Search

Teaching epidemiological concepts in academic settings poses a challenge due to the intricate nature of the discipline as both a science and a practice. Whereas traditional classroom-based teaching methods are commonly employed, evidence suggests they may not be the most effective approach for fostering core competencies and skills required in real-life scientific work. In this article, we describe our process of transitioning from traditional classroom teaching of epidemiology towards practice-based coaching to convey epidemiological concepts to bachelor's and master's students in Biomedicine. We chose the framework of randomized controlled trials (RCT) since they offer a great opportunity to teach epidemiological concepts in a hands-on course. This practice-based course encompasses the entire life cycle of a study, allowing students to design and conduct a short-term experiment, analyse its data and prepare a scientific paper. We provide a comprehensive overview of the course structure, content, learning objectives and course evaluation, while also discussing the advantages and disadvantages of this innovative format. Our approach offers a promising alternative to classroom teaching by incorporating practical, hands-on experiences offering students a high level of independence and self-determination, as well as facilitation and coaching by faculty. It has the potential to be applied across diverse academic settings, providing students with valuable skills and competencies in epidemiology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Blinding is a methodologically important aspect in randomised controlled trials yet frequently overlooked in trials of spinal manual therapy interventions for back pain. To help inform the blinding methods of a future, double-placebo-controlled trial comparing spinal manual therapy and nerve root injection for lumbosacral radicular pain, we set four objectives: (1) to assess the feasibility of blinding participants, randomly allocated to an active or placebo-control spinal manual therapy intervention protocol, (2) to assess the feasibility of blinding outcome assessors within the trial, (3) to explore the influence of spinal manual therapy experience and low back pain on blinding, and (4) to explore factors contributing to perceptions about intervention assignment among participants and outcome assessors. Methods and analysis: Two-parallel-group, single-centre, placebo-controlled, methodological blinding feasibility randomised trial. We will recruit between 60 and 100 adults with or without back pain and with or without experience of spinal manual therapy from Zurich, Switzerland. Participants will be randomised to either an active spinal manual therapy or a placebo-control spinal manual therapy protocol—both interventions delivered over two study visits, up to two weeks apart. The primary outcome is participant blinding using the Bang blinding index within each intervention arm immediately after each of the two study visits. Secondary outcomes are participant blinding using the James blinding index, outcome assessor blinding (Bang and James blinding indices), self-reported factors influencing perceived intervention assignment among participants and outcome assessors, and participant-reported credibility and expectancy of study interventions. Other outcomes—included to blind the study objective from participants—are lumbar spine range of motion, self-rated general health, satisfaction with care, pain intensity, and function. Intervention provider outcomes include intervention component fidelity and quality of intervention delivery. Ethics and dissemination: The independent ethics commission of Canton Zurich granted ethical approval for this study (KEK 2023–00381). Written informed consent will be obtained from all participants. Findings will be disseminated in scientific conferences and a peer-reviewed publication and inform the blinding methods of a future double-placebo controlled trial comparing spinal manual therapy and nerve root injection for lumbosacral radicular pain—the SALuBRITY trial. Trial registration: NCT05778396. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: We explored whether number of languages spoken and language proficiency are associated with cognitive performance among older adults living in the community and in long-term care (LTC) in Switzerland. Methods: Among study participants, 664 lived in the community in the Canton of Zurich (Mean age = 72.97 years; SD = 6.08), 386 lived in the community in Ticino (Mean age = 76.24 years; SD = 6.66), and 176 resided in LTC in Ticino (Mean age = 87.61 years; SD = 6.45). We recorded sociodemographic variables, number of languages spoken, language proficiency, and assessed overall cognitive performance, immediate and delayed memory, and verbal fluency with standardized tests. We used adjusted regression models. Results: A higher number of spoken languages was positively associated with overall cognitive performance, verbal fluency and immediate and delayed memory performance in community-dwelling older adults in the Cantons of Ticino and Zurich, (all p values ≤ 0.012;), but not in in older adults living in LTC homes (all p values ≥ 0.35). Higher language proficiency was associated with better memory performance among individuals living in the community in Ticino (p value = 0.003), and to better performance in verbal fluency and memory tasks in Zurich (p values ≤ 0.002). Among LTC residents, proficiency levels were not associated with cognitive performance. Conclusions: Multilingualism and greater language proficiency were associated with better cognitive functioning in community-dwelling but not in institutionalized older adults. Multilingualism may contribute to cognitive reserve, as well as protect and delay cognitive decline in late life. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: COVID-19 infection can impact the central nervous system, and is often associated with cognitive decline. However, there are no studies linking serologically confirmed COVID-19 infection with objectively assessed cognitive functioning. We explored whether presence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies account for variability in participants’ scores on a neuropsychological assessment. Methods: In this cross-sectional study participants were 657 (mean age = 72.97; SD = 6.07 years; women = 47.7%) individuals randomly selected from the general population of the canton of Zurich and included in the Corona Immunitas study. We conducted serological tests between October 2020 and May 2021 to detect and quantify SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in peripheral venous blood samples. We assessed cognitive function, vaccination status (vaccinated; not vaccinated), number of health conditions, and demographic variables between January and August 2021. We studied the association between seropositivity and global cognitive function and five cognitive domains (language expression, language comprehension, temporal orientation, spatial orientation, and memory) with linear regression models. Based on SARS-CoV-2 antibodies and vaccination status, we stratified participants into three groups: No SARS-CoV-2 antibodies (N = 402); SARS-CoV-2 antibodies due to vaccination (N = 218); history of SARS-CoV-2 infection and no vaccination (N = 37). Results: In the regression model adjusted for age, sex, educational level, and number of health conditions, compared to those without SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, those with SARS-CoV-2 antibodies due to vaccination had better global cognitive functioning (Standardized beta = 0.10; 95% CI = 0.02; 0.17), and those with SARS-CoV-2 antibodies due to infection had poorer cognitive functioning (Standardized beta = −0.10; 95% CI = −0.18; −0.03). Regarding cognitive domains, compared to those without SARSCoV-2 antibodies, those with SARS-CoV-2 antibodies due to infection scored more poorly on language comprehension and temporal orientation, and those with SARSCoV-2 antibodies due to vaccination scored better on memory. Discussion: By linking serologically confirmed presence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies to poorer global cognitive functioning in community dwelling older adults we strengthen existing evidence in support of cognitive decline related to COVID-19. Given the large number of infected older adults, and the endurance of the pandemic, our results highlight the need to address COVID-19 related cognitive decline in the clinical and public health areas of prevention, diagnosis, and treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Isolation is an indispensable measure to contain the SARS-CoV-2 virus, but it may have a negative impact on mental health and overall wellbeing. Evidence on the isolation experience, facilitating and complicating factors is needed to mitigate negative effects. Methods and findings: This observational, population-based cohort study enrolled 1547 adults from the general population with SARS-CoV-2 infection reported to authorities between 27 February 2020 and 19 January 2021 in Zurich, Switzerland. We assessed the proportion of individuals reporting symptoms of depression and anxiety before, during and after isolation (by DASS-21), and queried worries, positive experiences, and difficulties. We analyzed the association of these outcomes with socio-demographics using ordinal regression. Additionally, we report free-text statements by participants to capture most important aspects of isolation. The proportion of participants affected by depression or anxiety increased during isolation from 10·0% to 17·1% and 9·1% to 17·6%, respectively. Ordinal regression showed that taking care of children increased the difficulty of isolation (OR 2·10, CI 1·43–3·08) and risk of non-compliance (OR 1·63, CI 1·05–2·53), especially in younger participants. A facilitating factor that individuals commonly expressed was receiving more support during isolation. Conclusion: Isolation due to SARS-CoV-2 presents a mental burden, especially for younger individuals and those taking care of children. Public health authorities need to train personnel and draw from community-based resources to provide targeted support, information, and guidance to individuals during isolation. Such efforts could alleviate the negative impact isolation has on the mental and physical health of individuals and ensure compliance of the population with recommendations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Longer-term consequences after SARS-CoV-2 infection are becoming an important burden to societies and healthcare systems. Data on post-COVID-19 syndrome in the general population are required for the timely planning of healthcare services and resources. The objective of this study was to assess the prevalence of impaired health status and physical and mental health symptoms among individuals at least six months after SARS-CoV-2 infection, and to characterize their healthcare utilization. Methods: This population-based prospective cohort study (Zurich SARS-CoV-2 Cohort) enrolled 431 adults from the general population with polymerase chain reaction-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection reported to health authorities between 27 February 2020 and 05 August 2020 in the Canton of Zurich, Switzerland. We evaluated the proportion of individuals reporting not to have fully recovered since SARS-CoV-2 infection, and the proportion reporting fatigue (Fatigue Assessment Scale), dyspnea (mMRC dyspnea scale) or depression (DASS-21) at six to eight months after diagnosis. Furthermore, the proportion of individuals with at least one healthcare contact after their acute illness was evaluated. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to assess factors associated with these main outcomes. Results: Symptoms were present in 385 (89%) participants at diagnosis and 81 (19%) were initially hospitalized. At six to eight months, 111 (26%) reported not having fully recovered. 233 (55%) participants reported symptoms of fatigue, 96 (25%) had at least grade 1 dyspnea, and 111 (26%) had DASS-21 scores indicating symptoms of depression. 170 (40%) participants reported at least one general practitioner visit related to COVID-19 after acute illness, and 10% (8/81) of initially hospitalized individuals were rehospitalized. Individuals that have not fully recovered or suffer from fatigue, dyspnea or depression were more likely to have further healthcare contacts. However, a third of individuals (37/111) that have not fully recovered did not seek further care. Conclusions: In this population-based study, a relevant proportion of participants suffered from longer-term consequences after SARS-CoV-2 infection. With millions infected across the world, our findings emphasize the need for the timely planning of resources and patient-centered services for post-COVID-19 care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Population-based study of SARS-CoV-2 antibody (n = 1044) and T cell (n = 328) responses. • Three dominant immune response patterns represent 90% of the population. • At the beginning of the study, >98% of individuals were spike-immunoglobulin G seropositive. • Nucleocapsid and membrane responses increased over time, indicating continued (re)infections. • Omicron-neutralizing antibodies and spike-T cells are linked with reduced (re)infections. The correlate(s) of protection against SARS-CoV-2 remain incompletely defined. Additional information regarding the combinations of antibody and T cell-mediated immunity which can protect against (re)infection is needed. We conducted a population-based, longitudinal cohort study including 1044 individuals of varying SARS-CoV-2 vaccination and infection statuses. We assessed spike (S)- and nucleocapsid (N)-immunoglobulin(Ig)G and wildtype, Delta, and Omicron-neutralizing antibody (N-Ab) activity. In a subset of 328 individuals, we evaluated S, membrane (M), and N-specific T cells. Three months later, we reassessed Ab (n = 964) and T cell (n = 141) responses and evaluated factors associated with protection from (re)infection. At the study start, >98% of participants were S-IgG seropositive. N-IgG and M/N-T-cell responses increased over time, indicating viral (re)exposure, despite existing S-IgG. Compared to N-IgG, M/N-T cells were a more sensitive measure of viral exposure. High N-IgG titers, Omicron-N-Ab activity, and S-specific-T-cell responses were all associated with a reduced likelihood of (re)infection over time. Population-level SARS-CoV-2 immunity is S-IgG-dominated, but heterogeneous. M/N-T-cell responses can distinguish previous infection from vaccination, and monitoring a combination of N-IgG, Omicron-N-Ab, and S-T-cell responses may help estimate protection against SARS-CoV-2 (re)infection. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]