Prevalence of orthostatic intolerance in long covid clinic patients and healthy volunteers: A multicenter study.

Orthostatic intolerance (OI), including postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (PoTS) and orthostatic hypotension (OH), are often reported in long covid, but published studies are small with inconsistent results. We sought to estimate the prevalence of objective OI in patients attending long covid clinics and healthy volunteers and associations with OI symptoms and comorbidities. Participants with a diagnosis of long covid were recruited from eight UK long covid clinics, and healthy volunteers from general population. All undertook standardized National Aeronautics and Space Administration Lean Test (NLT). Participants' history of typical OI symptoms (e.g., dizziness, palpitations) before and during the NLT were recorded. Two hundred seventy-seven long covid patients and 50 frequency-matched healthy volunteers were tested. Healthy volunteers had no history of OI symptoms or symptoms during NLT or PoTS, 10% had asymptomatic OH. One hundred thirty (47%) long covid patients had previous history of OI symptoms and 144 (52%) developed symptoms during the NLT. Forty-one (15%) had an abnormal NLT, 20 (7%) met criteria for PoTS, and 21 (8%) had OH. Of patients with an abnormal NLT, 45% had no prior symptoms of OI. Relaxing the diagnostic thresholds for PoTS from two consecutive abnormal readings to one abnormal reading during the NLT, resulted in 11% of long covid participants (an additional 4%) meeting criteria for PoTS, but not in healthy volunteers. More than half of long covid patients experienced OI symptoms during NLT and more than one in 10 patients met the criteria for either PoTS or OH, half of whom did not report previous typical OI symptoms. We therefore recommend all patients attending long covid clinics are offered an NLT and appropriate management commenced.

Mandating indoor air quality for public buildings.

If some countries lead by example, standards may increasingly become normalized.

Theorising Support for Interdisciplinary Early-Career Researchers Using Communicative Genre and 'Rules of the Game'.

Qualitative social scientists working in medical faculties have to meet multiple expectations. On the one hand, they are expected to comply with the philosophical and theoretical expectations of the social sciences. On the other hand, they may also be expected to produce publications which align with biomedical definitions and framings of quality. As interdisciplinary scholars, they must handle (at least) two sets of journal editors, peer reviewers, grant-awarding panels, and conference audiences. In this paper, we extend the current knowledge base on the 'dual expectations' challenge by drawing on Orlikowski and Yates' theoretical concept of communicative genres. A 'genre' in this context is a format of communication (e.g. letter, email, academic paper, and conference presentation) aimed at a particular audience, having a particular material form and socio-linguistic style, and governed by both formal requirements and unwritten social rules. Becoming a member of any community of practice involves becoming familiar with its accepted communicative genres and adept in using them. Academic writing, for example, is a craft that is learned through participation in the social process of communicating one's ideas to one's peers in journal articles and other formats. In this reflective paper, we show how the concept of a communicative genre can sensitise us to the conflicting and often dissonant expectations and rule systems governing different academic fields. We use this key concept to suggest ways in which the faculty can support early-career researchers to progress in careers which straddle qualitative social science and medical science.

What does social prescribing look like in practice? A qualitative case study informed by practice theory.

Social prescribing (SP) typically involves linking patients in primary care with a range of local, community-based, non-clinical services. While there is a growing body of literature investigating the effectiveness of SP in improving healthcare outcomes, questions remain about how such outcomes are achieved within the everyday complexity of community health systems. This qualitative case study, informed by practice theory, aimed to investigate how SP practices relevant to people at high risk of type 2 diabetes (T2D) were enacted in a primary care and community setting serving a multi-ethnic, socioeconomically deprived population. We collected different types of qualitative data, including 35 semi-structured interviews with primary care clinicians, link workers and SP organisations; 30 hours of ethnographic observations of community-based SP activities and meetings; and relevant documents. Data analysis drew on theories of social practice, including Feldman's (2000) notion of the organisational routine, which emphasises the creative and emergent nature of routines in practice. We identified different, overlapping ways of practising SP: from highly creative, reflective and adaptive ('I do what it takes'), to more constrained ('I do what I can') or compliant ('I do as I'm told') approaches. Different types of practices were in tension and showed varying degrees of potential to support patients at high risk of T2D. Opportunities to adapt, try, negotiate, and ultimately reinvent SP to suit patients' own needs facilitated successful SP adoption and implementation, but required specific individual, relational, organisational, and institutional resources and conditions. Feldman, M.S., 2000. Organizational Routines as a Source of Continuous Change. Organ. Sci. 11, 611-629.

Improved endotoxin removal using ecofriendly detergents for intensified plasmid capture.

Increasing plasmid demand for both production of viral and gene therapies as well as nucleic acid based vaccines has highlighted bottlenecks in production. One bottleneck is traditional bead-based chromatography as a capture step. To meet the needs of fast-growing markets, new production solutions are needed. These solutions must enable efficient capture of a diverse range of plasmid types and excellent clearance of bacterial host impurities, such as endotoxin. Enhanced endotoxin clearance during chromatographic purification has previously been demonstrated with detergents such as Triton™ X-100. However, degradation products of Triton™ X-100 are known to have a negative environmental impact, and more sustainable, environmentally benign alternatives have been identified. This work establishes an efficient, intensified plasmid capture using convective anion exchange (AEX) chromatography. The feasibility of the intensified capture approach was assessed with different membrane and a monolith AEX supports. Various detergents from different physico-chemical classes were evaluated with different AEX technologies. Purification efficiency evaluated endotoxin and host cell protein (HCP) clearance, plasmid yield, potential interference of the detergents with analytical in-process control assays, and overall process compatibility. This comprehensive screening approach provides valuable insights to intensified plasmid production.

The impact of remote care approaches on continuity in primary care: a mixed-studies systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The value of continuity in primary care has been demonstrated for multiple positive outcomes. However, little is known about how the expansion of remote and digital care models in primary care have impacted continuity. AIM: To explore the impact of the expansion of remote and digital care models on continuity in primary care. DESIGN AND SETTING: A systematic review of continuity in primary care. METHOD: A keyword search of Embase, MEDLINE, and CINAHL databases was used along with snowball sampling to identify relevant English-language qualitative and quantitative studies from any country between 2000 and 2022, which explored remote or digital approaches in primary care and continuity. Relevant data were extracted, analysed using GRADE-CERQual, and narratively synthesised. RESULTS: Fifteen studies were included in the review. The specific impact of remote approaches on continuity was rarely overtly addressed. Some patients expressed a preference for relational continuity depending on circumstance, problem, and context; others prioritised access. Clinicians valued continuity, with some viewing remote consultations more suitable where there was high episodic or relational continuity. With lower continuity, patients and clinicians considered remote consultations harder, higher risk, and poorer quality. Some evidence suggested that remote approaches and/or their implementation risked worsening inequalities and causing harm by reducing continuity where it was valuable. However, if deployed strategically and flexibly, remote approaches could improve continuity. CONCLUSION: While the value of continuity in primary care has previously been well demonstrated, the dearth of evidence around continuity in a remote and digital context is troubling. Further research is, therefore, needed to explore the links between the shift to remote care, continuity and equity, using real-world evaluation frameworks to ascertain when and for whom continuity adds most value, and how this can be enabled or maintained.

Unravelling the potential of social prescribing in individual-level type 2 diabetes prevention: a mixed-methods realist evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Social prescribing (SP) usually involves linking patients in primary care with services provided by the voluntary and community sector. Preliminary evidence suggests that SP may offer a means of connecting patients with community-based health promotion activities, potentially contributing to the prevention of long-term conditions, such as type 2 diabetes (T2D). METHODS: Using mixed-methods realist evaluation, we explored the possible contribution of SP to individual-level prevention of T2D in a multi-ethnic, socio-economically deprived population in London, UK. We made comparisons with an existing prevention programme (NHS Diabetes Prevention Programme (NDPP)) where relevant and possible. Anonymised primary care electronic health record data of 447,360 people 18+ with an active GP registration between December 2016 and February 2022 were analysed using quantitative methods. Qualitative data (interviews with 11 primary care clinicians, 11 social prescribers, 13 community organisations and 8 SP users at high risk of T2D; 36 hours of ethnographic observations of SP and NDPP sessions; and relevant documents) were analysed thematically. Data were integrated using visual means and realist methods. RESULTS: People at high risk of T2D were four times more likely to be referred into SP than the eligible general population (RR 4.31 (95% CI 4.17-4.46)), with adjustment for socio-demographic variables resulting in attenuation (RR 1.33 (95% CI 1.27-1.39)). More people at risk of T2D were referred to SP than to NDPP, which could be explained by the broad referral criteria for SP and highly supportive (proactive, welcoming) environments. Holistic and sustained SP allowed acknowledgement of patients' wider socio-economic constraints and provision of long-term personalised care. The fact that SP was embedded within the local community and primary care infrastructure facilitated the timely exchange of information and cross-referrals across providers, resulting in enhanced service responsiveness. CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests that SP may offer an opportunity for individual-level T2D prevention to shift away from standardised, targeted and short-term strategies to approaches that are increasingly personalised, inclusive and long-term. Primary care-based SP seems most ideally placed to deliver such approaches where practitioners, providers and commissioners work collectively to achieve holistic, accessible, sustained and integrated services.

Implementation and delivery of group consultations for young people with diabetes in socioeconomically deprived, ethnically diverse settings.

BACKGROUND: Young people with diabetes experience poor clinical and psychosocial outcomes, and consider the health service ill-equipped in meeting their needs. Improvements, including alternative consulting approaches, are required to improve care quality and patient engagement. We examined how group-based, outpatient diabetes consultations might be delivered to support young people (16-25 years old) in socio-economically deprived, ethnically diverse settings. METHODS: This multi-method, comparative study recruited a total of 135 young people with diabetes across two implementation and two comparison sites (2017-2019). Informed by a 'researcher-in-residence' approach and complexity theory, we used a combination of methods: (a) 31 qualitative interviews with young people and staff and ethnographic observation in group and individual clinics, (b) quantitative analysis of sociodemographic, clinical, service use, and patient enablement data, and (c) micro-costing analysis. RESULTS: Implementation sites delivered 29 group consultations in total. Overall mean attendance per session was low, but a core group of young people attended repeatedly. They reported feeling better understood and supported, gaining new learning from peers and clinicians, and being better prepared to normalise diabetes self-care. Yet, there were also instances where peer comparison proved difficult to manage. Group consultations challenged deeply embedded ways of thinking about care provision and required staff to work flexibly to achieve local tailoring, sustain continuity, and safely manage complex interdependencies with other care processes. Set-up and delivery were time-consuming and required in-depth clinical and relational knowledge of patients. Facilitation by an experienced youth worker was instrumental. There was indication that economic value could derive from preventing at least one unscheduled consultation annually. CONCLUSIONS: Group consulting can provide added value when tailored to meet local needs rather than following standardised approaches. This study illustrates the importance of adaptive capability and self-organisation when integrating new models of care, with young people as active partners in shaping service provision. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN reference 27989430.

What were the historical reasons for the resistance to recognizing airborne transmission during the COVID-19 pandemic?

The question of whether SARS-CoV-2 is mainly transmitted by droplets or aerosols has been highly controversial. We sought to explain this controversy through a historical analysis of transmission research in other diseases. For most of human history, the dominant paradigm was that many diseases were carried by the air, often over long distances and in a phantasmagorical way. This miasmatic paradigm was challenged in the mid to late 19th century with the rise of germ theory, and as diseases such as cholera, puerperal fever, and malaria were found to actually transmit in other ways. Motivated by his views on the importance of contact/droplet infection, and the resistance he encountered from the remaining influence of miasma theory, prominent public health official Charles Chapin in 1910 helped initiate a successful paradigm shift, deeming airborne transmission most unlikely. This new paradigm became dominant. However, the lack of understanding of aerosols led to systematic errors in the interpretation of research evidence on transmission pathways. For the next five decades, airborne transmission was considered of negligible or minor importance for all major respiratory diseases, until a demonstration of airborne transmission of tuberculosis (which had been mistakenly thought to be transmitted by droplets) in 1962. The contact/droplet paradigm remained dominant, and only a few diseases were widely accepted as airborne before COVID-19: those that were clearly transmitted to people not in the same room. The acceleration of interdisciplinary research inspired by the COVID-19 pandemic has shown that airborne transmission is a major mode of transmission for this disease, and is likely to be significant for many respiratory infectious diseases.

What does the literature mean by social prescribing? A critical review using discourse analysis.

Social prescribing (SP) seeks to enhance the role of the voluntary and community sector in addressing patients' complex needs in primary care. Using discourse analysis, this review investigates how SP is framed in the scientific literature and explores its consequences for service delivery. Theory driven searches identified 89 academic articles and grey literature that included both qualitative and quantitative evidence. Across the literature three main discourses were identified. The first one emphasised increasing social inequalities behind escalating health problems and presented SP as a response to the social determinants of health. The second one problematised people's increasing use of health services and depicted SP as a means of enhancing self-care. The third one stressed the dearth of human and relational dimensions in general practice and claimed that SP could restore personalised care. Discourses circulated unevenly in the scientific literature, conditioned by a wider political rationality which emphasised individual responsibility and framed SP as 'solution' to complex and contentious problems. Critically, this contributed to an oversimplification of the realities of the problems being addressed and the delivery of SP. We propose an alternative 'care-based' framing of SP which prioritises (and evaluates) holistic, sustained and accessible practices within strengthened primary care systems.

GPs' use and understanding of the benefits and harms of treatments for long-term conditions: a qualitative interview study.

BACKGROUND: To support shared decision making and improve the management of polypharmacy, it is recommended that GPs take into account quantitative information on the benefits and harms of treatments (QIRx). Quantitative evidence shows GPs' knowledge of this is low. AIM: To explore GPs' attitudes to and understanding of QIRx for long-term conditions. DESIGN AND SETTING: Qualitative interview study in UK general practice. METHOD: Semi-structured interviews were carried out with 15 GPs. Audiorecordings were transcribed verbatim and a framework approach was used for analysis. RESULTS: Participants described knowing or using QIRx for only a few treatments. There was awareness of this knowledge deficit coupled with low confidence in statistical terminology. Some GPs perceived an absence of this information as an important barrier to optimal care, while others were content to follow guidelines. In the absence of this knowledge, other strategies were described to individualise treatment decisions. The idea of increasing the use of QIRx appealed to most participants, with imagined benefits for patients and themselves. However, potential barriers were described: a need for accessible information that can be understood and integrated into real-world practice, system factors, and communication challenges. CONCLUSION: GPs were aware of their knowledge deficit with regard to an understanding of QIRx. Most participants were positive about the idea of increasing their use of QIRx in practice but described important challenges, which need to be considered when designing solutions.

Clinical guidelines and the pursuit of reducing epistemic uncertainty. An ethnographic study of guideline development panels in three countries.

PURPOSE: To explore, from a philosophy of knowledge perspective, the contribution of the guideline development process to reducing epistemic uncertainty in clinical decision-making - defined as the challenge of applying evidence to patients, dealing with conflicting information and determining the level of confidence in a medical conclusion. METHODS: Longitudinal ethnographic study of national guideline development panels. Fieldnotes were collected from 19 panel meetings in UK, Netherlands and Norway (~120 h of observation) between September 2016 and February 2019. Draft guidelines, review protocols and background material were collated (~200 documents). Data were analyzed thematically to gain familiarity and then theorized using concepts of knowledge development and use and clinical decision-making. RESULTS: Guideline development panels in all three countries wrestled with epistemic tensions - notably between the desire to "purify" an assumed external truth (for example by limiting included evidence to high-quality randomized controlled trials) and a more pragmatic and pluralist approach that drew on a wider range of evidence including qualitative research, real-world data, clinical experience and patient testimony. Detailed analysis of the process by which particular guideline recommendations were constructed allowed us to draw out the implications of these tensions for guideline users in clinical practice. CONCLUSION: Guideline development panels apply multiple - often conflicting - understandings of knowledge, inference and truth in an attempt to reduce epistemic uncertainty. Guidelines makers, clinicians, scientists and students should engage critically and reflexively with the philosophical assumptions that underpin guideline development and inductive inference to build capability to deal with clinical complexity.

Extended use or reuse of single-use surgical masks and filtering face-piece respirators during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic: A rapid systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Shortages of personal protective equipment during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic have led to the extended use or reuse of single-use respirators and surgical masks by frontline healthcare workers. The evidence base underpinning such practices warrants examination. OBJECTIVES: To synthesize current guidance and systematic review evidence on extended use, reuse, or reprocessing of single-use surgical masks or filtering face-piece respirators. DATA SOURCES: We used the World Health Organization, the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and Public Health England websites to identify guidance. We used Medline, PubMed, Epistemonikos, Cochrane Database, and preprint servers for systematic reviews. METHODS: Two reviewers conducted screening and data extraction. The quality of included systematic reviews was appraised using AMSTAR-2. Findings were narratively synthesized. RESULTS: In total, 6 guidance documents were identified. Levels of detail and consistency across documents varied. They included 4 high-quality systematic reviews: 3 focused on reprocessing (decontamination) of N95 respirators and 1 focused on reprocessing of surgical masks. Vaporized hydrogen peroxide and ultraviolet germicidal irradiation were highlighted as the most promising reprocessing methods, but evidence on the relative efficacy and safety of different methods was limited. We found no well-established methods for reprocessing respirators at scale. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence on the impact of extended use and reuse of surgical masks and respirators is limited, and gaps and inconsistencies exist in current guidance. Where extended use or reuse is being practiced, healthcare organizations should ensure that policies and systems are in place to ensure these practices are carried out safely and in line with available guidance.

In the wake of the pandemic: preparing for long COVID

This brief’s key messages are:COVID-19 can cause persistent ill-health. Around a quarter of people who have had the virus experience symptoms that continue for at least a month but one in 10 are still unwell after 12 weeks. This has been described by patient groups as “Long COVID”. Our understanding of how to diagnose and manage Long COVID is still evolving but the condition can be very debilitating. It is associated with a range of overlapping symptoms including generalized chest and muscle pain, fatigue, shortness of breath, and cognitive dysfunction, and the mechanisms involved affect multiple system and include persisting inflammation, thrombosis, and autoimmunity. It can affect anyone, but women and health care workers seem to be at greater risk. Long COVID has a serious impact on people’s ability to go back to work or have a social life. It affects their mental health and may have significant economic consequences for them, their families and for society. Policy responses need to take account of the complexity of Long COVID and how what is known about it is evolving rapidly. Areas to address include: The need for multidisciplinary, multispecialty approaches to assessment and management;Development, in association with patients and their families, of new care pathways and contextually appropriate guidelines for health professionals, especially in primary care to enable case management to be tailored to the manifestations of disease and involvement of different organ systems; The creation of appropriate services, including rehabilitation and online support tools; Action to tackle the wider consequences of Long COVID, including attention to employment rights, sick pay policies, and access to benefit and disability benefit packages; Involving patients both to foster self-care and self-help and in shaping awareness of Long COVID and the service (and research) needs it generates; and implementing well-functioning patient registers and other surveillance systems; creating cohorts of patients; and following up those affected as a means to support the research which is so critical to understanding and treating Long COVID.

The impact of public involvement in health research: what are we measuring? Why are we measuring it? Should we stop measuring it?

As public involvement in the design, conduct and dissemination of health research has become an expected norm and firmly enshrined in policy, interest in measuring its impact has also grown. Despite a drive to assess the impact of public involvement, and a growing body of studies attempting to do just this, a number of questions have been largely ignored. This commentary addresses these omissions: What is the impact of all this focus on measuring impact? How is the language of impact shaping the debate about, and the practice of, public involvement in health research? And how have shifting conceptualisations of public involvement in health research shaped, and been shaped by, the way we think about and measure impact? We argue that the focus on impact risks distorting how public involvement in health research is conceptualised and practised, blinding us to possible negative impacts. We call for a critical research agenda for public involvement that [a] considers public involvement not as an instrumental intervention but a social practice of dialogue and learning between researchers and the public; [b] explores how power relations play out in the context of public involvement in health research, what empowerment means and whose interests are served by it, and [c] asks questions about possible harms as well as benefits of public involvement, and whether the language of impact is helpful or not.