Real-world severe COVID-19 outcomes associated with use of antivirals and neutralising monoclonal antibodies in Scotland.

We sought to investigate the incidence of severe COVID-19 outcomes after treatment with antivirals and neutralising monoclonal antibodies, and estimate the comparative effectiveness of treatments in community-based individuals. We conducted a retrospective cohort study investigating clinical outcomes of hospitalisation, intensive care unit admission and death, in those treated with antivirals and monoclonal antibodies for COVID-19 in Scotland between December 2021 and September 2022. We compared the effect of various treatments on the risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes, stratified by most prevalent sub-lineage at that time, and controlling for comorbidities and other patient characteristics. We identified 14,365 individuals treated for COVID-19 during our study period, some of whom were treated for multiple infections. The incidence of severe COVID-19 outcomes (inpatient admission or death) in community-treated patients (81% of all treatment episodes) was 1.2% (n = 137/11894, 95% CI 1.0-1.4), compared to 32.8% in those treated in hospital for acute COVID-19 (re-admissions or death; n = 40/122, 95% CI 25.1-41.5). For community-treated patients, there was a lower risk of severe outcomes (inpatient admission or death) in younger patients, and in those who had received three or more COVID-19 vaccinations. During the period in which BA.2 was the most prevalent sub-lineage in the UK, sotrovimab was associated with a reduced treatment effect compared to nirmaltrelvir + ritonavir. However, since BA.5 has been the most prevalent sub-lineage in the UK, both sotrovimab and nirmaltrelvir + ritonavir were associated with similarly lower incidence of severe outcomes than molnupiravir. Around 1% of those treated for COVID-19 with antivirals or neutralising monoclonal antibodies required hospital admission. During the period in which BA.5 was the prevalent sub-lineages in the UK, molnupiravir was associated with the highest incidence of severe outcomes in community-treated patients.

The effectiveness of out-of-hours palliative care telephone advice lines: A rapid systematic review.

BACKGROUND: People with palliative care needs and their carers often rely on out-of-hours services to remain at home. Policymakers have recommended implementing telephone advice lines to ensure 24/7 access to support. However, the impact of these services on patient and carer outcomes, as well as the health care system, remains poorly understood. AIM: To evaluate the clinical- and cost-effectiveness of out-of-hours palliative care telephone advice lines, and to identify service characteristics associated with effectiveness. DESIGN: Rapid systematic review (PROSPERO ID: CRD42023400370) with narrative synthesis. DATA SOURCES: Three databases (Medline, EMBASE and CINAHL) were searched in February 2023 for studies of any design reporting on telephone advice lines with at least partial out-of-hours availability. Study quality was assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool, and quantitative and qualitative data were synthesised narratively. RESULTS: Twenty-one studies, published 2000-2022, were included. Most studies were observational, none were experimental. While some evidence suggested that telephone advice lines offer guidance and reassurance, supporting care at home and potentially reducing avoidable emergency care use in the last months of life, variability in reporting and poor methodological quality across studies limit our understanding of patient/carer and health care system outcomes. CONCLUSION: Despite their increasing use, evidence for the clinical- and cost-effectiveness of palliative care telephone advice lines remains limited, primarily due to the lack of robust comparative studies. There is a need for more rigorous evaluations incorporating experimental or quasi-experimental methods and longer follow-up, and standardised reporting of telephone advice line models and outcomes, to guide policy and practice.

Stakeholder perspectives on contributors to delayed and inaccurate diagnosis of cardiovascular disease and their implications for digital health technologies: a UK-based qualitative study.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to understand stakeholder experiences of diagnosis of cardiovascular disease (CVD) to support the development of technological solutions that meet current needs. Specifically, we aimed to identify challenges in the process of diagnosing CVD, to identify discrepancies between patient and clinician experiences of CVD diagnosis, and to identify the requirements of future health technology solutions intended to improve CVD diagnosis. DESIGN: Semistructured focus groups and one-to-one interviews to generate qualitative data that were subjected to thematic analysis. PARTICIPANTS: UK-based individuals (N=32) with lived experience of diagnosis of CVD (n=23) and clinicians with experience in diagnosing CVD (n=9). RESULTS: We identified four key themes related to delayed or inaccurate diagnosis of CVD: symptom interpretation, patient characteristics, patient-clinician interactions and systemic challenges. Subthemes from each are discussed in depth. Challenges related to time and communication were greatest for both stakeholder groups; however, there were differences in other areas, for example, patient experiences highlighted difficulties with the psychological aspects of diagnosis and interpreting ambiguous symptoms, while clinicians emphasised the role of individual patient differences and the lack of rapport in contributing to delays or inaccurate diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings highlight key considerations when developing digital technologies that seek to improve the efficiency and accuracy of diagnosis of CVD.

Identifying key health system components associated with improved outcomes to inform the re-configuration of services for adults with rare autoimmune rheumatic diseases: a mixed-methods study.

BACKGROUND: Adults with rare autoimmune rheumatic diseases face unique challenges and struggles to navigate health-care systems designed to manage common conditions. Evidence to inform an optimal service framework for their care is scarce. Using systemic vasculitis as an exemplar, we aimed to identify and explain the key service components underpinning effective care for rare diseases. METHODS: In this mixed-methods study, data were collected as part of a survey of vasculitis service providers across the UK and Ireland, interviews with patients, and from organisational case studies to identify key service components that enable good care. The association between these components and patient outcomes (eg, serious infections, mortality) and provider outcomes (eg, emergency hospital admissions) were examined in a population-based data linkage study using routine health-care data obtained from patients with antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA)-associated vasculitis from national health datasets in Scotland. We did univariable and multivariable analyses using Bayesian poisson and negative binomial regression to estimate incident rate ratios (IRRs), and Cox proportional hazards models to estimate hazard ratios (HRs). People with lived experiences were involved in the research and writing process. FINDINGS: Good care was characterised by service components that supported timely access to services, integrated care, and expertise. In 1420 patients with ANCA-associated vasculitis identified from national health datasets, service-reported average waiting times for new patients of less than 1 week were associated with fewer serious infections (IRR 0·70 [95% credibility interval 0·55-0·88]) and fewer emergency hospital admissions (0·78 [0·68-0·92]). Nurse-led advice lines were associated with fewer serious infections (0·76 [0·58-0·93]) and fewer emergency hospital admissions (0·85 [0·74-0·96]). Average waiting times for new patients of less than 1 week were also associated with reduced mortality (HR 0·59 [95% credibility interval 0·37-0·93]). Cohorted clinics, nurse-led clinics, and specialist vasculitis multi-disciplinary team meetings were associated with fewer serious infections (IRR 0·75 [0·59-0·96] for cohorted clinics; 0·65 [0·39-0·84] for nurse-led clinics; 0·72 [0·57-0·90] for specialist vasculitis multi-disciplinary team meetings) and emergency hospital admissions (0·81 [0·71-0·91]; 0·75 [0·65-0·94]; 0·86 [0·75-0·96]). Key components were characterised by their ability to overcome professional tensions between specialties. INTERPRETATION: Key service components associated with important health outcomes and underpinning factors were identified to inform initiatives to improve the design, delivery, and effectiveness of health-care models for rare autoimmune rheumatic diseases. FUNDING: Versus Arthritis.

Development and evaluation of a text analytics algorithm for automated application of national COVID-19 shielding criteria in rheumatology patients.

INTRODUCTION: At the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, the UK's Scientific Committee issued extreme social distancing measures, termed 'shielding', aimed at a subpopulation deemed extremely clinically vulnerable to infection. National guidance for risk stratification was based on patients' age, comorbidities and immunosuppressive therapies, including biologics that are not captured in primary care records. This process required considerable clinician time to manually review outpatient letters. Our aim was to develop and evaluate an automated shielding algorithm by text-mining outpatient letter diagnoses and medications, reducing the need for future manual review. METHODS: Rheumatology outpatient letters from a large UK foundation trust were retrieved. Free-text diagnoses were processed using Intelligent Medical Objects software (Concept Tagger), which used interface terminology for each condition mapped to Systematized Medical Nomenclature for Medicine-Clinical Terminology (SNOMED-CT) codes. We developed the Medication Concept Recognition tool (Named Entity Recognition) to retrieve medications' type, dose, duration and status (active/past) at the time of the letter. Age, diagnosis and medication variables were then combined to calculate a shielding score based on the most recent letter. The algorithm's performance was evaluated using clinical review as the gold standard. The time taken to deploy the developed algorithm on a larger patient subset was measured. RESULTS: In total, 5942 free-text diagnoses were extracted and mapped to SNOMED-CT, with 13 665 free-text medications (n=803 patients). The automated algorithm demonstrated a sensitivity of 80% (95% CI: 75%, 85%) and specificity of 92% (95% CI: 90%, 94%). Positive likelihood ratio was 10 (95% CI: 8, 14), negative likelihood ratio was 0.21 (95% CI: 0.16, 0.28) and F1 score was 0.81. Evaluation of mismatches revealed that the algorithm performed correctly against the gold standard in most cases. The developed algorithm was then deployed on records from an additional 15 865 patients, which took 18 hours for data extraction and 1 hour to deploy. DISCUSSION: An automated algorithm for risk stratification has several advantages including reducing clinician time for manual review to allow more time for direct care, improving efficiency and increasing transparency in individual patient communication. It has the potential to be adapted for future public health initiatives that require prompt automated review of hospital outpatient letters.

Percutaneous Left Ventricular Unloading During High-Risk Coronary Intervention: Rationale and Design of the CHIP-BCIS3 Randomized Controlled Trial.

INTRODUCTION: Percutaneous coronary intervention for complex coronary disease is associated with a high risk of cardiogenic shock. This can cause harm and limit the quality of revascularization achieved, especially when left ventricular function is impaired at the outset. Elective percutaneous left ventricular unloading is increasingly used to mitigate adverse events in patients undergoing high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention, but this strategy has fiscal and clinical costs and is not supported by robust evidence. METHODS: CHIP-BCIS3 (Controlled Trial of High-Risk Coronary Intervention With Percutaneous Left Ventricular Unloading) is a prospective, multicenter, open-label randomized controlled trial that aims to determine whether a strategy of elective percutaneous left ventricular unloading is superior to standard care (no planned mechanical circulatory support) in patients undergoing nonemergent high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention. Patients are eligible for recruitment if they have severe left ventricular systolic dysfunction, extensive coronary artery disease, and are due to undergo complex percutaneous coronary intervention (to the left main stem with calcium modification or to a chronic total occlusion with a retrograde approach). Cardiogenic shock and acute ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction are exclusions. The primary outcome is a hierarchical composite of all-cause death, stroke, spontaneous myocardial infarction, cardiovascular hospitalization, and periprocedural myocardial infarction, analyzed using the win ratio. Secondary outcomes include completeness of revascularization, major bleeding, vascular complications, health economic analyses, and health-related quality of life. A sample size of 250 patients will have in excess of 80% power to detect a hazard ratio of 0.62 at a minimum of 12 months, assuming 150 patients experience an event across all follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: To date, 169 patients have been recruited from 21 National Health Service hospitals in the United Kingdom, with recruitment expected to complete in 2024. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT05003817.

Risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes after autumn 2022 COVID-19 booster vaccinations: a pooled analysis of national prospective cohort studies involving 7.4 million adults in England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales.

Background: UK COVID-19 vaccination policy has evolved to offering COVID-19 booster doses to individuals at increased risk of severe Illness from COVID-19. Building on our analyses of vaccine effectiveness of first, second and initial booster doses, we aimed to identify individuals at increased risk of severe outcomes (i.e., COVID-19 related hospitalisation or death) post the autumn 2022 booster dose. Methods: We undertook a national population-based cohort analysis across all four UK nations through linked primary care, vaccination, hospitalisation and mortality data. We included individuals who received autumn 2022 booster doses of BNT162b2 (Comirnaty) or mRNA-1273 (Spikevax) during the period September 1, 2022 to December 31, 2022 to investigate the risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes. Cox proportional hazard models were used to estimate adjusted hazard ratios (aHR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the association between demographic and clinical factors and severe COVID-19 outcomes after the autumn booster dose. Analyses were adjusted for age, sex, body mass index (BMI), deprivation, urban/rural areas and comorbidities. Stratified analyses were conducted by vaccine type. We then conducted a fixed-effect meta-analysis to combine results across the four UK nations. Findings: Between September 1, 2022 and December 31, 2022, 7,451,890 individuals ≥18 years received an autumn booster dose. 3500 had severe COVID-19 outcomes (2.9 events per 1000 person-years). Being male (male vs female, aHR 1.41 (1.32-1.51)), older adults (≥80 years vs 18-49 years; 10.43 (8.06-13.50)), underweight (BMI <18.5 vs BMI 25.0-29.9; 2.94 (2.51-3.44)), those with comorbidities (≥5 comorbidities vs none; 9.45 (8.15-10.96)) had a higher risk of COVID-19 hospitalisation or death after the autumn booster dose. Those with a larger household size (≥11 people within household vs 2 people; 1.56 (1.23-1.98)) and from more deprived areas (most deprived vs least deprived quintile; 1.35 (1.21-1.51)) had modestly higher risks. We also observed at least a two-fold increase in risk for those with various chronic neurological conditions, including Down's syndrome, immunodeficiency, chronic kidney disease, cancer, chronic respiratory disease, or cardiovascular disease. Interpretation: Males, older individuals, underweight individuals, those with an increasing number of comorbidities, from a larger household or more deprived areas, and those with specific underlying health conditions remained at increased risk of COVID-19 hospitalisation and death after the autumn 2022 vaccine booster dose. There is now a need to focus on these risk groups for investigating immunogenicity and efficacy of further booster doses or therapeutics. Funding: National Core Studies-Immunity, UK Research and Innovation (Medical Research Council and Economic and Social Research Council), Health Data Research UK, the Scottish Government, and the University of Edinburgh.

Involving patients and the public In sTatistIcal Analysis pLans (INITIAL): A delphi survey.

BACKGROUND: Patient and public involvement (PPI) in trials aims to enhance research by improving its relevance and transparency. Planning for statistical analysis begins at the design stage of a trial within the protocol and is refined and detailed in a Statistical Analysis Plan (SAP). While PPI is common in design and protocol development it is less common within SAPs. This study aimed to reach consensus on the most important and relevant statistical analysis items within an SAP to involve patients and the public. METHODS: We developed a UK-based, two-round Delphi survey through an iterative consultation with public partners, statisticians, and trialists. The consultation process started with 55 items from international guidance for statistical analysis plans. We aimed to recruit at least 20 participants per key stakeholder group for inclusion in the final analysis of the Delphi survey. Participants were asked to vote on each item using a Likert scale from 1 to 9, where a rating of 1 to 3 was labelled as having 'limited importance'; 4 to 6 as 'important but not critical' and 7 to 9 as 'critical' to involve patients and the public. Results from the second round determined consensus on critical items for PPI. RESULTS: The consultation exercise led to the inclusion of 15 statistical items in the Delphi survey. We recruited 179 participants, of whom 72% (129: 36 statisticians, 29 patients or public partners, 25 clinical researchers or methodologists, 27 trial managers, and 12 PPI coordinators) completed both rounds. Participants were on average 48 years old, 60% were female, 84% were White, 64% were based in England and 84% had at least five years' experience in trials. Four items reached consensus regarding critical importance for patient and public involvement: presentation of results to trial participants; summary and presentation of harms; interpretation and presentation of findings in an academic setting; factors impacting how well a treatment works. No consensus was reached for the remaining 11 items. In general, the results were consistent across stakeholder groups. DISCUSSION: We identified four critical items to involve patients and the public in statistical analysis plans. The remaining 11 items did not reach consensus and need to be considered in a case-by-case basis with most responders considering patient and public involvement important (but not critical). Our research provides a platform to enable focused future efforts to improve patient and public involvement in trials and enhance the relevance of statistical analyses to patients and the public.

Citizen science to improve patient and public involvement in GUideline Implementation in oral health and DEntistry (the GUIDE platform).

BACKGROUND: Citizen science is a way to democratise science by involving groups of citizens in the research process. Clinical guidelines are used to improve practice, but their implementation can be limited. Involving patients and the public can enhance guideline implementation, but there is uncertainty about the best approaches to achieve this. Citizen science is a potential way to involve patients and the public in improving clinical guideline implementation. We aimed to explore the application of citizen science methods to involve patients and the public in the dissemination and implementation of clinical guidelines in oral health and dentistry. METHODS: We developed GUIDE (GUideline Implementation in oral health and DEntistry), a citizen science online platform, using a participatory approach with researchers, oral health professionals, guideline developers and citizens. Recruitment was conducted exclusively online. The platform focused on prespecified challenges related to oral health assessment guidelines, and asked citizens to generate ideas, as well as vote and comment on other citizens' ideas to improve those challenges. Citizens also shared their views via surveys and two online synchronous group meetings. Data were collected on participant's demographics, platform engagement and experience of taking part. The most promising idea category was identified by an advisory group based on engagement, feasibility and relevance. We presented quantitative data using descriptive statistics and analysed qualitative data using inductive and deductive thematic analysis. RESULTS: The platform was open for 6 months and we recruited 189 citizens, from which over 90 citizens actively engaged with the platform. Most citizens were over 34 years (64%), female (58%) and had a university degree (50%). They generated 128 ideas, 146 comments and 248 votes. The challenge that led to most engagement was related to prevention and oral health self-care. To take this challenge forward, citizens generated a further 36 ideas to improve a pre-existing National Health Service oral care prevention leaflet. Citizens discussed motivations to take part in the platform (understanding, values, self-care), reasons to stay engaged (communication and feedback, outputs and impact, and relevance of topics discussed) and suggestions to improve future platforms. CONCLUSION: Citizen science is an effective approach to generate and prioritise ideas from a group of citizens to improve oral health and dental services. Prevention and oral health self-care were of particular interest to citizens. More research is needed to ensure recruitment of a diverse group of citizens and to improve retention in citizen science projects. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: This project was inherently conducted with the input of public partners (citizen scientists) in all key aspects of its conduct and interpretation. In addition, two public partners were part of the research team and contributed to the design of the project, as well as key decisions related to its conduct, analysis, interpretation and dissemination and are co-authors of this manuscript.

PROTEUS Study: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial Evaluating the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Stress Echocardiography.

BACKGROUND: Stress echocardiography (SE) is one of the most commonly used diagnostic imaging tests for coronary artery disease (CAD) but requires clinicians to visually assess scans to identify patients who may benefit from invasive investigation and treatment. EchoGo Pro provides an automated interpretation of SE based on artificial intelligence (AI) image analysis. In reader studies, use of EchoGo Pro when making clinical decisions improves diagnostic accuracy and confidence. Prospective evaluation in real world practice is now important to understand the impact of EchoGo Pro on the patient pathway and outcome. METHODS: PROTEUS is a randomized, multicenter, 2-armed, noninferiority study aiming to recruit 2,500 participants from National Health Service (NHS) hospitals in the UK referred to SE clinics for investigation of suspected CAD. All participants will undergo a stress echocardiogram protocol as per local hospital policy. Participants will be randomized 1:1 to a control group, representing current practice, or an intervention group, in which clinicians will receive an AI image analysis report (EchoGo Pro, Ultromics Ltd, Oxford, UK) to use during image interpretation, indicating the likelihood of severe CAD. The primary outcome will be appropriateness of clinician decision to refer for coronary angiography. Secondary outcomes will assess other health impacts including appropriate use of other clinical management approaches, impact on variability in decision making, patient and clinician qualitative experience and a health economic analysis. DISCUSSION: This will be the first study to assess the impact of introducing an AI medical diagnostic aid into the standard care pathway of patients with suspected CAD being investigated with SE. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov registration number NCT05028179, registered on 31 August 2021; ISRCTN: ISRCTN15113915; IRAS ref: 293515; REC ref: 21/NW/0199.

The impact of patient and public involvement on COVID-19 immunology research: experiences from the UK Coronavirus Immunology Consortium.

BACKGROUND: Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) in clinical trial research is recognised as relevant but the active involvement of patients and the public in basic science or laboratory-based research is seen as more challenging and not often reported. PPI within the UK Coronavirus Immunology Consortium (UK-CIC), a translational research project aimed at tackling some of the key questions about the immune system's response to SARS-CoV-2, is an example of overcoming negative perceptions and obstacles. Given the widespread impact of COVID-19, it was important to consider the impact of UK-CIC research on patients and the public throughout, and the PPI panel were an integral part of the consortium. FINDINGS: Building in funding for a PPI panel to value involvement and ensuring effective expert administrative support and management of PPI were crucial to success. Facilitating relationships and quality interactions between public contributors and researchers required time and commitment to the project from all parties. Through creating a platform and open space to explore diverse views and a wide range of perspectives, PPI was able to influence researchers' ways of thinking about their research and impact future research questions about COVID-19 immunology. Moreover, there was long-term impact from the involvement of the PPI panel in COVID-19 research and their value was reflected in invitations to contribute to additional immunology projects. CONCLUSION: The ability to conduct meaningful PPI with basic immunology research has been shown possible through the UK-CIC in the context of the fast-moving COVID-19 pandemic. The UK-CIC project has laid the foundations for PPI in immunology and this should now be built upon for the advantage of future basic scientific research; PPI can impact greatly on laboratory-based research when given the opportunity to do so.

Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) in outcome selection in breast cancer and nephrology trials.

We recently reported that according to patients and healthcare professionals in breast cancer and nephrology trials, teams conducting the trials got their choice of primary outcome wrong (72% of the time) more often than they got it right (28% of the time). A Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) representative, co-author of this letter, asked (on Twitter) whether PPI contributors had been involved in the design of the original trials and by extension the outcome selection. The purpose of this study was to answer this question.

Charting a Course for Smartphones and Wearables to Transform Population Health Research.

The use of data from smartphones and wearable devices has huge potential for population health research, given the high level of device ownership; the range of novel health-relevant data types available from consumer devices; and the frequency and duration with which data are, or could be, collected. Yet, the uptake and success of large-scale mobile health research in the last decade have not met this intensely promoted opportunity. We make the argument that digital person-generated health data are required and necessary to answer many top priority research questions, using illustrative examples taken from the James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnerships. We then summarize the findings from 2 UK initiatives that considered the challenges and possible solutions for what needs to be done and how such solutions can be implemented to realize the future opportunities of digital person-generated health data for clinically important population health research. Examples of important areas that must be addressed to advance the field include digital inequality and possible selection bias; easy access for researchers to the appropriate data collection tools, including how best to harmonize data items; analysis methodologies for time series data; patient and public involvement and engagement methods for optimizing recruitment, retention, and public trust; and methods for providing research participants with greater control over their data. There is also a major opportunity, provided through the linkage of digital person-generated health data to routinely collected data, to support novel population health research, bringing together clinician-reported and patient-reported measures. We recognize that well-conducted studies need a wide range of diverse challenges to be skillfully addressed in unison (eg, challenges regarding epidemiology, data science and biostatistics, psychometrics, behavioral and social science, software engineering, user interface design, information governance, data management, and patient and public involvement and engagement). Consequently, progress would be accelerated by the establishment of a new interdisciplinary community where all relevant and necessary skills are brought together to allow for excellence throughout the life cycle of a research study. This will require a partnership of diverse people, methods, and technologies. If done right, the synergy of such a partnership has the potential to transform many millions of people's lives for the better.

Charting a course for smartphones and wearables to transform population health research.

The use of data from smartphones and wearable devices has huge potential for population health research given high device ownership, the range of novel health-relevant data types available from consumer devices, and the frequency and duration over which data are, or could be, collected. Yet the uptake and success of large-scale mobile health research in the last decade has not matched the hyped opportunity. We make the argument that digital person-generated health data is required and necessary to answer many top priority research questions through illustrative examples taken from the James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership. We then summarise the findings from two UK initiatives that considered the challenges and possible solutions for what needs to be done, and in what way, to realise the future opportunities of digital person-generated health data for clinically important population health research. Examples of important areas to be addressed to advance the field include digital inequality and addressing possible selection bias, easy access for researchers to the appropriate data collection tools including how best to harmonise data items, analysis methodology for time series data, methods for patient and public involvement and engagement to optimise recruitment, retention and public trust, and providing greater control of their data to research participants. There is also a major opportunity through the linkage of digital persongenerated health data to routinely-collected data to support novel population health research, bringing together clinician-reported and patient-reported measures. We recognise that well conducted studies need a wide range of diverse challenges to be skilfully addressed in unison: for example, epidemiology, data science and biostatistics, psychometrics, behavioural and social science, software engineering, user interface design, information governance, data management and patient and public involvement and engagement. Consequently, progress would be accelerated by the establishment of a new interdisciplinary community where all relevant and necessary skills are brought together to allow excellence throughout the lifecycle of a research study. This will require a partnership of diverse people, of methods and of technology. Get this right and the synergy has the potential to transform many millions of people's lives for the better.

Values and value in patient and public involvement: moving beyond methods.

Patient and public involvement (PPI) in research has evolved over recent years, yet it often remains an 'optional extra' and, in some cases, tokenistic. Discussions are often focused on processes and methods, and are yet to make PPI the norm; we argue that the conversation needs to change to one of 'value': a culture of common values and principles across all types of research. Taking a reflexive, personalised approach, we reflect on how our team's experiences as patients, healthcare professionals and academics have changed over time and shaped what we value, our involvement in research and the way we involve people in research. We illustrate, through our work together, the productive tensions we experience, our efforts to resolve these through analytic conversations and our ethic of responsibility to each other. Moving forward, embracing reflexivity and supporting relationships can help PPI to become integral to research; a value as opposed to a method.

Widening or narrowing inequalities? The equity implications of digital tools to support COVID-19 contact tracing: A qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: As digital tools are increasingly used to support COVID-19 contact tracing, the equity implications must be considered. As part of a study to understand the public's views of digital contact tracing tools developed for the national 'Test and Protect' programme in Scotland, we aimed to explore the views of groups often excluded from such discussions. This paper reports on their views about the potential for contact tracing to exacerbate inequalities. METHODS: A qualitative study was carried out; interviews were conducted with key informants from organizations supporting people in marginalized situations, followed by interviews and focus groups with people recruited from these groups. Participants included, or represented, minority ethnic groups, asylum seekers and refugees and those experiencing multiple disadvantage including severe and enduring poverty. RESULTS: A total of 42 people participated: 13 key informants and 29 members of the public. While public participants were supportive of contact tracing, key informants raised concerns. Both sets of participants spoke about how contact tracing, and its associated digital tools, might increase inequalities. Barriers included finances (inability to afford smartphones or the data to ensure access to the internet); language (digital tools were available only in English and required a degree of literacy, even for English speakers); and trust (many marginalized groups distrusted statutory organizations and there were concerns that data may be passed to other organizations). One strength was that NHS Scotland, the data guardian, is seen as a generally trustworthy organization. Poverty was recognized as a barrier to people's ability to self-isolate. Some participants were concerned about giving contact details of individuals who might struggle to self-isolate for financial reasons. CONCLUSIONS: The impact of contact tracing and associated digital tools on marginalized populations needs careful monitoring. This should include the contact tracing process and the ability of people to self-isolate. Regular clear messaging from trusted groups and community members could help maintain trust and participation in the programme. PATIENT AND PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Our patient and public involvement coapplicant, L. L., was involved in all aspects of the study including coauthorship. Interim results were presented to our local Public and Patient Involvement and Engagement Group, who commented on interpretation and made suggestions about further recruitment.

Use of a modified Delphi process to develop research priorities in major trauma.

PURPOSE: The burden of major trauma within the UK is ever increasing. There is a need to establish research priorities within the field. Delphi methodology can be used to develop consensus opinion amongst a group of stakeholders. This can be used to prioritise clinically relevant, patient-centred research questions to guide future funding allocations. The aim of our study was to identify key future research priorities pertaining to the management of major trauma in the UK. METHODS: A three-phased modified Delphi process was undertaken. Phase 1 involved the submission of research questions by members of the trauma community using an online survey (Phase 1). Phases 2 and 3 involved two consecutive rounds of prioritisation after questions were subdivided into 6 subcategories: Brain Injury, Rehabilitation, Trauma in Older People, Pre-hospital, Interventional, and Miscellaneous (Phases 2 and 3). Cut-off points were agreed by consensus amongst the steering subcommittees. This established a final prioritised list of research questions. RESULTS: In phase 1, 201 questions were submitted by 65 stakeholders. After analysis and with consensus achieved, 186 questions were taken forward for prioritisation in phase 2 with 114 included in phase 3. 56 prioritised major trauma research questions across the 6 categories were identified with a clear focus on long-term patient outcomes. Research priorities across the patient pathway from roadside to rehabilitation were deemed of importance. CONCLUSIONS: Consensus within the major trauma community has identified 56 key research questions across 6 categories. Dissemination of these questions to funding bodies to allow for the development of high-quality research is now required. There is a clear indication for targeted multi-centre multi-disciplinary research in major trauma.

A Rapid Systematic Review of Public Responses to Health Messages Encouraging Vaccination against Infectious Diseases in a Pandemic or Epidemic.

Public health teams need to understand how the public responds to vaccination messages in a pandemic or epidemic to inform successful campaigns encouraging the uptake of new vaccines as they become available. A rapid systematic review was performed by searching PsycINFO, MEDLINE, healthevidence.org, OSF Preprints and PsyArXiv Preprints in May 2020 for studies including at least one health message promoting vaccine uptake of airborne-, droplet- and fomite-spread viruses. Included studies were assessed for quality using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) or the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR), and for patient and public involvement (PPI) in the research. Thirty-five articles were included. Most reported messages for seasonal influenza (n = 11; 31%) or H1N1 (n = 11; 31%). Evidence from moderate to high quality studies for improving vaccine uptake included providing information about virus risks and vaccination safety, as well as addressing vaccine misunderstandings, offering vaccination reminders, including vaccination clinic details, and delivering mixed media campaigns across hospitals or communities. Behavioural influences (beliefs and intentions) were improved when: shorter, risk-reducing or relative risk framing messages were used; the benefits of vaccination to society were emphasised; and beliefs about capability and concerns among target populations (e.g., vaccine safety) were addressed. Clear, credible, messages in a language target groups can understand were associated with higher acceptability. Two studies (6%) described PPI in the research process. Future campaigns should consider the beliefs and information needs of target populations in their design, including ensuring that vaccine eligibility and availability is clear, and messages are accessible. More high quality research is needed to demonstrate the effects of messaging interventions on actual vaccine uptake.

Patient Views Around Their Hernia Surgery: A Worldwide Online Survey Promoted Through Social Media.

Introduction: Hernias are one of the most common surgical diagnoses, and general surgical operations are performed. The involvement of patients in the decision making can be limited. The aim of this study was to explore the perspectives of patients around their hernia and its management, to aid future planning of hernia services to maximise patient experience, and good outcomes for the patient. Methods: A SurveyMonkey questionnaire was developed by patient advocates with some advice from surgeons. It was promoted on Twitter and Facebook, such as all found "hernia help" groups on these platforms over a 6-week period during the summer of 2020. Demographics, the reasons for seeking a hernia repair, decision making around the choice of surgeon, hospital, mesh type, pre-habilitation, complications, and participation in a hernia registry were collected. Results: In total, 397 questionnaires were completed in the study period. The majority of cases were from English speaking countries. There was a strong request for hernia specialists to perform the surgery, to have detailed knowledge about all aspects of hernia disease and its management, such as no operation and non-mesh options. Chronic pain was the most feared complication. The desire for knowledge about the effect of the hernia and surgery on the sexual function in all age groups was a notable finding. Pre-habilitation and a hernia registry participation were well-supported. Conclusions: Hernia repair is a quality of life surgery. Whether awaiting surgery or having had surgery with a good or bad outcome, patients want information about their condition and treatment, such as the effect on aspects of life, such as sex, and they wish greater involvement in their management decisions. Patients want their surgery by surgeons who can also manage complications of such surgery or recommend further treatment. A large group of "hernia surgery injured" patients feel abandoned by their general surgeon when complications ensue.