Search

Abstract Background Healthcare workers (HCWs) are at high risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Effective use of personal protective equipment (PPE) reduces this risk. We sought to determine the prevalence and predictors of self-reported access to appropriate PPE (aPPE) for HCWs in the UK during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods We conducted cross sectional analyses using data from a nationwide questionnaire-based cohort study administered between December 2020-February 2021. The outcome was a binary measure of self-reported aPPE (access all of the time vs access most of the time or less frequently) at two timepoints: the first national lockdown in the UK in March 2020 (primary analysis) and at the time of questionnaire response (secondary analysis). Results Ten thousand five hundred eight HCWs were included in the primary analysis, and 12,252 in the secondary analysis. 35.2% of HCWs reported aPPE at all times in the primary analysis; 83.9% reported aPPE at all times in the secondary analysis. In the primary analysis, after adjustment (for age, sex, ethnicity, migration status, occupation, aerosol generating procedure exposure, work sector and region, working hours, night shift frequency and trust in employing organisation), older HCWs and those working in Intensive Care Units were more likely to report aPPE at all times. Asian HCWs (aOR:0.77, 95%CI 0.67–0.89 [vs White]), those in allied health professional and dental roles (vs those in medical roles), and those who saw a higher number of COVID-19 patients compared to those who saw none (≥ 21 patients/week 0.74, 0.61–0.90) were less likely to report aPPE at all times. Those who trusted their employing organisation to deal with concerns about unsafe clinical practice, compared to those who did not, were twice as likely to report aPPE at all times. Significant predictors were largely unchanged in the secondary analysis. Conclusions Only a third of HCWs in the UK reported aPPE at all times during the first lockdown and that aPPE had improved later in the pandemic. We also identified key determinants of aPPE during the first UK lockdown, which have mostly persisted since lockdown was eased. These findings have important implications for the safe delivery of healthcare during the pandemic.

BackgroundHealthcare workers (HCWs), particularly those from ethnic minority groups, have been shown to be at disproportionately higher risk of infection with Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) compared to the general population. However, there is insufficient evidence on how demographic and occupational factors influence infection risk among ethnic minority HCWs.Methods and findingsWe conducted a cross-sectional analysis using data from the baseline questionnaire of the United Kingdom Research study into Ethnicity and Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Outcomes in Healthcare workers (UK-REACH) cohort study, administered between December 2020 and March 2021. We used logistic regression to examine associations of demographic, household, and occupational risk factors with SARS-CoV-2 infection (defined by polymerase chain reaction (PCR), serology, or suspected COVID-19) in a diverse group of HCWs. The primary exposure of interest was self-reported ethnicity. Among 10,772 HCWs who worked during the first UK national lockdown in March 2020, the median age was 45 (interquartile range [IQR] 35 to 54), 75.1% were female and 29.6% were from ethnic minority groups. A total of 2,496 (23.2%) reported previous SARS-CoV-2 infection. The fully adjusted model contained the following dependent variables: demographic factors (age, sex, ethnicity, migration status, deprivation, religiosity), household factors (living with key workers, shared spaces in accommodation, number of people in household), health factors (presence/absence of diabetes or immunosuppression, smoking history, shielding status, SARS-CoV-2 vaccination status), the extent of social mixing outside of the household, and occupational factors (job role, the area in which a participant worked, use of public transport to work, exposure to confirmed suspected COVID-19 patients, personal protective equipment [PPE] access, aerosol generating procedure exposure, night shift pattern, and the UK region of workplace). After adjustment, demographic and household factors associated with increased odds of infection included younger age, living with other key workers, and higher religiosity. Important occupational risk factors associated with increased odds of infection included attending to a higher number of COVID-19 positive patients (aOR 2.59, 95% CI 2.11 to 3.18 for ≥21 patients per week versus none), working in a nursing or midwifery role (1.30, 1.11 to 1.53, compared to doctors), reporting a lack of access to PPE (1.29, 1.17 to 1.43), and working in an ambulance (2.00, 1.56 to 2.58) or hospital inpatient setting (1.55, 1.38 to 1.75). Those who worked in intensive care units were less likely to have been infected (0.76, 0.64 to 0.92) than those who did not. Black HCWs were more likely to have been infected than their White colleagues, an effect which attenuated after adjustment for other known risk factors. This study is limited by self-selection bias and the cross sectional nature of the study means we cannot infer the direction of causality.ConclusionsWe identified key sociodemographic and occupational risk factors associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection among UK HCWs, and have determined factors that might contribute to a disproportionate odds of infection in HCWs from Black ethnic groups. These findings demonstrate the importance of social and occupational factors in driving ethnic disparities in COVID-19 outcomes, and should inform policies, including targeted vaccination strategies and risk assessments aimed at protecting HCWs in future waves of the COVID-19 pandemic.Trial registrationThe study was prospectively registered at ISRCTN (reference number: ISRCTN11811602).

Summary: Background: Several countries now have mandatory SARS-CoV-2 vaccination for healthcare workers (HCWs) or the general population. HCWs’ views on this are largely unknown. Using data from the nationwide UK-REACH study we aimed to understand UK HCW's views on improving SARS-CoV-2 vaccination coverage, including mandatory vaccination. Methods: Between 21st April and 26th June 2021, we administered an online questionnaire via email to 17 891 UK HCWs recruited as part of a longitudinal cohort from across the UK who had previously responded to a baseline questionnaire (primarily recruited through email) as part of the United Kingdom Research study into Ethnicity And COVID-19 outcomes in Healthcare workers (UK-REACH) nationwide prospective cohort study. We categorised responses to a free-text question “What should society do if people do not get vaccinated against COVID-19?” using qualitative content analysis. We collapsed categories into a binary variable: favours mandatory vaccination or not, using logistic regression to calculate its demographic predictors, and its occupational, health, and attitudinal predictors adjusted for demographics. Findings: Of 5633 questionnaire respondents, 3235 answered the free text question. Median age of free text responders was 47 years (IQR 36–56) and 2705 (74.3%) were female. 18% (n = 578) favoured mandatory vaccination (201 [6%] participants for HCWs and others working with vulnerable populations; 377 [12%] for the general population), but the most frequent suggestion was education (32%, n = 1047). Older HCWs (OR 1.84; 95% CI 1.44–2.34 [≥55 years vs 16 years to

Introduction The BRIGhTMIND study aims to determine the clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and mechanism of action of connectivity guided intermittent theta burst stimulation (cgiTBS) versus standard repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) in adults with moderate to severe treatment resistant depression.Methods and analysis The study is a randomised double-blind controlled trial with 1:1 allocation to either 20 sessions of (1) cgiTBS or (2) neuronavigated rTMS not using connectivity guidance. A total of 368 eligible participants with a diagnosis of current unipolar major depressive disorder that is both treatment resistant (defined as scoring 2 or more on the Massachusetts General Hospital Staging Score) and moderate to severe (scoring >16 on the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS-17)), will be recruited from primary and secondary care settings at four treatment centres in the UK. The primary outcome is depression response at 16 weeks (50% or greater reduction in HDRS-17 score from baseline). Secondary outcomes include assessments of self-rated depression, anxiety, psychosocial functioning, cognition and quality of life at 8, 16 and 26 weeks postrandomisation. Cost-effectiveness, patient acceptability, safety, mechanism of action and predictors of response will also be examined.Ethics and dissemination Ethical approval was granted by East Midlands Leicester Central Research Ethics Committee (ref: 18/EM/0232) on 30 August 2018. The results of the study will be published in relevant peer-reviewed journals, and then through professional and public conferences and media. Further publications will explore patient experience, moderators and mediators of outcome and mechanism of action.Trial registration number ISRCTN19674644

Abstract Background A specialist depression service (SDS) offering collaborative pharmacological and cognitive behaviour therapy treatment for persistent depressive disorder showed effectiveness against depression symptoms versus usual community based multidisciplinary care in a randomised controlled trial (RCT) in specialist mental health services in England. However, there is uncertainty concerning how specialist depression services effect such change. The current study aimed to evaluate the factors which may explain the greater effectiveness of SDS compared to Treatment as Usual (TAU) by exploring the experience of the RCT participants. Methods Qualitative audiotaped and transcribed semi-structured interviews were conducted 12–18 months after baseline with 21 service users (12 SDS, 9 TAU arms) drawn from all three sites. Inductive thematic analysis using a grounded approach contrasted the experiences of SDS with TAU participants. Results Four themes emerged in relation to service user experience: 1. Specific treatment components of the SDS: which included sub-themes of the management of medication change, explaining and developing treatment strategies, setting realistic expectations, and person-centred and holistic approach; 2. Individual qualities of SDS clinicians; 3. Collaborative team context in SDS: which included sub-themes of communication between healthcare professionals, and continuity of team members; 4. Accessibility to SDS: which included sub-themes of flexibility of locations, frequent consultation as reinforcement, gradual pace of treatment, and challenges of returning to usual care. Conclusions The study uncovered important mechanisms and contextual factors in the SDS that service users experience as different from TAU, and which may explain the greater effectiveness of the SDS: the technical expertise of the healthcare professionals, personal qualities of clinicians, teamwork, gradual pace of care, accessibility and managing service transitions. Usual care in other specialist mental health services may share many of the features from the SDS. Trial registration “Trial of the Clinical and Cost Effectiveness of a Specialist Expert Mood Disorder Team for Refractory Unipolar Depressive Disorder” was registered in www.ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01047124) on 12–01-2010 and the ISRCTN registry was registered in www.isrctn.com (ISRCTN10963342) on 25–11-2015 (retrospectively registered).