• COVID-19
• 2012-2021close
• Other ORP type close
• GB close
• English close

The outbreak of Covid-19 brought back to the forefront the crucial importance of structural change and productive development for economic resilience to economic shocks. Several recent contributions have already stressed the perverse relation that may exist between productive backwardness and the intensity of the Covid-19 socio-economic crisis. In this paper, we analyze the factors that may have hindered productive development for over four decades before the pandemic. We investigate the role of (non-FDI) net capital inflows as a potential source of premature de-industrialization. We consider a sample of 36 developed and developing countries from 1980 to 2017, with major emphasis on the case of emerging and developing (EDE) economies in the context of increasing financial integration. We show that periods of abundant capital inflows may have caused the significant contraction of manufacturing share to employment and GDP, as well as the decrease of the economic complexity index. We also show that phenomena of “perverse” structural change are significantly more relevant in EDE countries than advanced ones. Based on such evidence, we conclude with some policy suggestions highlighting capital controls and external macroprudential measures taming international capital mobility as useful policy tools for promoting long-run productive development on top of strengthening (short-term) financial and macroeconomic stability.

There are occupational disparities in the risk of COVID-19. In this Data Insights, we explore how COVID-19 mortality rates vary by occupation for women and men in Scotland in the period between 1st March 2020 and 31st January 2021. Using a national novel linked data collection, we contrast preliminary results for Scotland with those from a similar linked data study for England.

Background Antibacterial prescribing for respiratory tract infections (RTIs) accounts for almost half of all prescribing in primary care. Nearly a quarter of antibacterial prescribing in primary care is estimated to be inappropriate, the greatest being for RTIs. The COVID-19 pandemic has changed the provision of healthcare services and impacted the levels of antibacterials prescribed. Objectives To describe the changes in community antibacterial prescribing for RTIs in winter 2020–21 in England. Methods RTI antibacterial prescribing was measured in prescription items/1000 population for primary care from January 2014 and in DDDs/1000 population/day for the totality of RTI prescribing [combined with Accident & Emergency (A&E) in secondary care], from January 2016 to February 2021. Trends were assessed using negative binomial regression and seasonally adjusted interrupted time-series analysis. Results Antibacterials prescribed for RTIs reduced by a further 12.4% per season compared with pre-COVID (P < 0.001). In winter 2020–21, RTI prescriptions almost halved compared with the previous winter in 2019–20 (P < 0.001). The trend observed for total RTI prescribing (primary care with A&E) was similar to that observed in the community alone. Conclusions During COVID-19, RTI prescribing reduced in the community and the expected rise in winter was not seen in 2020–21. We found no evidence that RTI prescribing shifted from primary care to A&E in secondary care. The most likely explanation is a decrease in RTIs and presentations to primary care associated with national prevention measures for COVID-19.

Funder: National Institute for Health Research; doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100000272 BACKGROUND: Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, the majority of clinical trial activity took place face to face within clinical or research units. The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in a significant shift towards trial delivery without in-person face-to-face contact or "Remote Trial Delivery". The National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) assembled a Remote Trial Delivery Working Group to consider challenges and enablers to this major change in clinical trial delivery and to provide a toolkit for researchers to support the transition to remote delivery. METHODS: The NIHR Remote Trial Delivery Working Group evaluated five key domains of the trial delivery pathway: participant factors, recruitment, intervention delivery, outcome measurement and quality assurance. Independent surveys were disseminated to research professionals, and patients and carers, to ascertain benefits, challenges, pitfalls, enablers and examples of good practice in Remote Trial Delivery. A toolkit was constructed to support researchers, funders and governance structures in moving towards Remote Trial Delivery. The toolkit comprises a website encompassing the key principles of Remote Trial Delivery, and a repository of best practice examples and questions to guide research teams. RESULTS: The patient and carer survey received 47 respondents, 34 of whom were patients and 13 of whom were carers. The professional survey had 115 examples of remote trial delivery practice entered from across England. Key potential benefits included broader reach and inclusivity, the ability for standardisation and centralisation, and increased efficiency and patient/carer convenience. Challenges included the potential exclusion of participants lacking connectivity or digital skills, the lack of digitally skilled workforce and appropriate infrastructure, and validation requirements. Five key principles of Remote Trial Delivery were proposed: national research standards, inclusivity, validity, cost-effectiveness and evaluation of new methodologies. CONCLUSIONS: The rapid changes towards Remote Trial Delivery catalysed by the COVID-19 pandemic could lead to sustained change in clinical trial delivery. The NIHR Remote Trial Delivery Working Group provide a toolkit for researchers recommending five key principles of Remote Trial Delivery and providing examples of enablers.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic response has led to an exponential increase in the use and spread of telemedicine internationally. In community mental health care settings, telemedicine services were implemented within a few weeks, with little time for rigorous planning. Despite the reported acceptability of telemedicine by patients and clinicians, barriers to its implementation have come to light. There is now a need to investigate these barriers, and facilitators, as telemedicine begins to show potential promise beyond the pandemic. We propose a review that aims to identify the factors affecting the implementation of telemedicine consultations for patients with mental health conditions in the community.Methods: A systematic review will be conducted and reported according to the PRISMA guidelines. Five electronic databases will be searched using a pre-defined search strategy from 2016 to 2021. Only studies of synchronous, interactive telemedicine consultations conducted via video, phone or live messaging between patients and providers will be included. Quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods studies will be eligible for inclusion. Only studies published in the English language will be included. Titles and abstracts will be screened by two reviewers. Full text articles will be screened by a single reviewer, with a random 20% sample screened by a second reviewer. The methodological quality of studies will be assessed using the Mixed Method Appraisal Tool (MMAT) by two reviewers. Data will be extracted and tabulated to address the aims of the review. A narrative synthesis will be conducted and reported factors will be mapped to the domains of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR).Conclusion: By identifying the factors that influence the implementation of telemedicine consultations for patients with mental conditions in the community, consideration can be given to both barriers and facilitators that could be addressed in future mental health services planning.

The document herein sets out to describe in detail the approach to quantitative data management and analysis for the ACTIVE-6 project.

Harry Rutter and colleagues reflect on the challenges of conveying uncertain estimates for viral transmission in a complex system