Our aim is to develop a Framework of Measurement for people living with Long COVID and their caregivers for use in Long COVID research and clinical practice. Specifically, we will characterise evidence pertaining to outcome measurement and identify implementation considerations for use of outcome measures among adults and children living with Long COVID and their caregivers.

We will conduct a scoping study involving: (1) an evidence review and (2) a two-phased consultation, using methodological steps outlined by the Arksey and O’Malley Framework and Joanna Briggs Institute. We will answer the following question: What is known about outcome measures used to describe, evaluate or predict health outcomes among adults and children living with Long COVID and their caregivers? Evidence review: we will review peer review published and grey literature to identify existing outcome measures and their reported measurement properties with people living with Long COVID and their caregivers. We will search databases including MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO and Scopus for articles published since 2020. Two authors will independently review titles and abstracts, followed by full text to select articles that discuss or use outcome measures for Long COVID health outcomes, pertain to adults or children living with Long COVID and/or their caregivers and are based in research or clinical settings. We will extract data including article characteristics, terminology and definition of Long COVID, health outcomes assessed, characteristics of outcome measures, measurement properties and implementation considerations. We will collate and summarise data to establish a preliminary Framework of Measurement. Consultation phase 1: we will conduct an environmental scan involving a cross-sectional web-based questionnaire among individuals with experience using or completing outcome measures for Long COVID, to identify outcome measures not found in the evidence review and explore implementation considerations for outcome measurement in the context of Long COVID. Consultation phase 2: we will conduct focus groups to review the preliminary Framework of Measurement and to highlight implementation considerations for outcome measurement in Long COVID. We will analyse questionnaire and focus group data using descriptive and content analytical approaches. We will refine the Framework of Measurement based on the focus group consultation using community-engaged approaches with the research team.

Protocol approved by the University of Toronto Health Sciences Research Ethics Board (protocol #46503) for the consultation phases of the study. Outcomes will include a Framework of Measurement, to enhance measurement of health outcomes in Long COVID research and clinical practice. Knowledge translation will also occur in the form of publications and presentations.

Cohort studies of ageing and cognitive decline typically do not begin fielding comprehensive cognitive assessments until older adulthood. However, for identifying preventable dementia risk factors, there is strong value in beginning at earlier ages. The case is especially compelling in sub-Saharan Africa, where the number of older individuals is expected to triple in the next three decades, and where risk factors may operate more intensively at earlier ages. This study reports on the adaptation and validity of the Harmonised Cognitive Assessment Protocol (HCAP) approach in the Kenya Life Panel Survey (KLPS), collected among middle-aged respondents.

To evaluate the validity of the HCAP approach in Kenya, this study assesses model fit statistics from confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) and tests measurement invariance by respondent characteristics.

Both rural and urban areas in Kenya.

A sample of n=5878 individuals from the KLPS, who have been surveyed regularly since they were schoolchildren in the 1990s. The HCAP assessment was administered in 2023 at an average age of 37 years (10–90 range 34 to 41).

For each individual, the CFA generates a general cognitive performance score, and cognitive performance scores for five distinct domains, including memory, executive functioning, language, orientation to time and place, and visuospatial functioning.

Fit of the models to the data was adequate for general cognitive performance (root mean squared error of approximation (RMSEA)=0.03; comparative fit index (CFI)=0.94; standardised root mean residual (SRMR)=0.05), language (RMSEA=0.02; CFI=0.95; SRMR=0.05) and good for memory (RMSEA=0.05; CFI=0.99; SRMR=0.02) and executive functioning (RMSEA=0.03; CFI=0.98; SRMR=0.03). The CFA indicate that the factor structure is consistent with findings from other countries and that reliability for the general cognitive performance score was high. Statistical models also suggest invariance at the scalar level for leading demographic (gender, age) and socioeconomic (education, occupational complexity) characteristics.

This study demonstrates that the cognitive functioning of mid-age Kenyans appears to be well captured by the adapted protocol. While there is a moderate decline in cognitive performance among older individuals, this relationship appears to be mediated by education, indicating that this KLPS HCAP provides a valuable baseline for studying future cognitive decline.

Most research on the relationship between diabetes and cognitive health has used data from high-income countries. This study described this relationship in India, the world’s most populous country.

Cross-sectional analysis of the baseline wave of the nationally representative Longitudinal Ageing Study in India, conducted from 2017 to 2019.

All 36 Indian states and union territories.

57 905 adults aged 45 years or older.

Scaled cognitive scores (mean of 0 and SD of 1) and cognitive impairment defined as a cognitive score 1.5 SD or below the age-matched and education-matched mean. Diabetes was defined as a self-report of a prior diabetes diagnosis made by a health professional or having a measured haemoglobin A1c ≥6.5%.

In age-adjusted and sex-adjusted models, people with diabetes had cognitive scores that were 0.24 SD higher (95% CI 0.22 to 0.26) and had a 1.2% (95% CI 0.6% to 1.7%) lower prevalence of cognitive impairment than people without diabetes. Differences persisted even when adjusting for demographic, socioeconomic and geographical characteristics. Rural versus urban residence modified the relationships of diabetes with cognitive score (p=0.001) and cognitive impairment (p=0.003). In fully adjusted models, rural respondents with diabetes had 0.05 SD (95% CI 0.03 to 0.07) greater cognitive scores and 1.6% (95% CI 0.9% to 2.4%) lower prevalence of cognitive impairment than those without diabetes. In urban areas, respondents with and without diabetes had similar cognitive scores and prevalence of cognitive impairment.

Middle-aged and older adults with diabetes living in India had better cognitive health than those without diabetes. Rural versus urban area of residence modified this relationship. Urban–rural differences, the nutrition transition and social conditions likely influenced the cross-sectional relationship between diabetes and cognitive health in India, leading to different associations than reported in other countries.

Social, emotional and behavioural (SEB) problems are among the most common chronic disabilities affecting children growing up in poverty. They also have implications for children’s school success as they affect essential social-emotional learning skills such as the ability to comply with rules, regulate emotions and get along with others. These skills are first learnt before kindergarten, in the context of a supportive, responsive and consistent parenting relationship. To date, school-based interventions to improve young children’s SEB competence and learning have primarily targeted students and teachers. Yet, parents are central partners in promoting these skills. This study seeks to improve children’s SEB competence and kindergarten readiness by strengthening parenting skills and parent engagement in early childhood education during prekindergarten (PreK). This hybrid type 2 effectiveness-implementation trial will rigorously evaluate the effects of an evidence-based parenting programme, the Chicago Parent Program (CPP), in PreK on children’s SEB competence, kindergarten readiness, chronic school absenteeism and grade retention in urban and rural schools serving students from low-income families in Maryland.

Using a cluster randomised design (n=30 schools, 840 parents; >90% low-income), we will examine the effects of CPP offered universally to PreK parents on parenting skills and parent engagement in children’s education; children’s SEB competence and kindergarten readiness; and chronic absence and grade retention in kindergarten. Schools will be stratified by rural versus urban district, then randomised to CPP or usual practice conditions. Data will be analysed using mixed effects regression models. Using the reach, effectiveness-adoption, implementation, maintenance (RE-AIM) framework and a mixed methods approach, we will assess CPP reach, efficacy, acceptability, adoption, implementation, cost-effectiveness and sustainability when offered in different formats (virtual vs in-person CPP groups) and contexts (urban vs rural). Schools will participate for 2 years with experimental schools offering CPP twice, once in virtual group format and once in an in-person group format (format randomised and counterbalanced). Data will be collected using multiple informants (parents, teachers, district administrative data) and methods (quantitative and qualitative data). Knowledge gained will inform schools in under-resourced urban and rural communities on sustainable, cost-effective strategies for strengthening parent-school connections and improving young children’s SEB competence and academic success.

Ethics approval has been granted by Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine (protocol number 00428221) and the Baltimore City Public Schools (protocol number 2024-013). At the conclusion of the study, results will be summarised and shared with parents, teachers, school principals and district leaders for their perspectives on the outcomes. Final reports will be published in scientific journals and presented at professional meetings.

NCT06197997.

Patient-reported anthropometric measures, such as height and weight, are frequently used in clinical practice but are susceptible to reporting biases. This study aims to investigate the determinants of reliability of patient-reported anthropometric measures in patients in cardiology and general practice and their impact on potential medication dosing.

Cross-sectional study.

730 patients were recruited at the Clinic of Cardiology, Angiology and Intensive Care Medicine of Saarland University Hospital and a general medicine practice from November 2015 to December 2018. We assessed self-reported height and weight and compared them to calibrated measures immediately afterwards. Weight and height (optional with medical history) were self-reported via questionnaire. Interviews were conducted by female or male nursing staff or physicians.

The main outcomes were the deviation between patients’ self-reported height and weight from objective calibrated measures, as well as the amount of misdosing of exemplary drugs based on this deviation.

The mean height (SD) of the participants (36% were patients) was 170.92 (9.34) cm. Patients significantly overestimated their height by 1.82 cm (range: –8.00 to 11.00 cm). Misreporting was best predicted by age, with older patients providing more height overestimations. The mean weight was 84.25 (17.41) kg and was significantly underestimated by 1.49 kg (range: –36.00 to 26.00 kg). Misreporting was best predicted by higher body mass index, cognitive impairment and a longer duration since the last weighing, and self-reporting by questionnaires was associated with a higher under-reporting of weight. Unlike females, male patients exhibited a more pronounced tendency to under-report their weight when responding to questionnaires compared with face-to-face interviews. Comparison of doses for low-molecular-weight heparin according to self-reported versus calibrated weight revealed potential underdosing and overdosing in 17% and 77% of all patients, respectively. For the cytostatic agent doxorubicin, for instance, underdosing and overdosing would have been applied in 40% and 43% of all patients, respectively.

Self-reported height and weight are often invalid, especially in patients who are older and overweight. Misreporting can lead to inappropriate drug dosing. Calibrated measurement of height and weight remains part of good clinical practice, and if self-reporting is unavoidable, personal interviews should be preferred over questionnaires.

https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04321057