Is qualitative social research in global health fulfilling its potential?: a systematic evidence mapping of research on point-of-care testing in low- and middle-income contexts.

BACKGROUND: Qualitative social research has made valuable contributions to understanding technology-based interventions in global health. However, we have little evidence of who is carrying out this research, where, how, for what purpose, or the overall scope of this body of work. To address these questions, we undertook a systematic evidence mapping of one area of technology-focused research in global health, related to the development, deployment and use of point-of-care tests (POCTs) for low-and middle-income countries (LMICs). METHODS: We conducted an exhaustive search to identify papers reporting on primary qualitative studies that explore the development, deployment, and use of POCTs in LMICs and screened results to identify studies meeting the inclusion criteria. Data were extracted from included studies and descriptive analyses were conducted. RESULTS: One hundred thirty-eight studies met our inclusion criteria, with numbers increasing year by year. Funding of studies was primarily credited to high income country (HIC)-based institutions (95%) and 64% of first authors were affiliated with HIC-based institutions. Study sites, in contrast, were concentrated in a small number of LMICs. Relatively few studies examined social phenomena related to POCTs that take place in HICs. Seventy-one percent of papers reported on studies conducted within the context of a trial or intervention. Eighty percent reported on studies considering POCTs for HIV and/or malaria. Studies overwhelmingly reported on POCT use (91%) within primary-level health facilities (60%) or in hospitals (30%) and explored the perspectives of the health workforce (70%). CONCLUSIONS: A reflexive approach to the role, status, and contribution of qualitative and social science research is crucial to identifying the contributions it can make to the production of global health knowledge and understanding the roles technology can play in achieving global health goals. The body of qualitative social research on POCTs for LMICs is highly concentrated in scope, overwhelmingly focuses on testing in the context of a narrow number of donor-supported initiatives and is driven by HIC resources and expertise. To optimise the full potential of qualitative social research requires the promotion of open and just research ecosystems that broaden the scope of inquiry beyond established public health paradigms and build social science capacity in LMICs.

What are the characteristics of participatory surveillance systems for influenza-like-illness?

Background: Seasonal influenza causes significant morbidity and mortality, with an estimated 9.4 million hospitalisations and 290 000-650 000 respiratory related-deaths globally each year. Influenza can also cause mild illness, which is why not all symptomatic persons might necessarily be tested for influenza. To monitor influenza activity, healthcare facility-based syndromic surveillance for influenza-like illness is often implemented. Participatory surveillance systems for influenza-like illness (ILI) play an important role in influenza surveillance and can complement traditional facility-based surveillance systems to provide real-time estimates of influenza-like illness activity. However, such systems differ in designs between countries and contexts, making it necessary to identify their characteristics to better understand how they fit traditional surveillance systems. Consequently, we aimed to investigate the performance of participatory surveillance systems for ILI worldwide. Methods: We systematically searched four databases for relevant articles on influenza participatory surveillance systems for ILI. We extracted data from the included, eligible studies and assessed their quality using the Joanna Briggs Critical Appraisal Tools. We then synthesised the findings using narrative synthesis. Results: We included 39 out of 3797 retrieved articles for analysis. We identified 26 participatory surveillance systems, most of which sought to capture the burden and trends of influenza-like illness and acute respiratory infections among cohorts with risk factors for influenza-like illness. Of all the surveillance system attributes assessed, 52% reported on correlation with other surveillance systems, 27% on representativeness, and 21% on acceptability. Among studies that reported these attributes, all systems were rated highly in terms of simplicity, flexibility, sensitivity, utility, and timeliness. Most systems (87.5%) were also well accepted by users, though participation rates varied widely. However, despite their potential for greater reach and accessibility, most systems (90%) fared poorly in terms of representativeness of the population. Stability was a concern for some systems (60%), as was completeness (50%). Conclusions: The analysis of participatory surveillance system attributes showed their potential in providing timely and reliable influenza data, especially in combination with traditional hospital- and laboratory led-surveillance systems. Further research is needed to design future systems with greater uptake and utility.

Impact of COVID-19 mitigations on anxiety and depression amongst university students: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background: While much research has addressed mental health concerns related to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, there remains a scarcity of studies specifically exploring the changes in anxiety and depression among university students before and after the implementation of COVID-19 mitigation measures. Methods: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched databases including MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE (Ovid), PsycINFO (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCO), ERIC (EBSCO), the WHO COVID-19 database, Scopus, and Science Citation Index (Web of Science) as of 15 February 2023. We included studies that used a validated tool to measure changes in anxiety or depression at two distinct time points - before (T1) and during (T2); during (T2) and after (T3); or before (T1) and after (T3) COVID-19 mitigation. The quality of studies was assessed using an adapted Joanna Briggs Institute Checklist for longitudinal studies. Utilising random-effects models, we synthesised changes in continuous outcomes as standardised mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence interval (CI) and binary outcomes as risk difference (RD) with 95% CI. Results: In total, 15 studies were included in this review, with eight of moderate and seven of high quality. In most of the included studies (n = 13), the majority of participants were women. Eleven studies analysed mental health outcomes between T1 and T2 of COVID-19 mitigations. Continuous symptom changes were a minimal or small improvement for anxiety (SMD = -0.03, 95% CI = -0.24 to 0.19, I2 = 90%); but worsened for depression (SMD = 0.26, 95% CI = -0.01 to 0.62). However, the proportions of students reporting moderate-to-severe symptoms, defined by specific cut-offs, increased during COVID-19 mitigation measures for both anxiety (RD = 0.17, 95% CI = -0.04 to 0.38, I2 = 95%) and depression (RD = 0.12, 95% CI = 0.03 to 0.22, I2 = 72%). Sensitivity analyses, which distinguished between baseline periods based on awareness of COVID-19, demonstrated an exacerbation of both symptoms when comparing the period before the global awareness of the COVID-19 outbreak (before December 2019) with the period during the implementation of mitigation measures. Conclusions: Mental health outcomes, especially depressive symptoms, were observed to worsen in university students during COVID-19 mitigations. Despite considerable heterogeneity requiring careful interpretation of results, the impact of COVID-19 mitigations on mental health in university students is evident. Registration: PROSPERO (CRD42021266889).

Evaluating primary care transformation: synthesis of findings from UK pilot project reviews.

BACKGROUND: Pilot 'new models' of primary care have been funded across the UK since 2015, through various national transformation funds. Reflections and syntheses of evaluation findings provide an additional layer of insight into 'what works' in transforming primary care. AIM: To identify good practice in policy design, implementation, and evaluation for primary care transformation. DESIGN & SETTING: A thematic analysis of existing pilot evaluations in England, Wales, and Scotland. METHOD: Ten studies presenting evaluations of three national pilot studies - the Vanguard programme in England, the Pacesetter programme in Wales, and the National Evaluation of New Models of Primary Care in Scotland - were thematically analysed, and findings synthesised in order to identify lessons learnt and good practice. RESULTS: Common themes emerged across studies in all three countries at project and policy level, which can support or inhibit new models of care. At project level, these included the following: working with all stakeholders, including communities and front-line staff; providing the time, space, and support necessary for the project to succeed; agreeing on clear objectives from the outset; and support for data collection, evaluation, and shared learning. At policy level, more fundamental challenges related to the parameters for pilot projects, in particular, the typically short-term nature of funding, with an expectation of results within 2-3 years. Changing expectations about outcome measures or project guidance part-way through project implementation was also identified as a key challenge. CONCLUSION: Primary care transformation requires coproduction and a rich, contextual understanding of local needs and complexities. However, a mismatch between policy objectives (care redesign to better meet patient needs) and policy parameters (short timeframes) is often a significant challenge to success.

To what extent is alcohol consumption in social gatherings associated with observance of COVID-19 restrictions? A rapid review.

Background: Pre-pandemic research found a connection between alcohol consumption and reduced physical distancing among strangers. Understanding the association between alcohol consumption at social gatherings and observance of COVID-19 restrictions can help inform policy related to the safe operation of public spaces where alcohol is typically consumed, as well as guidance related to the safe conduct of social events in private spaces. Methods: We conducted a rapid review using adapted systematic review methods to explore the association between alcohol consumption in social gatherings and compliance with COVID-19 public health measures and produced a narrative synthesis of our findings. We ran searches in eleven health-related databases (MEDLINE, PubMed, CINAHL, Scopus, Embase (Ovid), ProQuest Public Health, ProQuest Coronavirus, Global Health (Ovid), WHO COVID-19 literature database, PsycInfo (Ovid) and ASSIA) between July 9, 2021, and July 31, 2021. We assessed methodological quality using the relevant Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) checklists. This review was conducted and reported in accordance with PRISMA-P guidelines. Results: We identified 7936 studies from the searches. After title, abstract and full-text review, three cross-sectional studies were eligible for inclusion. One study found that people who adhered strongly to physical distancing rules were engaged in about 40% fewer weekly drinks and 60% fewer heavy episodic drinking occasions in a week than people who adhered poorly to physical distancing rules (P < 0.01). One study found that people who reported low-risk alcohol consumption patterns had a higher chance of adhering to hand hygiene measures than those who reported high-risk alcohol consumption (odds ratio (OR) = 4.24, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.08-16.64). No other statistically significant results on patterns of alcohol consumption and compliance with individual public health measures or with non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) were found. The direction of effect between alcohol consumption and non-adherence to NPIs and the effect of confounding factors has not been established. The quality of studies found was low to moderate, with risk of recall bias and selection bias due to study design; and the extent to which those studies can be generalised beyond their original settings may be limited. Conclusions: Despite existing evidence suggesting an association between alcohol consumption, reduced physical distancing, and increased social interaction, we found few studies of variable quality exploring the relationship between alcohol consumption and compliance with public health measures. A possible association between higher-risk alcohol behaviours and lower compliance with certain NPIs was suggested, but the direction of effect is unknown, and further studies are required to confirm this finding.

Compact cities and the Covid-19 pandemic: Systematic review of the associations between transmission of Covid-19 or other respiratory viruses and population density or other features of neighbourhood design.

Living in compact neighbourhoods that are walkable, well connected, with accessible green space can benefit physical and mental health. However, the pandemic raises concern up to what extent features of compact neighbourhood design affect transmission of viral respiratory infections. We conducted a systematic review to identify, appraise and synthesise evidence reporting associations between transmission of respiratory viruses, including Covid-19, and dwelling or population density or other features of neighbourhood design. Twenty-one studies met our inclusion criteria. These studies used different measures of neighbourhood design, contributing to inconsistent findings. Whereas no convincing conclusion can be drawn here, the outcome of this review indicates that robust, global evidence is warranted to inform future policies and legislation concerned with compact neighbourhood design and transmission of respiratory and viral infection.

Clinical features of COVID-19 for integration of COVID-19 into influenza surveillance: A systematic review.

Background: In November 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) created interim guidance on how to integrate testing for SARS-CoV-2 into existing influenza surveillance systems. Influenza-like illness (ILI) and severe acute respiratory illness (SARI) case definitions have been used to specify the case definition of COVID-19 for surveillance purposes. This review aims to assess whether the common clinical features of COVID-19 have changed to the point that the criteria used to identify both COVID-19 and influenza in surveillance programs needs to be altered. Methods: A systematic review of reviews following PRISMA-P guidelines was conducted using the "COVID-19 evidence review" database from August 19, 2020, to August 19, 2021. Reviews providing pooled estimates of the prevalence of clinical features of COVID-19 within the general population, diagnosed by polymerase chain reaction or rapid diagnostic test, were included. These were critically appraised and sensitivity analysis was undertaken to examine potential causes of bias. Results: Fourteen reviews were identified, including three on adults only and three on children only. For all reviews, combined fever (median prevalence = 73.0%, IQR = 58.3-78.7) and cough (45.1%, IQR = 28.9-54.0) were the most common features. These were followed by loss of taste or smell (45.1%, IQR = 28.9-54.0), hypoxemia (33%, one review), fatigue (26.4%, IQR = 9.0-39.4) and expectoration (23.9%, IQR = 23.3-25.5). Fever and cough continued to be the most prevalent features for adults and children, with subsequent symptoms being similar for adults only. However, the pattern differed for children, with headache (34.3%, IQR = 18-50.7) and nasal congestion (20%, one review) being the third and fourth commonest symptoms. Conclusions: The prevalent features found in this recent review were the same as the ones identified at the beginning of the pandemic. Therefore, the current approach of using the ILI and SARI criteria which incorporate fever and cough will identify COVID-19 cases in addition to influenza. Interestingly, children may present with different features, as headaches and nasal congestion were more common in this group. Future research could examine this further and investigate whether symptomology changes with new variants of COVID-19.

Risk factors for poor outcomes in hospitalised COVID-19 patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Understanding the risk factors for poor outcomes among COVID-19 patients could help identify vulnerable populations who would need prioritisation in prevention and treatment for COVID-19. We aimed to critically appraise and synthesise published evidence on the risk factors for poor outcomes in hospitalised COVID-19 patients. METHODS: We searched PubMed, medRxiv and the WHO COVID-19 literature database for studies that reported characteristics of COVID-19 patients who required hospitalisation. We included studies published between January and May 2020 that reported adjusted effect size of any demographic and/or clinical factors for any of the three poor outcomes: mortality, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, and invasive mechanical ventilation. We appraised the quality of the included studies using Joanna Briggs Institute appraisal tools and quantitatively synthesised the evidence through a series of random-effect meta-analyses. To aid data interpretation, we further developed an interpretation framework that indicated strength of the evidence, informed by both quantity and quality of the evidence. RESULTS: We included a total of 40 studies in our review. Most of the included studies (29/40, 73%) were assessed as "good quality", with assessment scores of 80 or more. We found that male sex (pooled odds ratio (OR) = 1.32 (95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.18-1.48; 20 studies), older age (OR = 1.05, 95% CI = 1.04-1.07, per one year of age increase; 10 studies), obesity (OR = 1.59, 95% CI = 1.02-2.48; 4 studies), diabetes (OR = 1.25, 95% CI = 1.11-1.40; 11 studies) and chronic kidney diseases (6 studies; OR = 1.57, 95% CI = 1.27-1.93) were associated with increased risks for mortality with the greatest strength of evidence based on our interpretation framework. We did not find increased risk of mortality for several factors including chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases (5 studies), cancer (4 studies), or current smoker (5 studies); however, this does not indicate absence of risk due to limited data on each of these factors. CONCLUSION: Male sex, older age, obesity, diabetes and chronic kidney diseases are important risk factors of COVID-19 poor outcomes. Our review provides not only an appraisal and synthesis of evidence on the risk factors of COVID-19 poor outcomes, but also a data interpretation framework that could be adopted by relevant future research.