Search

BackgroundAdverse effects of chronically high levels of stress on physical and mental health are well established. In physicians, the effects of elevated stress levels exceed the individual level and include treatment errors and reduced quality of patient-doctor relationships. Breathing and mindfulness-based exercises have been shown to reduce stress and could serve as an immediate and easy-to-implement anti-stress intervention among physicians. Due to the heterogeneity of their effect on stress, we aim to evaluate the intervention effect of performing a short daily breathwork-based or mindfulness-based intervention on the everyday level of perceived stress in physicians in residence in Germany in a series of N-of-1 trials.MethodsStudy participants will choose between two short interventions, box breathing, and one guided more complex mindfulness-based breathing exercise. Each participant subsequently will be randomly allocated to a sequence of 1-week intervention (A) and control (B, everyday life) phases. Each N-of-1 trial consists of two two-week cycles (AB or BA), resulting in a total trial duration of 4 weeks (ABAB or BABA). Perceived levels of stress will be assessed daily via the StudyU App on the participant’s smartphone. Additionally, participants will be asked to complete a questionnaire at baseline and three months after completion of the study that contains questions about basic participant characteristics, lifestyle factors, individual living situations, and validated psychological questionnaires. Intervention effects will be estimated by Bayesian multi-level random effects models on the individual and population level.DiscussionThis study contributes to the development of short-term solutions to reduce work-related stress for physicians in residence. This is expected to benefit the individual and increase the quality of overall healthcare due to a reduction in treatment errors and an increase in the quality of doctor-patient relationships.Clinical trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, identifier NCT05745545.

BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic posed significant challenges to global health systems. Efficient public health responses required a rapid and secure collection of health data to improve the understanding of SARS-CoV-2 and examine the vaccine effectiveness (VE) and drug safety of the novel COVID-19 vaccines. ObjectiveThis study (COVID-19 study on vaccinated and unvaccinated subjects over 16 years; eCOV study) aims to (1) evaluate the real-world effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines through a digital participatory surveillance tool and (2) assess the potential of self-reported data for monitoring key parameters of the COVID-19 pandemic in Germany. MethodsUsing a digital study web application, we collected self-reported data between May 1, 2021, and August 1, 2022, to assess VE, test positivity rates, COVID-19 incidence rates, and adverse events after COVID-19 vaccination. Our primary outcome measure was the VE of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines against laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. The secondary outcome measures included VE against hospitalization and across different SARS-CoV-2 variants, adverse events after vaccination, and symptoms during infection. Logistic regression models adjusted for confounders were used to estimate VE 4 to 48 weeks after the primary vaccination series and after third-dose vaccination. Unvaccinated participants were compared with age- and gender-matched participants who had received 2 doses of BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) and those who had received 3 doses of BNT162b2 and were not infected before the last vaccination. To assess the potential of self-reported digital data, the data were compared with official data from public health authorities. ResultsWe enrolled 10,077 participants (aged ≥16 y) who contributed 44,786 tests and 5530 symptoms. In this young, primarily female, and digital-literate cohort, VE against infections of any severity waned from 91.2% (95% CI 70.4%-97.4%) at week 4 to 37.2% (95% CI 23.5%-48.5%) at week 48 after the second dose of BNT162b2. A third dose of BNT162b2 increased VE to 67.6% (95% CI 50.3%-78.8%) after 4 weeks. The low number of reported hospitalizations limited our ability to calculate VE against hospitalization. Adverse events after vaccination were consistent with previously published research. Seven-day incidences and test positivity rates reflected the course of the pandemic in Germany when compared with official numbers from the national infectious disease surveillance system. ConclusionsOur data indicate that COVID-19 vaccinations are safe and effective, and third-dose vaccinations partially restore protection against SARS-CoV-2 infection. The study showcased the successful use of a digital study web application for COVID-19 surveillance and continuous monitoring of VE in Germany, highlighting its potential to accelerate public health decision-making. Addressing biases in digital data collection is vital to ensure the accuracy and reliability of digital solutions as public health tools.

Studying individual causal effects of health interventions is important whenever intervention effects are heterogeneous between study participants. Conducting N-of-1 trials, which are single-person randomized controlled trials, is the gold standard for their analysis. As an alternative method, we propose to re-analyze existing population-level studies as N-of-1 trials, and use gait as a use case for illustration. Gait data were collected from 16 young and healthy participants under fatigued and non-fatigued, as well as under single-task (only walking) and dual-task (walking while performing a cognitive task) conditions. As a reference to the N-of-1 trials approach, we first computed standard population-level ANOVA models to evaluate differences in gait parameters (stride length and stride time) across conditions. Then, we estimated the effect of the interventions on gait parameters on the individual level through Bayesian repeated-measures models, viewing each participant as their own trial, and compared the results. The results illustrated that while few overall population-level effects were visible, individual-level analyses revealed differences between participants. Baseline values of the gait parameters varied largely among all participants, and the effects of fatigue and cognitive task were also heterogeneous, with some individuals showing effects in opposite directions. These differences between population-level and individual-level analyses were more pronounced for the fatigue intervention compared to the cognitive task intervention. Following our empirical analysis, we discuss re-analyzing population studies through the lens of N-of-1 trials more generally and highlight important considerations and requirements. Our work encourages future studies to investigate individual effects using population-level data.