Explore the vast range of titles available.

Invasive community-onset staphylococcal disease has emerged worldwide associated with Panton-Valentine leucocidin (PVL) toxin. Whether PVL is pathogenic or an epidemiological marker is unclear. We investigate the role of PVL in disease, colonisation, and clinical outcome. We searched Medline and Embase for original research reporting the prevalence of PVL genes among Staphylococcus aureus pneumonia, bacteraemia, musculoskeletal infection, skin and soft-tissue infection, or colonisation published before Oct 1, 2011. We calculated odds ratios (ORs) to compare patients with PVL-positive colonisation and each infection relative to the odds of PVL-positive skin and soft-tissue infection. We did meta-analyses to estimate odds of infection or colonisation with a PVL-positive strain with fixed-effects or random-effects models, depending on the results of tests for heterogeneity. Of 509 articles identified by our search strategy, 76 studies from 31 countries met our inclusion criteria. PVL strains are strongly associated with skin and soft-tissue infections, but are comparatively rare in pneumonia (OR 0·37, 95% CI 0·22–0·63), musculoskeletal infections (0·44, 0·19–0·99), bacteraemias (0·10, 0·06–0·18), and colonising strains (0·07, 0·01–0·31). PVL-positive skin and soft-tissue infections are more likely to be treated surgically than are PVL-negative infections, and children with PVL-positive musculoskeletal disease might have increased morbidity. For other forms of disease we identified no evidence that PVL affects outcome. PVL genes are consistently associated with skin and soft-tissue infections and are comparatively rare in invasive disease. This finding challenges the view that PVL mainly causes invasive disease with poor prognosis. Population-based studies are needed to define the role of PVL in mild, moderate, and severe disease and to inform control strategies. None.

Antibiotics underpin all of modern medicine, from routine major surgery through to caesarean sections and modern cancer therapies. These drugs have revolutionized how we practice medicine, but we are in a constant evolutionary battle to evade microbial resistance and this has become a major global public health problem. We have overused and misused these essential medicines both in the human and animal health sectors and this threatens the effectiveness of antimicrobials for future generations. We can only address the threat of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) through international collaboration across human and animal health sectors integrating social, economic and behavioural factors. Our global organizations are rising to the challenge with the recent World Health Assembly resolution on AMR and development of the Global Action plan but we must act now to avoid a return to a pre-antibiotic era.

The effectiveness of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in older adults living in long-term care facilities is uncertain. We investigated the protective effect of the first dose of the Oxford-AstraZeneca non-replicating viral-vectored vaccine (ChAdOx1 nCoV-19; AZD1222) and the Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA-based vaccine (BNT162b2) in residents of long-term care facilities in terms of PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection over time since vaccination. The VIVALDI study is a prospective cohort study that commenced recruitment on June 11, 2020, to investigate SARS-CoV-2 transmission, infection outcomes, and immunity in residents and staff in long-term care facilities in England that provide residential or nursing care for adults aged 65 years and older. In this cohort study, we included long-term care facility residents undergoing routine asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 testing between Dec 8, 2020 (the date the vaccine was first deployed in a long-term care facility), and March 15, 2021, using national testing data linked within the COVID-19 Datastore. Using Cox proportional hazards regression, we estimated the relative hazard of PCR-positive infection at 0–6 days, 7–13 days, 14–20 days, 21–27 days, 28–34 days, 35–48 days, and 49 days and beyond after vaccination, comparing unvaccinated and vaccinated person-time from the same cohort of residents, adjusting for age, sex, previous infection, local SARS-CoV-2 incidence, long-term care facility bed capacity, and clustering by long-term care facility. We also compared mean PCR cycle threshold (Ct) values for positive swabs obtained before and after vaccination. The study is registered with ISRCTN, number 14447421. 10 412 care home residents aged 65 years and older from 310 LTCFs were included in this analysis. The median participant age was 86 years (IQR 80–91), 7247 (69·6%) of 10 412 residents were female, and 1155 residents (11·1%) had evidence of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection. 9160 (88·0%) residents received at least one vaccine dose, of whom 6138 (67·0%) received ChAdOx1 and 3022 (33·0%) received BNT162b2. Between Dec 8, 2020, and March 15, 2021, there were 36 352 PCR results in 670 628 person-days, and 1335 PCR-positive infections (713 in unvaccinated residents and 612 in vaccinated residents) were included. Adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) for PCR-positive infection relative to unvaccinated residents declined from 28 days after the first vaccine dose to 0·44 (95% CI 0·24–0·81) at 28–34 days and 0·38 (0·19–0·77) at 35–48 days. Similar effect sizes were seen for ChAdOx1 (adjusted HR 0·32, 95% CI 0·15–0·66) and BNT162b2 (0·35, 0·17–0·71) vaccines at 35–48 days. Mean PCR Ct values were higher for infections that occurred at least 28 days after vaccination than for those occurring before vaccination (31·3 [SD 8·7] in 107 PCR-positive tests vs 26·6 [6·6] in 552 PCR-positive tests; p<0·0001). Single-dose vaccination with BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1 vaccines provides substantial protection against infection in older adults from 4–7 weeks after vaccination and might reduce SARS-CoV-2 transmission. However, the risk of infection is not eliminated, highlighting the ongoing need for non-pharmaceutical interventions to prevent transmission in long-term care facilities. UK Government Department of Health and Social Care.

Objectives: Studies of storytelling (ST) used as a research tool to extract information and/or as an intervention to effect change in the public knowledge, attitudes, and behavior/practice (KAB/P) were sought and analyzed.Methods: Medline, EMBASE, PsycINFO, ERIC, Web of Science, Art and Humanities database, Scopus, and Google Scholar were searched, and a basic and broad quantitative analysis was performed, followed by an in-depth narrative synthesis of studies on carefully selected topics.Results: From this search, 3,077 studies were identified. 145 studies entered quantitative analysis [cancer and cancer screening (32/145), HIV (32/145), mental health (10/145), vaccination (8/145), and climate change (3/145)]. Ten studies entered final analysis [HIV/AIDs (5), climate change (1), sexual health (3), and croup (1)]. ST techniques included digital ST (DST), written ST, verbal ST, and use of professional writers. Of the ten studies, seven used ST to change KAB/P; the remainder used ST to extract insights. Follow-up and evaluation were very limited.Conclusion: ST reveals insights and serves as an intervention in public health. Benefits of ST largely outweigh the limitations, but more follow-up/evaluation is needed. ST should play a more significant role in tackling public health issues.PROSPERO registration number: CRD42019124704

IntroductionThere is a growing trend to use storytelling as a research tool to extract information and/or as an intervention to effect change in the public knowledge, attitudes and behaviour (KAB) in relation to public health issues, primarily those with a strong element of disease prevention. However, evidence of its use in either or both capacities is limited. This protocol proposes a systematic narrative review of peer-reviewed, published literature on the use of storytelling as a research tool within the public health arena.Methods and analysisMedline, EMBASE, PsycINFO, ERIC (Educational Resources Information Center), Web of Science, Art and Humanities database (ProQuest), Scopus and Google Scholar will be searched for studies that look at the use of storytelling in the research of pressing current public health issues, for example, vaccinations, antimicrobial resistance, climate change and cancer screening. The review will synthesise evidence of how storytelling is used as a research tool to (a) gain insights into KAB and (b) to effect change in KAB when used as an intervention. Included studies will be selected according to carefully defined criteria relevant to public health issues of interest, and data from qualitative, quantitative and mixed-methods studies will be extracted with a customised data extraction form. A narrative synthesis will be performed according to Economic and Social Research Council guidance from Popay, J, 2006.The study protocol follows the recommendations by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P).Ethics and disseminationFormal ethical approval is not required for this study, as no primary data will be collected. Dissemination will involve publishing results of this study in relevant peer-reviewed journal(s). Where possible, the study results will also be presented as posters or talks at relevant medical conferences and meetings.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42019124704

ObjectivesPatients with liver disease frequently require hospitalisation with infection often the trigger. Influenza vaccination is an effective infection prevention strategy in healthy and elderly but is often perceived less beneficial in patients with liver disease. We investigated whether influenza vaccination triggered serological response and prevented hospitalisation and death in liver disease.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.Data sourcesMEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed and CENTRAL up to January 2019.Eligibility criteriaRandomised or observational studies of the effects of influenza vaccine in adults with liver disease.Data extraction and synthesisTwo reviewers screened studies, extracted data and assessed risk of bias and quality of evidence. Primary outcomes were all-cause hospitalisation and mortality. Secondary outcomes were cause-specific hospitalisation and mortality, and serological vaccine response. Random-effects meta-analysis was used to estimate pooled effects of vaccination.ResultsWe found 10 041 unique records, 286 were eligible for full-text review and 12 were included. Most patients had viral liver disease. All studies were of very low quality. Liver patients both with and without cirrhosis mounted an antibody response to influenza vaccination, and vaccination was associated with a reduction in risk of hospital admission from 205/1000 to 149/1000 (risk difference −0.06, 95% CI −0.07 to 0.04) in patients with viral liver disease. Vaccinated patients were 27% less likely to be admitted to hospital compared with unvaccinated patients (risk ratio 0.73, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.80). No effect against all-cause or cause-specific mortality or cause-specific hospitalisation was found.ConclusionsThe low quantity and quality of the evidence means that the protective vaccine effect may be uncertain. Considering the high risk of serious health outcomes from influenza infection in patients with liver disease and the safety and low cost of vaccination, overall, the potential benefits of seasonal vaccination both to patients and the healthcare systems are likely to outweigh the costs and risks associated with vaccination.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42017067277.

Background The COVID-19 pandemic disproportionately affected people living and working in UK care homes causing high mortality rates. Vaccinating staff members and residents is considered the most effective intervention to reduce infection and its transmission rates. However, uptake of the first dose of the COVID-19 vaccine in care homes was variable. We sought to investigate factors influencing uptake of COVID-19 vaccination in care home staff to inform strategies to increase vaccination uptake and inform future preparedness. Methods Twenty care home staff including managerial and administrative staff, nurses, healthcare practitioners and support staff from nine care homes across England participated in semi-structured telephone interviews (March-June 2021) exploring attitudes towards the COVID-19 vaccine and factors influencing uptake. We used thematic analysis to generate themes which were subsequently deductively mapped to the Capability, Opportunity, Motivation-Behaviour (COM-B) model. The Behavioural Change Wheel (BCW) was used to identify potential intervention strategies to address identified influences. Results Enablers to vaccine uptake included the willingness to protect care home residents, staff and family/friends from infection and the belief that vaccination provided a way back to normality (reflective motivation); convenience of vaccination and access to accurate information (physical opportunity); and a supporting social environment around them favouring vaccination (social opportunity). Barriers included fears about side-effects (automatic motivation); a lack of trust due to the quick release of the vaccine (reflective motivation); and feeling pressurised to accept vaccination if mandatory (automatic motivation). Conclusions We identified influences on COVID-19 vaccine uptake by care home staff that can inform the implementation of future vaccination programmes. Strategies likely to support uptake include information campaigns and facilitating communication between staff and managers to openly discuss concerns regarding possible vaccination side effects. Freedom of choice played an important role in the decision to be vaccinated suggesting that the decision to mandate vaccination may have unintended behavioural consequences.

Research has questioned the safety of delaying or withholding antibiotics for suspected urinary tract infection (UTI) in older patients. We evaluated the association between antibiotic treatment for lower UTI and risk of bloodstream infection (BSI) in adults aged ≥65 years in primary care. We analyzed primary care records from patients aged ≥65 years in England with community-onset UTI using the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (2007-2015) linked to Hospital Episode Statistics and census data. The primary outcome was BSI within 60 days, comparing patients treated immediately with antibiotics and those not treated immediately. Crude and adjusted associations between exposure and outcome were estimated using generalized estimating equations. A total of 147,334 patients were included representing 280,462 episodes of lower UTI. BSI occurred in 0.4% (1,025/244,963) of UTI episodes with immediate antibiotics versus 0.6% (228/35,499) of episodes without immediate antibiotics. After adjusting for patient demographics, year of consultation, comorbidities, smoking status, recent hospitalizations, recent accident and emergency (A&E) attendances, recent antibiotic prescribing, and home visits, the odds of BSI were equivalent in patients who were not treated with antibiotics immediately and those who were treated on the date of their UTI consultation (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.13, 95% CI 0.97-1.32, p-value = 0.105). Delaying or withholding antibiotics was associated with increased odds of death in the subsequent 60 days (aOR 1.17, 95% CI 1.09-1.26, p-value < 0.001), but there was limited evidence that increased deaths were attributable to urinary-source BSI. Limitations include overlap between the categories of immediate and delayed antibiotic prescribing, residual confounding underlying differences between patients who were/were not treated with antibiotics, and lack of microbiological diagnosis for BSI. In this study, we observed that delaying or withholding antibiotics in older adults with suspected UTI did not increase patients' risk of BSI, in contrast with a previous study that analyzed the same dataset, but mortality was increased. Our findings highlight uncertainty around the risks of delaying or withholding antibiotic treatment, which is exacerbated by systematic differences between patients who were and were not treated immediately with antibiotics. Overall, our findings emphasize the need for improved diagnostic/risk prediction strategies to guide antibiotic prescribing for suspected UTI in older adults.

Most antibiotic prescribing occurs in primary care, largely in children under 5 years old, and often inappropriately. This study investigated knowledge, attitudes and behaviours (KABs) towards common childhood infections, antibiotic use and antimicrobial resistance (AMR), among parents of children under 5 years old. The concept of individual sacrifice (forgoing antibiotics-a selective pressure for AMR) to mitigate future societal risk of AMR and how the COVID-19 pandemic shaped views were explored. This qualitative study included three, one-hour, virtual focus groups with mothers from parenting networks across inner-city London and semi-rural England, held mid-pandemic (2020). All had ≥1 child <5 years old. The Framework Method of analysis was used. Parents' KABs towards antibiotic use/AMR formed the primary outcome, with emphases on their sense of personal agency towards mitigating the threat of AMR for society, plus how the pandemic influenced views on infection prevention and care. Fourteen mothers (groups of six, four, four) participated, with mixed ethnicities, education and employment status. Parent perceptions of their individual child's immediate need for antibiotics outweighed concerns for any possible future threat of AMR to society. Four key themes were identified: uncertainty around symptoms; impact of socio-cultural background on KAB; poor understanding of how antibiotics/AMR work; and opportunities within the doctor-patient dialogue to shape mindset around AMR. The pandemic influenced views across themes. Parents prioritising their child's perceived, immediate, individual 'need' for antibiotics over any future impact of AMR on society highlights a continuing need to engage parents in how to mitigate AMR through appropriate antibiotic use, reducing threat to both their child and others. Framing point-of-care dialogue around antibiotic use/AMR in the present (versus future), drawing on pandemic insights and tailoring according to nuanced socio-cultural influences, may encourage a greater sense of personal agency towards taking action to mitigate antibiotic resistance.

Background Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is a major global health threat caused by the inappropriate use of antimicrobials in healthcare and other settings. Antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) is a broad multi-component health services intervention that promotes and monitors the judicious use of antimicrobials to preserve their future effectiveness. A main component of AMS is education and training (E&T). However, there are often discrepancies in how such interventions are implemented and delivered in hospital-based care. The aim of this study was to explore the factors influencing the implementation of AMS E&T in UK hospitals. Methods Semi-structured interviews were carried out with AMS E&T trainers in UK hospitals. The interview schedule was developed using the Capability, Opportunity, Motivation = Behaviour (COM-B) model. Participants were identified via professional networks and social media. Interviews were analysed using inductive thematic analysis, followed by deductive analysis using the COM-B model as a framework. Results A total of 34 participants (26 antimicrobial pharmacists, 3 nurses, 1 advanced clinical practitioner, 2 infectious disease consultants, 1 microbiologist and 1 clinical scientist). responsible for designing, implementing and evaluating AMS E&T in UK hospitals (five from Northern Ireland, four from Wales, two from Scotland and 23 from England) took part in virtual interviews. Key themes were: (1) The organisational context, including system-level barriers to AMS included competing organisational targets (Reflective motivation and physical opportunity) and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on activity (Physical opportunity); (2) Healthcare professionals’ roles and the wider multi-disciplinary team, such that AMS roles were defined and addressed poorly in E&T (Social opportunity); and (3) The individual perception of the need for AMS E&T in hospital-based care, manifest in a perceived lack of conviction of the wider threat of AMR and the resulting need for AMS E&T (Reflective motivation). Conclusion This study has identified factors influencing implementation of AMS E&T in UK hospitals and further identified where implemented, AMS E&T did not address real-world challenges. Current AMS E&T needs to be optimised to elicit practice change, with recommendations including training and engaging the wider work-force and drawing upon theoretically-informed intervention development frameworks to inform AMS E&T to better target AMS behaviour change.