Search

Background and aims: Play is used by practitioners from across disciplinary backgrounds as a natural and enjoyable context for providing intervention and support in early childhood. In the case of autism interventions, many therapies are based on the association between social play and the development of social skills, language development, and communication skills, as these are often particular areas of challenge for autistic children. However, play is a wide-ranging concept and the extant literature on play-based interventions is large and heterogeneous. This means it is challenging for practitioners and families to navigate the evidence base and make choices about differing intervention strategies. This review aims to provide a comprehensive map of the research on this topic and to develop a conceptual framework to inform clinical decision-making. Methods: An initial stakeholder consultation confirmed the relevance of the topic to practitioners and autistic people. A scoping review methodology (preregistered) was used to identify relevant literature. We systematically searched seven databases to find peer-reviewed primary intervention studies of play-based approaches targeting language, social and communication outcomes for autistic children aged 2-8 years. We then summarised the literature using narrative synthesis and Evidence Gap Maps (EGMs). The literature was summarised according to a range of characteristics, including study design, population characteristics, agent of intervention and outcomes measured, among others. These summaries were then used to develop a framework for some key considerations for practitioners appraising play-based approaches. Results: 388 studies met inclusion criteria. Approximately 21% of studies were RCTs, and over 50% had [less than or equal to]10 participants. Over 45% of studies reported multiple relevant outcomes, with social play skills being the most common single intervention target. Girls and minority background groups are under-represented. A range of intervention types were identified, and some high-level categorisations are proposed. Main contribution: On the basis of the evidence synthesis we suggest important dimensions for appraisal of play-based interventions, including the role of play within an intervention (as a context, a key developmental mechanism, or a component of a larger approach), the underpinning philosophy (e.g. behaviourist or developmental), and the role of the practitioner (providing parent feedback, 1:1 intervention, group facilitation). Conclusions: The wide range of approaches uncovered by this review is a testament to the wonderful diversity inherent to both play and autism. However, research could usefully focus on consolidating the evidence base for existing approaches, rather than aiming for further diversification. Implications: The conceptual framework proposed in this review can help practitioners appraise the literature and aid their advice to families when making shared intervention decisions.

The effectiveness of the BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1 vaccines against new severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections requires continuous re-evaluation, given the increasingly dominant B.1.617.2 (Delta) variant. In this study, we investigated the effectiveness of these vaccines in a large, community-based survey of randomly selected households across the United Kingdom. We found that the effectiveness of BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1 against infections (new polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-positive cases) with symptoms or high viral burden is reduced with the B.1.617.2 variant (absolute difference of 10-13% for BNT162b2 and 16% for ChAdOx1) compared to the B.1.1.7 (Alpha) variant. The effectiveness of two doses remains at least as great as protection afforded by prior natural infection. The dynamics of immunity after second doses differed significantly between BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1, with greater initial effectiveness against new PCR-positive cases but faster declines in protection against high viral burden and symptomatic infection with BNT162b2. There was no evidence that effectiveness varied by dosing interval, but protection was higher in vaccinated individuals after a prior infection and in younger adults. With B.1.617.2, infections occurring after two vaccinations had similar peak viral burden as those in unvaccinated individuals. SARS-CoV-2 vaccination still reduces new infections, but effectiveness and attenuation of peak viral burden are reduced with B.1.617.2. A large, community-based study in the United Kingdom indicates that the effectiveness of BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1 vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 infections with symptoms or high viral burden is reduced with the Delta variant compared to the Alpha variant., Author(s): Koen B. Pouwels [sup.1] [sup.2] , Emma Pritchard [sup.1] [sup.3] , Philippa C. Matthews [sup.3] [sup.4] [sup.5] , Nicole Stoesser [sup.1] [sup.3] [sup.4] [sup.5] , David W. Eyre [sup.1] [...]

The effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccination in preventing new severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections in the general community is still unclear. Here, we used the Office for National Statistics COVID-19 Infection Survey--a large community-based survey of individuals living in randomly selected private households across the United Kingdom--to assess the effectiveness of the BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) and ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (Oxford-AstraZeneca; ChAdOx1) vaccines against any new SARS-CoV-2 PCR-positive tests, split according to self-reported symptoms, cycle threshold value ( Results from the Office of National Statistics COVID-19 Infection Survey in the United Kingdom demonstrate that the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and BNT162b2 vaccines reduce the incidence of new SARS-CoV-2 infections by up to 65% with a single dose and up to 80% after two doses, with no significant differences in efficacy observed between the two vaccines., Author(s): Emma Pritchard [sup.1] [sup.2] , Philippa C. Matthews [sup.1] [sup.3] [sup.4] , Nicole Stoesser [sup.1] [sup.2] [sup.3] [sup.4] , David W. Eyre [sup.2] [sup.3] [sup.4] [sup.5] , Owen Gethings [...]

The physiological effects of vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) are well documented, yet the behavioural effects not well known. Risk compensation suggests that gains in personal safety, as a result of vaccination, are offset by increases in risky behaviour, such as socialising, commuting and working outside the home. This is potentially important because transmission of SARS-CoV-2 is driven by contacts, which could be amplified by vaccine-related risk compensation. Here, we show that behaviours were overall unrelated to personal vaccination, but—adjusting for variation in mitigation policies—were responsive to the level of vaccination in the wider population: individuals in the UK were risk compensating when rates of vaccination were rising. This effect was observed across four nations of the UK, each of which varied policies autonomously. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

For many women, the only alternative to breast reconstruction following a mastectomy is to use external prostheses, which need replacing regularly at a cost of up to $395 per prosthesis. Commonwealth and state governments across Australia have responded to this need by providing subsidies to assist in the purchase of breast prostheses. However, current arrangements have been highly variable and sometimes difficult to access. As part of a larger review of breast prosthesis services in Victoria, Australia, the aim of this research was to evaluate client satisfaction among Victorian women who accessed funds through the State Government's Aids and Equipment Program, compare the responses of the program service providers with the experiences of clients accessing funding, and identify opportunities to improve service provision.

Background "Classic" symptoms (cough, fever, loss of taste/smell) prompt severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing in the United Kingdom. Studies have assessed the ability of different symptoms to identify infection, but few have compared symptoms over time (reflecting variants) and by vaccination status. Methods Using the COVID-19 Infection Survey, sampling households across the United Kingdom, we compared symptoms in PCR-positives vs PCR-negatives, evaluating sensitivity of combinations of 12 symptoms (percentage symptomatic PCR-positives reporting specific symptoms) and tests per case (TPC) (PCR-positives or PCR-negatives reporting specific symptoms/ PCR-positives reporting specific symptoms). Results Between April 2020 and August 2021, 27 869 SARS-CoV-2 PCR-positive episodes occurred in 27 692 participants (median 42 years), of whom 13 427 (48%) self-reported symptoms ("symptomatic PCR-positives"). The comparator comprised 3 806 692 test-negative visits (457 215 participants); 130 612 (3%) self-reported symptoms ("symptomatic PCR-negatives"). Symptom reporting in PCR-positives varied by age, sex, and ethnicity, and over time, reflecting changes in prevalence of viral variants, incidental changes (eg, seasonal pathogens (with sore throat increasing in PCR-positives and PCR-negatives from April 2021), schools reopening) and vaccination rollout. After May 2021 when Delta emerged, headache and fever substantially increased in PCR-positives, but not PCR-negatives. Sensitivity of symptom-based detection increased from 74% using "classic" symptoms, to 81% adding fatigue/weakness, and 90% including all 8 additional symptoms. However, this increased TPC from 4.6 to 5.3 to 8.7. Conclusions Expanded symptom combinations may provide modest benefits for sensitivity of PCR-based case detection, but this will vary between settings and over time, and increases tests/case. Large-scale changes to targeted PCR-testing approaches require careful evaluation given substantial resource and infrastructure implications. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Information on SARS-CoV-2 in representative community surveillance is limited, particularly cycle threshold (Ct) values (a proxy for viral load). Methods: We included all positive nose and throat swabs 26 April 2020 to 13 March 2021 from the UK's national COVID-19 Infection Survey, tested by RT-PCR for the N, S, and ORF1ab genes. We investigated predictors of median Ct value using quantile regression. Results: Of 3,312,159 nose and throat swabs, 27,902 (0.83%) were RT-PCR-positive, 10,317 (37%), 11,012 (40%), and 6550 (23%) for 3, 2, or 1 of the N, S, and ORF1ab genes, respectively, with median Ct = 29.2 (215 copies/ml; IQR Ct = 21.9--32.8, 14--56,400 copies/ml). Independent predictors of lower Cts (i.e. higher viral load) included self-reported symptoms and more genes detected, with at most small effects of sex, ethnicity, and age. Single-gene positives almost invariably had Ct > 30, but Cts varied widely in triple-gene positives, including without symptoms. Population-level Cts changed over time, with declining Ct preceding increasing SARS-CoV-2 positivity. Of 6189 participants with IgG S-antibody tests post-first RT-PCR-positive, 4808 (78%) were ever antibody-positive; Cts were significantly higher in those remaining antibody negative. Conclusions: Marked variation in community SARS-CoV-2 Ct values suggests that they could be a useful epidemiological early-warning indicator. Funding: Department of Health and Social Care, National Institutes of Health Research, Huo Family Foundation, Medical Research Council UK; Wellcome Trust. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]