolation were primarily associated with fear of the mental health impacts of self-isolation, including worry about how they will cope, high anxiety, low mood, guilt relating to impact on others and loneliness. Loneliness in students could be mitigated through increased intra-university communications and a focus on establishment of low COVID-risk social activities to help students build and enhance their social support networks. These findings are particularly pertinent in the context of mass asymptomatic testing programmes being implemented in educational settings and high numbers of students being required to self-isolate. Universities need to determine the support needs of students during self-isolation and prepare for the long-term impacts of the pandemic on student mental health and welfare support services.

Mental health in the UK during the COVID-19 pandemic: cross-sectional analyses from a community cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: Previous pandemics have resulted in significant consequences for mental health. Here, we report the mental health sequelae of the COVID-19 pandemic in a UK cohort and examine modifiable and non-modifiable explanatory factors associated with mental health outcomes. We focus on the first wave of data collection, which examined short-term consequences for mental health, as reported during the first 4-6 weeks of social distancing measures being introduced. DESIGN: Cross-sectional online survey. SETTING: Community cohort study. PARTICIPANTS: N=3097 adults aged ≥18 years were recruited through a mainstream and social media campaign between 3 April 2020 and 30 April 2020. The cohort was predominantly female (n=2618); mean age 44 years; 10% (n=296) from minority ethnic groups; 50% (n=1559) described themselves as key workers and 20% (n=649) identified as having clinical risk factors putting them at increased risk of COVID-19. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Depression, anxiety and stress scores. RESULTS: Mean scores for depression ([Formula: see text] =7.69, SD=6.0), stress ([Formula: see text] =6.48, SD=3.3) and anxiety ([Formula: see text] = 6.48, SD=3.3) significantly exceeded population norms (all p<0.0001). Analysis of non-modifiable factors hypothesised to be associated with mental health outcomes indicated that being younger, female and in a recognised COVID-19 risk group were associated with increased stress, anxiety and depression, with the final multivariable models accounting for 7%-14% of variance. When adding modifiable factors, significant independent effects emerged for positive mood, perceived loneliness and worry about getting COVID-19 for all outcomes, with the final multivariable models accounting for 54%-57% of total variance. CONCLUSIONS: Increased psychological morbidity was evident in this UK sample and found to be more common in younger people, women and in individuals who identified as being in recognised COVID-19 risk groups. Public health and mental health interventions able to ameliorate perceptions of risk of COVID-19, worry about COVID-19 loneliness and boost positive mood may be effective.

Mood and influenza vaccination in older adults: A randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: Positive mood on the day of vaccination has been associated with subsequent antibody responses to the influenza vaccine in older adults. The primary aim of this trial was to examine whether a brief intervention was able to enhance positive mood at the time of vaccination in a clinical context. Secondary aims included exploratory analyses of the effects of the intervention on nonspecific and influenza-specific immunity. METHOD: One hundred three older adults (65-85 years) participated in a 2-arm, parallel, single-blind, randomized controlled trial. Participants viewed either a 15-min video package designed to induce positive mood or a matched neutral control video, immediately prior to receiving a standard dose quadrivalent influenza vaccination. State affect and secretory immunoglobulin A levels were assessed immediately prior to, and following, the interventions. Antigen-specific immunoglobulin G responses to the vaccination were assessed at 4 and 16 weeks postvaccination. RESULTS: The positive mood intervention resulted in significant improvements in state positive affect, compared with the neutral control. Secretory immunoglobulin A levels significantly increased across both groups. Antigen-specific immunoglobulin G responses to influenza vaccination were not statistically significantly different between groups, although point estimates of effect size favored participants who viewed the positive mood intervention for most strains at both 4 and 16 weeks postvaccination. CONCLUSIONS: A 15-min intervention can improve positive mood in older adults prior to vaccination. Future trials should examine whether enhancing mood at the time of vaccination could enhance the effectiveness of influenza vaccination on patients and benefit health services. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).

Psychological interventions as vaccine adjuvants: A systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: The effectiveness of vaccines is known to be altered by a range of psychological factors. We conducted a systematic review to evaluate the effects of psychological interventions on the ability of vaccines to protect against disease, as measured by antibody responses. METHODS: Electronic databases (EMBASE, Medline, PsychINFO, CINAHL) were searched from their inception to 6th February 2018. RESULTS: The search yielded 9 eligible trials conducted with 1603 participants and four broad categories of intervention: meditation/mindfulness (n = 3), massage (n = 3), expressive writing (n = 2) and cognitive behavioural stress management (n = 1). Some evidence of benefit on the antibody response to vaccination was observed in 6/9 of all trials and in 4/7 of randomised controlled trials. However, effects on antibody levels were often mixed, with only 3 of 6 trials showing benefit demonstrating an improvement in all antibody outcomes and at all time points assessed. Trials demonstrating benefit also provided direct or indirect evidence of adequate adherence with the intervention; and in 50% of these trials, there was also evidence that the intervention was effective in changing the mediating psychological constructs targeted by the intervention. CONCLUSIONS: This literature is characterised by considerable heterogeneity in terms of intervention type, vaccine type, age of participants and the temporal relationship between vaccination and intervention. We conclude that there is early evidence to suggest that psychological interventions may enhance the antibody response to vaccination. However, the effects are inconsistent, with the greatest likelihood of benefit seen in trials evidencing adequate adherence with the intervention. Future work would benefit from rigorous intervention development that focuses on achieving adequate adherence and large well-controlled randomised trials with a focus on an agreed set of outcomes.

Measuring Vaccine Responses in the Multiplex Era.

Vaccine studies in psychoneuroimmunology (PNI) provide an insight into biopsychosocial interactions and their role in infectious diseases. How to measure vaccine responses is therefore of critical importance for PNI researchers. In this chapter, traditional and modern immunoassays for the assessment of vaccine responses are discussed, highlighting how modern multiplex techniques provide researchers with greater capacity and opportunity for novel research relating to vaccine outcomes.

Efficacy of theory-based interventions for young people with type 1 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: Theory-based behaviour change interventions have been recommended to improve outcomes for young people with type 1 diabetes. However, theory has exclusively been considered in a simplistic all-or-none fashion. We therefore (1) examined the nature and extent of explicit theory use in published interventions involving young people with type 1 diabetes and (2) the relationship between how theory is used and intervention outcomes. METHODS: We conducted systematic searches for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published between 1999 and 2012. We used a detailed structured framework to code how theory was used and meta-analytic techniques to examine the relationships between theory use and intervention efficacy. RESULTS: We identified 34 articles comprising 27 RCTs. Thirty per cent (k = 8) did not use theory in any of the ways assessed. Where present, the most common use of theory was providing evidence that a targeted theoretical construct predicted behaviour (k = 15; 56%). Trials that used theory to some extent had marginally larger pooled effect sizes for both medical and psychological outcomes than those that did not. However, in meta-regression models, use of theory did not significantly predict intervention outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Theory is under-utilized in intervention development for young people with type 1 diabetes. When employed, theory appears to be advantageous, but not necessarily predictive of intervention success. We argue that greater emphasis is needed on choosing appropriate theory, which should then become central to the process of intervention development. Statement of contribution What is already known on this subject? Interventions for young people with type 1 diabetes that explicitly cite a theoretical basis may be more effective than those that do not. Recommendations have been made for theory to be central to the intervention development process in this area. What does this study add? Theory use in recent interventions for young people with type 1 diabetes is extremely limited. Larger positive medical and psychological outcomes are observed in interventions making some use of theory. Greater use of theory does not necessarily guarantee intervention success.