Impact of COVID-19 on people with non-functioning spleens in Australia.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 has had enormous impact on health and social systems, with stringent public health measures enacted across Australia. The virus itself disproportionately affects immunocompromised individuals including people without functioning spleens. We thus sought to characterise the psychological and physical impact of COVID-19 and such measures upon this oft-neglected patient group. METHODS: Adults ≥ 18 years old identified from the Spleen Australia (SA) database were invited to participate in an online survey in November to December 2021 to assess the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. Stata (v17, StataCorps, Texas, USA) was used to conduct descriptive and frequency analyses. RESULTS: 2864 respondents were surveyed. The majority were female (1473/2838, 51.9%), Australian-born (2257/2835, 79.6%), and living in Victoria (1755/2822, 62.2%). The largest age group was 61-70 years-old (841/2858, 29.4%). Trauma was the commonest reason for asplenia (826/2724, 30.3%). Respondents reported the pandemic reduced their ability to visit a GP (753/2864, 26.3%), access food (153/2864, 5.3%), medications (179/2864, 6.3%) or spleen-specific vaccines (120/2864, 4.2%), maintain relationships (503/2864, 17.6%), or care for children (127/2864, 4.4%). 84.8% of participants reported at least one impact of COVID, including negative physical health (1463/2864, 51.1%), mental health (733/2864, 25.6%) and financial repercussions (509/2864, 17.8%). 96.9% (2743/2831) had received at least one dose of COVID-19 vaccines. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, we found detailed evidence of the negative psychological and physical impacts of the pandemic upon this cohort. We recommend that providers consider people without functioning spleens as requiring extra social and psychological support in circumstances such as the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on People with HIV in Victoria, Australia: 1 Year Later.

In the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, Australia had <30,000 COVID-19 cases. Formerly stringent public health measures are now relaxed and vaccinations are available. We compared pandemic impacts on Victorians with HIV (people with HIV [PWHIV]) over time. Two surveys were developed with HIV stakeholder groups appraising demographics, concern, and pandemic impacts. The latter included vaccination, mental health, and quality of life questions. Recruitment was through social media and Alfred and Monash Health HIV-clinics (first survey August 26 to November 26, 2020; second survey October 30, 2021 to January 31, 2022). The surveys had 153 and 95 respondents, respectively. Demographics were similar. Most reported negatively impacted mental health (68%). Most (56%) required mental health services, of these, 39% could not access them. Rates of concern increased. Ninety percent had two COVID-19 vaccinations. Both surveys demonstrated HIV and non-HIV-care provision. PWHIV reported concern and negative impacts. Improved mental health services access is needed to optimize PWHIV quality of life.

The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on People Living with HIV in Victoria, Australia.

As of January 12, 2021, Australia has reported 28,634 COVID-19 cases. Most (20,411) cases are from the state of Victoria. In response to rising infections and community transmission in July 2020, on August 2nd, several restrictions were imposed for the following 111 days, including an 8pm curfew, a travel restriction to 5 km from home, and closure of nonessential services. It is unknown how this affected people living with HIV (PLHIV), who already experience disproportionate levels of mental health issues, comorbidity, and stigma. An online survey was designed with HIV community-based organizations to investigate the impact of the pandemic on Victorian PLHIV. Participants were recruited voluntarily both through social media and Infectious Diseases clinics at participating hospitals. There were 153 respondents. Most were male (77%), aged between 30 and 60 years (77%), and Australian-born (63%). Forty-three percent, 31%, and 25% reported negative impacts upon personal relationships, employment, and income, respectively. HIV care continued with 95% and 98% being able to access their HIV provider and antiretroviral therapy (ART), respectively. Telehealth was used by 92% and was largely well received. PLHIV reported worry about physical health (68%), mental health (66%), finances (50%),z and accommodation (25%). Fifty percent of participants reported weight gain and 27% increased alcohol intake. This study demonstrated the widespread negative effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on PLHIV in Victoria, although provision of HIV care and ART continued uninterrupted. This highlighted the importance of mental health support and social welfare programs during times of health care and societal strain.

Effect of face-to-face verbal feedback compared with no or alternative feedback on the objective workplace task performance of health professionals: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Verbal face-to-face feedback on clinical task performance is a fundamental component of health professions education. Experts argue that feedback is critical for performance improvement, but the evidence is limited. The aim of this systematic review was to investigate the effect of face-to-face verbal feedback from a health professional, compared with alternative or no feedback, on the objective workplace task performance of another health professional. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS: We searched the full holdings of Ovid MEDLINE, CENTRAL, Embase, CINAHL and PsycINFO up to 1 February 2019 and searched references of included studies. Two authors independently undertook study selection, data extraction and quality appraisal. Studies were included if they were randomised controlled trials investigating the effect of feedback, in which health professionals were randomised to individual verbal face-to-face feedback compared with no feedback or alternative feedback and available as full-text publications in English. The certainty of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations approach. For feedback compared with no feedback, outcome data from included studies were pooled using a random effects model. RESULTS: In total, 26 trials met the inclusion criteria, involving 2307 participants. For the effect of verbal face-to-face feedback on performance compared with no feedback, when studies at high risk of bias were excluded, eight studies involving 392 health professionals were included in a meta-analysis: the standardised mean difference (SMD) was 0.7 (95% CI 0.37 to 1.03; p<0.001) in favour of feedback. The calculated SMD prediction interval was -0.06 to 1.46. For feedback compared with alternative feedback, studies could not be pooled due to substantial design and intervention heterogeneity. All included studies were summarised, and key factors likely to influence performance were identified including components within feedback interventions, instruction and practice opportunities. CONCLUSIONS: Verbal face-to-face feedback in the health professions may result in a moderate to large improvement in workplace task performance, compared with no feedback. However, the quality of evidence was low, primarily due to risk of bias and publication bias. Further research is needed. In particular, we found a lack of high-quality trials that clearly reported key components likely to influence performance. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42017081796.