Search

Abstract Background Around one in ten people who contract Covid-19 report ongoing symptoms or ‘Long Covid’. Without any known interventions to cure the condition, forms of self-management are routinely prescribed by healthcare professionals and described by people with the condition. However, there is limited research exploring what strategies are used to navigate everyday life with Long Covid, and experiences that initiate development of these strategies. Our study aimed to explore the range and influence of self-generated strategies used by people with Long Covid to navigate everyday life within the context of their own condition. Methods Forming part of the Long Covid Personalised Self-managemenT support co-design and EvaluatioN (LISTEN) project, we conducted a qualitative study using narrative interviews with adults who were not hospitalised with Covid-19. Participants aged over 18 years, who self-identified with Long Covid, were recruited from England and Wales. Data were analysed with patient contributors using a reflexive thematic analysis. Results Eighteen participants (mean age = 44 years, SD = 13 years) took part in interviews held between December 2021 and February 2022. Themes were constructed which depicted 1) the landscape behind the Long Covid experience and 2) the everyday experience of participants’ Long Covid. The everyday experience comprised a combination of physical, emotional, and social factors, forming three sub-themes: centrality of physical symptoms, navigating ‘experts’ and the ‘true colour’ of personal communities, and a rollercoaster of psychological ambiguity). The third theme, personal strategies to manage everyday life was constructed from participants’ unique presentations and self-generated solutions to manage everyday life. This comprised five sub-themes: seeking reassurance and knowledge, developing greater self-awareness through monitoring, trial and error of ‘safe’ ideas, building in pleasure and comfort, and prioritising ‘me’. Conclusions Among this sample of adults with Long Covid, their experiences highlighted the unpredictable nature of the condition but also the use of creative and wide ranging self-generated strategies. The results offer people with Long Covid, and healthcare professionals supporting them, an overview of the collective evidence relating to individuals' self-management which can enable ways to live ‘better’ and regain some sense of identity whilst facing the impact of a debilitating, episodic condition. Trial registration LISTEN ISRCTN36407216.

Abstract Background Individuals living with long COVID experience multiple, interacting and fluctuating symptoms which can have a dramatic impact on daily living. The aim of the Long Covid Personalised Self-managemenT support EvaluatioN (LISTEN) trial is to evaluate effects of the LISTEN co-designed self-management support intervention for non-hospitalised people living with long COVID on participation in routine activities, social participation, emotional well-being, quality of life, fatigue, and self-efficacy. Cost-effectiveness will also be evaluated, and a detailed process evaluation carried out to understand how LISTEN is implemented. Methods The study is a pragmatic randomised effectiveness and cost-effectiveness trial in which a total of 558 non-hospitalised people with long COVID will be randomised to either the LISTEN intervention or usual care. Recruitment strategies have been developed with input from the LISTEN Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement (PPIE) advisory group and a social enterprise, Diversity and Ability, to ensure inclusivity. Eligible participants can self-refer into the trial via a website or be referred by long COVID services. All participants complete a range of self-reported outcome measures, online, at baseline, 6 weeks, and 3 months post randomisation (the trial primary end point). Those randomised to the LISTEN intervention are offered up to six one-to-one sessions with LISTEN-trained intervention practitioners and given a co-designed digital resource and paper-based book. A detailed process evaluation will be conducted alongside the trial to inform implementation approaches should the LISTEN intervention be found effective and cost-effective. Discussion The LISTEN trial is evaluating a co-designed, personalised self-management support intervention (the LISTEN intervention) for non-hospitalised people living with long COVID. The design has incorporated extensive strategies to minimise participant burden and maximise access. Whilst the duration of follow-up is limited, all participants are approached to consent for long-term follow-up (subject to additional funding being secured). Trial registration LISTEN ISRCTN36407216. Registered on 27/01/2022.

Cerebral small vessel disease (SVD) is a major cause of cognitive impairment in older people. As secondary endpoints in a phase-2 randomised clinical trial, we tested the effects of single administration of a widely-used PDE5 inhibitor, tadalafil, on cognitive performance in older people with SVD. In a double-blinded, placebo-controlled, cross-over trial, participants received tadalafil (20 mg) and placebo on two visits ≥ 7 days apart (randomised to order of treatment). The Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MOCA) was administered at baseline, alongside a measure to estimate optimal intellectual ability (Test of Premorbid Function). Then, before and after treatment, a battery of neuropsychological tests was administered, assessing aspects of attention, information processing speed, working memory and executive function. Sixty-five participants were recruited and 55 completed the protocol (N = 55, age: 66.8 (8.6) years, range 52–87; 15/40 female/male). Median MOCA score was 26 (IQR: 23, 27], range 15–30). No significant treatment effects were seen in any of the neuropsychological tests. There was a trend towards improved performance on Digit Span Forward (treatment effect 0.37, C.I. 0.01, 0.72; P = 0.0521). We did not identify significant treatment effects of single-administration tadalafil on neuropsychological performance in older people with SVD. The trend observed on Digit Span Forward may help to inform future studies. Clinical trial registration: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00123456, https://eudract.ema.europa.eu. Unique identifier: 2015–001,235–20NCT00123456.

AimsThe aim of this study was to assess the psychometric properties of the revised self-rated version of the Dysexecutive Questionnaire (DEX-R) within a non-clinical sample.MethodsThe study was hosted online, with 140 participants completing the DEX-R, GAD-2 and PHQ-2. Sixty participants also completed the FrSBe, with 99 additionally completing the DEX-R again 3 weeks later. Correlations with demographic factors and symptoms of anxiety and depression were conducted. Rasch and factor analysis were also used to explore underlying subconstructs.ResultsThe DEX-R correlated highly with the FrSBe, indicating sound concurrent validity. Internal consistency, split-half reliability and test-retest reliability were excellent. Age and symptoms of depression and anxiety correlated with DEX-R scores, with older age associated with less dysexecutive problems. The Rasch analysis confirmed the multidimensionality of the rating scale, and a three-factor structure was found relating to activation-self-regulatory, cognitive and social-emotional processes. Frequencies of responses on DEX-R items varied, many were not fully endorsed indicating specific relevance of most but not all items to patients.ConclusionInterpretations of DEX-R ratings of dysexecutive problems should consider mood and individual variation. Systematic comparison of DEX-R responses between healthy and clinical groups could help identify a suitable cut off for dysexecutive symptoms.

ObjectivesTo investigate the external and ecological validity of a standardized test of children’s executive functioning (EF), the Behavioral Assessment of the Dysexecutive Syndrome for Children (BADS-C).BackgroundThere are few standardized measures for assessing executive functions in children, and the evidence for the validity of most measures is currently limited.MethodA normative sample of 256 children and adolescents from age 8–16 years completed the BADS-C, and a parent or teacher completed rating scales of the child’s everyday problems related to EF (Children’s version of the Dysexecutive Questionnaire; DEX-C) and Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ), a commonly used measure of emotional, social, cognitive, and behavioral problems.ResultsExploratory factor analyses yielded a two-factor structure to the BADS-C, indicative of monitoring and abstract reasoning processes, and a three-factor structure to the DEX-C, reflecting behavioral, and cognitive components of the dysexecutive syndrome as well as emotional responsiveness. Regression analyses showed significant relationships between BADS-C scores and everyday functioning as reported on the DEX and SDQ. Furthermore, there were significant differences in BADS-C scores between those children in the upper and lower quartiles on the SDQ.ConclusionResults provide tentative evidence of BADS-C and DEX-C construct, convergent and predictive validity.

Abstract Surveys often estimate vaccination intentions using dichotomous ("Yes"/"No") or trichotomous ("Yes," "Unsure," "No") response options presented in different orders. Do survey results depend on these variations? This controlled experiment randomized participants to dichotomous or trichotomous measures of vaccine intentions (with “Yes” and “No” options presented in different orders). Intentions were measured separately for COVID-19, its booster, and influenza vaccines. Among a sample of U.S. adults (N = 4,764), estimates of vaccine intention varied as much as 37.5 ± 17.4 percentage points as a function of the dichotomous or trichotomous response set. Among participants who had not received the COVID-19 vaccine, the “Unsure” option was more likely to reduce the share of “No” (versus “Yes”) responses, whereas among participants who had received the COVID-19 vaccine, the “Unsure” option was more likely to reduce the share of “Yes” (versus “No”) responses. The “Unsure” category may increase doubt and decrease reliance on past vaccination behavior when forming intentions. The order of “Yes” and “No” responses had no significant effect. Future research is needed to further evaluate why the effects of including the “Unsure” option vary in direction and magnitude.

Objectives: In the United States, a federal emergency program has made SARS-CoV-2 self-test kits available at no cost. It is unclear how widely free tests are preferred. We conducted a survey to estimate the proportion of respondents who do not prefer a free test. We hypothesized that free tests would not be preferred universally, and that a preference for paying would be more common among those with conservative politics than with liberal politics, regardless of income. Design: Observational study design. Methods: A national sample of US adults completed an online survey. To reduce potential enrollment bias, the survey’s focus was not specified beforehand. To prioritize a high-risk group, participation was limited to those who were unvaccinated or were incompletely vaccinated in the primary series against COVID-19. Participants reported their testing preferences and socio-demographic characteristics, including political affiliation. The main outcome assessed if a participant preferred to pay for a self-test or receive a free one (subsidized by the US government). Results: Among 1215 participants, (73%, n = 886) preferred free self-testing, while 27% (n = 329) preferred to pay for the same testing. After adjusting for income, the odds of preferring to pay for self-testing were 66% higher in “strong” Republicans compared to “strong” Democrats (odds ratio = 1.66, 95% confidence interval = 1.07–2.62). Conclusions: More than a quarter of individuals preferred paying for these tests. This preference was more likely among those with right-wing politics. Policy implications are discussed, along with future research directions.

Abstract Background Little is known about the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of train-the-trainer implementation strategies in supporting mental health evidence-based practices in schools, and about the optimal level of support needed for TT strategies. Methods The current study is part of a larger type 2 hybrid cluster randomized controlled trial. It compares two train-the-trainer strategies, Train-the-Trainer (TT) and Train-the-Trainer plus ongoing consultation for trainers (TT +) on the delivery of a group cognitive behavioral treatment protocol for anxiety disorders. Participants were 33 therapists, 29 supervisors, and 125 students who were at risk for anxiety disorders from 22 urban schools. Implementation outcomes were implementation fidelity and treatment dosage. Student outcomes were child- and parent-reported symptoms of anxiety, child-reported symptoms of depression, and teacher-reported academic engagement. We estimated the cost of implementing the intervention in each condition and examined the probability that a support strategy for supervisors (TT vs TT +) is a good value for varying values of willingness to pay. Results Therapists in the TT and TT + conditions obtained similarly high implementation fidelity and students in the conditions received similar treatment dosages. A mixed effects modeling approach for student outcomes revealed time effects for symptoms of anxiety and depression reported by students, and emotional disaffection reported by teachers. There were no condition or condition × times effects. For both conditions, the time effects indicated an improvement from pre-treatment to post-treatment in symptoms of anxiety and depression and academic emotional engagement. The average cost of therapist, supervisor, and consultant time required to implement the intervention in each condition was $1002 for TT and $1431 for TT + (p = 0.01). There was a greater than 80% chance that TT was a good value compared to TT + for all values of willingness to pay per one-point improvement in anxiety scores. Conclusions A TT implementation approach consisting of a thorough initial training workshop for therapists and supervisors as well as ongoing supervision for therapists resulted in adequate levels of fidelity and student outcomes but at a lower cost, compared to the TT + condition that also included ongoing external expert consultation for supervisors. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02651402.

BackgroundWidespread access to testing is critical to public health efforts to control the COVID-19 pandemic. Secondary distribution of COVID-19 self-test kits, where an individual distributes test kits to others in their social networks, is a potential strategy to improve access to testing. In this qualitative study, we identified salient beliefs about distributing and accepting COVID-19 self-test kits within one’s social network, as well as ordering COVID-19 self-test kits from the government.MethodsWe recruited 61 participants from a randomized controlled trial (NCT04797858) in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania to elicit beliefs about (1) distributing COVID-19 self-test kits within one’s social network, (2) receiving test kits from social contacts, and (3) ordering self-test kits from the government. Using validated, open-ended question stems, we identified the most common set of beliefs underlying attitudes, perceived norms (or social referents), and perceived behavioral control (or self-efficacy) toward each of these behaviors.ResultsTwenty-seven out of 30 (90%) of participants who received self-test kits reported distributing the kits to social contacts. These participants described altruistic beliefs about giving others access to testing, and felt approval from family members, friends, and others in their social networks. When receiving test kits from social network contacts, participants described advantages of test kit convenience, but some voiced concern about test kit tampering and confusing instructions. Participants also described perceived logistic barriers to distributing and receiving self-test kits, such as delivering or transporting test kits, or finding time to meet. Participants who ordered test kits from the government also described increased convenience of test access, but described different logistic barriers such as delays in test kit delivery, or not receiving test kits at all.ConclusionIn comparison with government-ordered test kits, the secondary distribution of COVID-19 self-test kits raised unique concerns about test kit quality and instructions, as well as distinctive logistic barriers related to distributing self-test kits to network contacts, which were not raised for test kits ordered from the government. This study demonstrates that beliefs may vary depending on the type of testing behavior, and behavioral interventions may benefit from developing messages tailored to specific testing strategies.