Explore the vast range of titles available.

The surge in cases of severe COVID-19 has resulted in clinicians triaging intensive care unit (ICU) admissions in places where demand has exceeded capacity. In order to assist difficult triage decisions, clinicians require clear guidelines on how to prioritise patients. Existing guidelines show significant variability in their development, interpretation, implementation and an urgent need for a robust synthesis of published guidance. To understand how to manage which patients are admitted to ICU, and receive mechanical ventilatory support, during periods of high demand during the COVID-19 pandemic, a systematic review was performed. Databases of indexed literature (Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and Global Health) and grey literature (Google.com and MedRxiv), published from 1 January until 2 April 2020, were searched. Search terms included synonyms of COVID-19, ICU, ventilation, and triage. Only formal written guidelines were included. There were no exclusion criteria based on geographical location or publication language. Quality appraisal of the guidelines was performed using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation Instrument II (AGREE II) and the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation Instrument Recommendation EXcellence (AGREE REX) appraisal tools, and key themes related to triage were extracted using narrative synthesis. Of 1902 unique records identified, nine relevant guidelines were included. Six guidelines were national or transnational level guidance (UK, Switzerland, Belgium, Australia and New Zealand, Italy, and Sri Lanka), with one state level (Kansas, USA), one international (Extracorporeal Life Support Organization) and one specific to military hospitals (Department of Defense, USA). The guidelines covered several broad themes: use of ethical frameworks, criteria for ICU admission and discharge, adaptation of criteria as demand changes, equality across health conditions and healthcare systems, decision-making processes, communication of decisions, and guideline development processes. We have synthesised the current guidelines and identified the different approaches taken globally to manage the triage of intensive care resources during the COVID-19 pandemic. There is limited consensus on how to allocate the finite resource of ICU beds and ventilators, and a lack of high-quality evidence and guidelines on resource allocation during the pandemic. We have developed a set of factors to consider when developing guidelines for managing intensive care admissions, and outlined implications for clinical leads and local implementation.

Background School gardening programmes are increasingly popular, with suggested benefits including healthier eating and increased physical activity. Our objectives were to understand the health and well-being impacts of school gardens and the factors that help or hinder their success. Methods We conducted a systematic review of quantitative and qualitative evidence (PROSPERO CRD42014007181). We searched multiple databases and used a range of supplementary approaches. Studies about school gardens were included if they reported on physical or mental health or well-being. Quantitative studies had to include a comparison group. Studies were quality appraised using appropriate tools. Findings were narratively synthesised and the qualitative evidence used to produce a conceptual framework to illustrate how benefits might be accrued. Results Evidence from 40 articles (21 quantitative studies; 16 qualitative studies; 3 mixed methods studies) was included. Generally the quantitative research was poor. Evidence for changes in fruit and vegetable intake was limited and based on self-report. The qualitative research was better quality and ascribed a range of health and well-being impacts to school gardens, with some idealistic expectations for their impact in the long term. Groups of pupils who do not excel in classroom activities were thought to particularly benefit. Lack of funding and over reliance on volunteers were thought to threaten success, while involvement with local communities and integration of gardening activities into the school curriculum were thought to support success. Conclusion More robust quantitative research is needed to convincingly support the qualitative evidence suggesting wide ranging benefits from school gardens.

A significant proportion of the worldwide population is at risk of social isolation and loneliness as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. We aimed to identify effective interventions to reduce social isolation and loneliness that are compatible with COVID-19 shielding and social distancing measures. In this rapid systematic review, we searched six electronic databases (Medline, Embase, Web of Science, PsycINFO, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and SCOPUS) from inception to April 2020 for systematic reviews appraising interventions for loneliness and/or social isolation. Primary studies from those reviews were eligible if they included: 1) participants in a non-hospital setting; 2) interventions to reduce social isolation and/or loneliness that would be feasible during COVID-19 shielding measures; 3) a relevant control group; and 4) quantitative measures of social isolation, social support or loneliness. At least two authors independently screened studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias using the Downs and Black checklist. Study registration: PROSPERO CRD42020178654. We identified 45 RCTs and 13 non-randomised controlled trials; none were conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic. The nature, type, and potential effectiveness of interventions varied greatly. Effective interventions for loneliness include psychological therapies such as mindfulness, lessons on friendship, robotic pets, and social facilitation software. Few interventions improved social isolation. Overall, 37 of 58 studies were of \"Fair\" quality, as measured by the Downs & Black checklist. The main study limitations identified were the inclusion of studies of variable quality; the applicability of our findings to the entire population; and the current poor understanding of the types of loneliness and isolation experienced by different groups affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. Many effective interventions involved cognitive or educational components, or facilitated communication between peers. These interventions may require minor modifications to align with COVID-19 shielding/social distancing measures. Future high-quality randomised controlled trials conducted under shielding/social distancing constraints are urgently needed.

Background: Previous research has mainly focused on the impacts of epidemics on those people who are directly affected by the epidemic infection, or of healthcare workers caring for them. Less is known about the impact on mental health of their relatives, and potential interventions to support them. Methods: Systematic review and narrative synthesis. Outcomes: 28 studies were identified, sixteen quantitative and twelve qualitative. One involved health workers' relatives, and the rest covered relatives of directly affected individuals. We found considerable burden of mental ill-health in both groups. Among relatives of healthcare workers, 29.4% reported symptoms consistent with probable anxiety disorder and 33.7% with probable depression. Prevalence rates for probable anxiety disorder ranged from 24-42% and probable depression 17–51% for the relatives of affected people. One study found a 2% prevalence of PTSD and another found odds of PTSS were significantly higher among relatives of affected individuals compared with the general population. Only two intervention studies were identified and both were descriptive in nature. Interpretation: Available evidence suggests relatives of people affected by infective outbreaks report mental ill-health. Having a relative who died particularly increased risk. Good outcomes for relatives of affected individuals were promoted by practical and social support, public health guidance that recognises the caring role of relatives, and being supported to see the positives as well as negatives in their situation. Good outcomes for relatives of health workers were promoted by perceived effectiveness of protective equipment. High quality evidence on potential interventions to support relatives is lacking. Funding: No external funding sought.

Background E-cigarettes are the most popular aid to smoking cessation attempts in England and the USA. This research examined associations between e-cigarette device characteristics and patterns of use, tobacco-smoking relapse, and smoking abstinence. Methods A convenience sample of 371 participants with experience of vaping, and tobacco-smoking abstinence and/or relapse completed an online cross-sectional survey about e-cigarettes. Factors associated with smoking relapse were examined using multiple linear and logistic regression models. Results Most participants were self-reported long-term abstinent smokers (86.3%) intending to continue vaping. Most initiated e-cigarette use with a vape pen (45.8%) or cig-a-like (38.7%) before moving onto a tank device (89%). Due to missing data, managed through pairwise deletion, only around 70 participants were included in some of the main analyses. Those using a tank or vape pen appeared less likely to relapse than those using a cig-a-like (tank vs. cig-a-like OR = 0.06, 95% CI 0.01–0.64, p  = 0.019). There was an inverse association between starting self-reported e-cigarette liquid nicotine concentration and relapse, interacting with device type (OR = 0.79, 95% CI 0.63–0.99, p  = 0.047), suggesting that risk of relapse may have been greater if starting with a low e-cigarette liquid nicotine concentration and/or cig-a-like device. Participants reported moving from tobacco-flavored cig-a-likes to fruit/sweet/food flavors with tank devices. Conclusions Knowledge of how people have successfully maintained tobacco-smoking abstinence using vaping could help other tobacco smokers wishing to quit tobacco smoking through vaping.

Following the publication of this article [1] it was brought to our attention that reference 12 was incomplete. Reference 12 currently reads: Chiumento A. A haven of greenspace. 2012. The completed reference should read: Chiumento A. A haven of greenspace. YoungMinds Magazine 2012;118:32-34.

Background: Electronic cigarette regulations included in the Tobacco Products Directive (TPD), Article 20, implemented in Europe by May 2017, aimed to improve safety for e-cigarette consumers, and prevent uptake among non-smokers, particularly young people. Before implementation, there were significant concerns from consumers, industry, and some in the scientific community about the potential negative impact of the TPD on people using e-cigarettes to remain abstinent from smoking. To date, there is limited evidence on how the TPD has affected consumers. This study aimed to add insight into how consumers perceived and experienced the regulations. Methods: Qualitative data, collected between March 2018 and March 2019, relating to participant views of the TPD were extracted from 160 interviews/extended surveys of e-cigarette consumers as part of a wider study into e-cigarette use trajectories (ECtra study). Data were thematically analysed. Results: Awareness of the TPD among consumers was not universal. Participants’ smoking behaviour did not appear to be influenced by the legislation. Participants were reassured by manufacturing regulations and requirements for ingredients labels. Participants responded negatively to changes perceived to cause inconvenience and extra plastic waste. The product restrictions prompted some participants to purchase non-compliant products illegally, potentially putting their safety at risk. Conclusions: E-cigarette regulation should focus on ensuring product safety. Raising awareness of the TPD among consumers and smokers could be beneficial.

There is a worldwide shortage of health workers, and this issue requires innovative education solutions. Serious gaming and gamification education have the potential to provide a quality, cost-effective, novel approach that is flexible, portable, and enjoyable and allow interaction with tutors and peers. The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the effectiveness of serious gaming/gamification for health professions education compared with traditional learning, other types of digital education, or other serious gaming/gamification interventions in terms of patient outcomes, knowledge, skills, professional attitudes, and satisfaction (primary outcomes) as well as economic outcomes of education and adverse events (secondary outcomes). A comprehensive search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Knowledge, Educational Resources Information Centre, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PsycINFO, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature was conducted from 1990 to August 2017. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster RCTs were eligible for inclusion. Two reviewers independently searched, screened, and assessed the study quality and extracted data. A meta-analysis was not deemed appropriate due to the heterogeneity of populations, interventions, comparisons, and outcomes. Therefore, a narrative synthesis is presented. A total of 27 RCTs and 3 cluster RCTs with 3634 participants were included. Two studies evaluated gamification interventions, and the remaining evaluated serious gaming interventions. One study reported a small statistically significant difference between serious gaming and digital education of primary care physicians in the time to control blood pressure in a subgroup of their patients already taking antihypertensive medications. There was evidence of a moderate-to-large magnitude of effect from five studies evaluating individually delivered interventions for objectively measured knowledge compared with traditional learning. There was also evidence of a small-to-large magnitude of effect from 10 studies for improved skills compared with traditional learning. Two and four studies suggested equivalence between interventions and controls for knowledge and skills, respectively. Evidence suggested that serious gaming was at least as effective as other digital education modalities for these outcomes. There was insufficient evidence to conclude whether one type of serious gaming/gamification intervention is more effective than any other. There was limited evidence for the effects of serious gaming/gamification on professional attitudes. Serious gaming/gamification may improve satisfaction, but the evidence was limited. Evidence was of low or very low quality for all outcomes. Quality of evidence was downgraded due to the imprecision, inconsistency, and limitations of the study. Serious gaming/gamification appears to be at least as effective as controls, and in many studies, more effective for improving knowledge, skills, and satisfaction. However, the available evidence is mostly of low quality and calls for further rigorous, theory-driven research.

BackgroundThe difference in smoking across socioeconomic groups is a major cause of health inequality. This study projected future smoking prevalence by socioeconomic status, and revealed what is needed to achieve the tobacco-free ambition (TFA) by 2030 in England.MethodsUsing data from multiple sources, the adult (≥18 years) population in England was separated into subgroups by smoking and highest educational qualification (HEQ). A discrete time state-transition model was used to project future smoking prevalence by HEQ deterministically and stochastically.ResultsIn a status quo scenario, smoking prevalence in England is projected to be 10.8% (95% uncertainty interval: 9.1% to 12.9%) by 2022, 7.8% (5.5% to 11.0%) by 2030 and 6.0% (3.7% to 9.6%) by 2040. The absolute difference in smoking rate between low and high HEQ is reduced from 12.2% in 2016 to 7.9% by 2030, but the relative inequality (low/high HEQ ratio) is increased from 2.48 in 2016 to 3.06 by 2030. When applying 2016 initiation/relapse rates, achievement of the TFA target requires no changes to future cessation rates among adults with high qualifications, but increased rates of 37% and 149%, respectively, in adults with intermediate and low qualifications.ConclusionsIf the current trends continue, smoking prevalence in England is projected to decline in the future, but with substantial differences across socioeconomic groups. Absolute inequalities in smoking are likely to decline and relative inequalities in smoking are likely to increase in future. The achievement of England’s TFA will require the reduction of both absolute and relative inequalities in smoking by socioeconomic status.