• COVID-19
• Research softwareclose
• Other research productsclose
• Other ORP type close
• English close
• COVID-19 close

This study used a mixed method approach comprising of an online survey with public contributors involved in health and social care research; an online survey with public involvement professionals, those who are employed by organisations; and qualitative interviews with public contributors. We had 244 respondents to the public contributor survey and 65 for the public involvement professionals (PIPs) survey and conducted 22 qualitative interviews.This study has been prompted by the shift to non-face-to-face - remote - forms of working in patient public involvement and engagement (PPIE) brought on by Covid-19 prevention measures (such as social distancing). Working remotely includes using digital technologies such as: online conferencing software (Zoom, Microsoft Teams), emails, telephone calls and social media (WhatsApp, Facebook). Due to measures such as shielding and social distancing the usual ways of involving the public in research that included face-to-face meetings and events are not possible, and even with the eventual easing of lockdown, remote working is likely to continue. This creates particular challenges for ensuring access and engagement from all parts of society in health and social care research. There is a well-documented digital divide between those who use or have access to digital technologies and those who do not. This digital divide reflects the existing socio-economic inequalities, and PPIE that takes place remotely has the potential to further exclude already disadvantaged groups. This project aims to facilitate and improve ways of doing PPIE remotely and increase the diversity of public contributors involved in health and social care research. Our objectives are to: 1. Understand the barriers and facilitators to remote working, by: a. Exploring public contributors and PPIE professionals' experiences of remote PPIE. b. Exploring public contributors' preferences for different types of remote working. 2. Develop mechanisms for implementing improvements in remote working and ways to increase diversity in PPIE by: a. Conducting a rapid review of research and 'how to guides'. b. Develop training packages. We will recruit public contributors involved in research projects across the UK: the NIHR, charities, universities and other research organisations and people involved professionally with PPIE. This is a mixed-methods study with: surveys, qualitative interviews, and a discrete choice experiment. We will produce an analysis of how remote working in PPIE is affected by socio-economic and health inequalities, make recommendations for improving practice and develop training packages. The public contributor survey was comprised of tick box questions, Likert scale questions and open-ended questions where participants could enter free text responses. The survey asked general questions about role and PPIE experience, digital literacy and different aspects of remote working. We collected demographic information to enable us to draw conclusions from the data on how age, ethnicity, living arrangements and socio-economic status impact on participants use of remote communication tools. The survey ran from September to November 2020. For the survey for PPIE professionals, those who work in PPIE, organising PPIE activities, we developed the survey with input from our public contributors and PPIE professionals from the ARC NWC and the NIHR Research Design Service. Again, the development of this survey drew on our own experiences. We piloted the survey with members of the ARC team and public contributor (NT) to check for sense, consistency and readability. Like the PPIE contributor survey, the professional version was comprised of tick box questions, Likert scale questions, and open-ended questions for additional response. We asked what support and training they offered their public contributors; and any suggestions they had for improving remote working in PPIE. After the survey conducted with public contributors had closed, we purposively sample informants from key communities and conducted 22 semi-structured qualitative interviews with public contributors from across the UK. The topic guide was co-developed with the research team and public contributor (NT) from a preliminary analysis of the survey results and was designed to probe and explore the issues raised by the survey. The interviews were conducted via Zoom and audio reordered with the participant’s consent. The interviews were transcribed and then checked for accuracy and anonymised. The interviews last on average 60 minutes.

What is the future of technocracy, after COVID-19, asks Jonathan White (LSE)? Current crisis management only blurs ever more the boundary between politics and technical expertise, he argues.

Mucins play an essential role in protecting the respiratory tract against microbial infections. The heavily O-glycosylated gel-forming mucins MUC5AC and MUC5B eliminate pathogens by mucociliary clearance while transmembrane mucins MUC1, MUC4, and MUC16 restrict microbial invasion at the apical surface of the epithelium. In this study, we determined the impact of host mucins and mucin glycans on SARS-CoV-2 spike-mediated epithelial entry. Human lung epithelial Calu-3 cells have endogenous expression of the SARS-CoV-2 entry receptor ACE2 and express high levels of glycosylated MUC1 on the surface but not MUC4 and MUC16. Removal of the MUC1 extracellular domain (ED) using the O-glycan-specific mucinase StcE greatly enhanced spike binding and viral infection. By contrast, removal of mucin glycans sialic acid and fucose did not impact viral invasion. This study implicates the glycosylated ED of MUC1 as an important component of the host defense that restricts the severity of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

The zoonotic SARS-CoV-2 virus that causes COVID-19 continues to spread worldwide, with devastating consequences. While the medical community has gained insight into the epidemiology of COVID-19, important questions remain about the clinical complexities and underlying mechanisms of disease phenotypes. Severe COVID-19 most commonly involves respiratory manifestations, although other systems are also affected, and acute disease is often followed by protracted complications. Such complex manifestations suggest that SARS-CoV-2 dysregulates the host response, triggering wide-ranging immuno-inflammatory, thrombotic, and parenchymal derangements. We review the intricacies of COVID-19 pathophysiology, its various phenotypes, and the anti-SARS-CoV-2 host response at the humoral and cellular levels. Some similarities exist between COVID-19 and respiratory failure of other origins, but evidence for many distinctive mechanistic features indicates that COVID-19 constitutes a new disease entity, with emerging data suggesting involvement of an endotheliopathy-centred pathophysiology. Further research, combining basic and clinical studies, is needed to advance understanding of pathophysiological mechanisms and to characterise immuno-inflammatory derangements across the range of phenotypes to enable optimum care for patients with COVID-19.

Background: International travel is a major driver of the introduction and spread of SARS-CoV-2. Aim: To investigate SARS-CoV-2 genetic diversity in the region of a major transport hub in Germany, we characterized the viral sequence diversity of the SARS-CoV-2 variants circulating in Frankfurt am Main, the city with the largest airport in Germany, from the end of October to the end of December 2020. Methods: In total, we recovered 136 SARS-CoV-2 genomes from nasopharyngeal swab samples. We isolated 104 isolates that were grown in cell culture and RNA from the recovered viruses and subjected them to full-genome sequence analysis. In addition, 32 nasopharyngeal swab samples were directly sequenced. Results and conclusion: We found 28 different lineages of SARS-CoV-2 circulating during the study period, including the variant of concern B.1.1.7 (Δ69/70, N501Y). Six of the lineages had not previously been observed in Germany. We detected the spike protein (S) deletion Δ69/Δ70 in 15% of all sequences, a four base pair (bp) deletion (in 2.9% of sequences) and a single bp deletion (in 0.7% of sequences) in ORF3a, leading to ORF3a truncations. In four sequences (2.9%), an amino acid deletion at position 210 in S was identified. In a single sample (0.7%), both a 9 bp deletion in ORF1ab and a 7 bp deletion in ORF7a were identified. One sequence in lineage B.1.1.70 had an N501Y substitution while lacking the Δ69/70 in S. The high diversity of sequences observed over two months in Frankfurt am Main highlights the persisting need for continuous SARS-CoV-2 surveillance using full-genome sequencing, particularly in cities with international airport connections.

Problems of this severity and scope can only be solved through global cooperation, write Muhammad Shahbaz and Muhammad Ali Nasir

ackground: COVID-19 has heterogeneous manifestations, though one of the most common symptoms is a sudden loss of smell (anosmia or hyposmia). We investigated whether olfactory loss is a reliable predictor of COVID-19. Methods: This preregistered, cross-sectional study used a crowdsourced questionnaire in 23 languages to assess symptoms in individuals self-reporting recent respiratory illness. We quantified changes in chemosensory abilities during the course of the respiratory illness using 0-100 visual analog scales (VAS) for participants reporting a positive (C19+; n=4148) or negative (C19-; n=546) COVID-19 laboratory test outcome. Logistic regression models identified singular and cumulative predictors of COVID-19 status and post-COVID-19 olfactory recovery. Results: Both C19+ and C19- groups exhibited smell loss, but it was significantly larger in C19+ participants (mean±SD, C19+: -82.5±27.2 points; C19-: -59.8±37.7). Smell loss during illness was the best predictor of COVID-19 in both single and cumulative feature models (ROC AUC=0.72), with additional features providing no significant model improvement. VAS ratings of smell loss were more predictive than binary chemosensory yes/no-questions or other cardinal symptoms, such as fever or cough. Olfactory recovery within 40 days was reported for ~50% of participants and was best predicted by time since illness onset. Conclusions: As smell loss is the best predictor of COVID-19, we developed the ODoR-19 tool, a 0-10 scale to screen for recent olfactory loss. Numeric ratings <2 indicate high odds of symptomatic COVID-19 (10

contribution à un site web; First lines: In the context of the COVID 19 crisis, the city-as-place approach gained new momentum as part of efforts to ensure safe distancing, accommodate demands for public space and reimagine the post-pandemic city.

An extended brief overviewing a bread swath of responses from higher educational institutions worldwide, to the COVID-19 pandemic.