Conectar
Infections are a major cause of morbidity and mortality among individuals with haematological cancers, but the duration of elevated risk in long-term survivors remains uncertain. Although previous attempts to summarise the existing literature on this topic would have been hampered by the sheer volume of studies on cancer and all-cause infections, emerging artificial intelligence tools now offer the ability to streamline the screening process, allowing for broader and more comprehensive reviews.
This protocol follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Protocols guidelines. Eligible studies will include original observational data reporting long-term (≥1 year follow-up from diagnosis) infection-related outcomes in haematological cancer survivors compared with a general or cancer-free population. Screening will be supported by ASReview, an artificial intelligence-based tool for abstract prioritisation. An internal validation step will be conducted by comparing artificial intelligence-assisted screening results with manual review performed by two independent researchers on a subset of abstracts. The primary outcomes of infection incidence and infection mortality will be summarised by type of infection, type of haematological cancer and time since cancer diagnosis. Information on anti-cancer treatments received will also be described. Data synthesis will be mostly narrative due to the broad scope of the review, though meta-analyses will be performed in cases where studies are sufficiently homogenous. Risk of bias will be assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale.
Ethical approval is not applicable to this study. The results of the review will be disseminated to clinical audiences and submitted to a peer-reviewed journal.
CRD420251047091.
To explore patient and clinician experiences of participation in the MACRO randomised controlled trial (RCT)—which found endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS) to be clinically effective whereas clarithromycin was no better than placebo for chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS)—and to identify barriers and facilitators to the implementation of the trial results.
Qualitative study embedded within the multicentre MACRO RCT. Semistructured interviews with patients and clinicians were analysed using thematic analysis.
21 secondary and tertiary ear, nose and throat centres in England and Scotland participating in the MACRO RCT.
20 CRS patients (16 with nasal polyps, 4 without) were interviewed approximately 6 months after trial completion, and 17 clinical staff including principal investigators (PIs), associate PIs and research nurses.
This study explored patients’ and clinicians’ experiences of the trial to identify barriers and facilitators to implementing the findings. Adopting the outcomes of the trial would involve recommending surgery to more patients with CRS. Yet patient and clinician interviews highlighted polarised views on ESS among patients, between those with positive experiences and expectations of ESS and those expressing fear of complications and hesitancy to receive surgery. During the trial, many participants randomised to surgery reported rapid improvement in symptoms, but with postoperative challenges for some patients including pain, unexpected symptoms and variations in recovery period. Priorities for implementation include providing patients with information about risks and support to make informed choices. Clinicians also reflected on the resource implications for offering ESS to more patients.
ESS is effective for CRS, but patient hesitancy and recovery concerns persist. Implementation requires clear communication, recognition and respect for individual preferences, tailored support for decision-making and post-surgical care to optimise acceptance and outcomes.
To investigate vaccination coverage for influenza and COVID-19 in the SARS-CoV-2 immunity and reinfection evaluation (SIREN) study cohort of healthcare workers (HCWs) between 2020 and 2023 and explore vaccination enablers and barriers.
A mixed-methods study nested within SIREN, a multicentre prospective cohort study of HCWs across the UK. Quantitative and qualitative methods were used sequentially, using an expansion/explanation function, enabling emergent themes observed from the quantitative stage to be explored in the qualitative stage.
SIREN sites include secondary care centres and community mental health trusts in the UK.
Quantitative analysis was conducted on data from 6048 participants. Participants were representative of the HCW workforce, with the majority being women (83%) and of white ethnicity (88%). Nurses made up the largest occupational group (33%). Qualitative analysis of data from 24 participants including five focus groups (n=21) and three semistructured interviews (n=3); 82% women, 26% minority ethnic, all working age from across the UK.
Quantitative: vaccine coverage for COVID-19 and influenza vaccines by demographic with multivariable logistical regression used to assess differences. Qualitative: thematic analysis to explore reasons behind the results seen in the quantitative stage.
COVID-19 vaccination was initially high; 97% received two doses and 94% a first booster. However, coverage was reduced to 77%, for the second booster. Influenza vaccination coverage was lowest in 2020–2021 (46%), increasing to 73% in 2021–2022 and to 79% in 2022–2023. In 2022–2023, vaccination coverage was higher for influenza than for COVID-19. High vaccine coverage for both COVID-19 and influenza was observed in doctors, pharmacists and therapists. Porters, healthcare assistants and staff from minority ethnic groups had lower vaccine coverage for both COVID-19 and influenza. Four themes were identified: (1) attitudes towards vaccination changed throughout the COVID-19 pandemic; (2) HCWs used data to inform vaccination decisions; (3) poor communication in healthcare settings contributed to a reduction in vaccination; (4) there were both positive and negative impacts of the COVID-19 vaccine on influenza vaccine uptake and other vaccination programmes.
Between 2020 and 2023 in our cohort, COVID-19 vaccination coverage decreased, whereas influenza increased. Our study found attitudes to both vaccines have shifted, becoming more favourable to influenza and less to COVID-19 boosters. Barriers to COVID-19 boosters, including concerns about side effects and vaccine effectiveness, need to be addressed with improved communication on the benefits and adverse events. Future vaccination strategies should address the differences we have identified in vaccine coverage across demographics and occupational groups, including continued efforts to improve vaccine equity.
To integrate the quantitative and qualitative data collected as part of the PEACH (Procalcitonin: Evaluation of Antibiotic use in COVID-19 Hospitalised patients) study, which evaluated whether procalcitonin (PCT) testing should be used to guide antibiotic prescribing and safely reduce antibiotic use among patients admitted to acute UK National Health Service (NHS) hospitals.
Triangulation to integrate quantitative and qualitative data.
Four data sources in 148 NHS hospitals in England and Wales including data from 6089 patients.
A triangulation protocol was used to integrate three quantitative data sources (survey, organisation-level data and patient-level data: data sources 1, 2 and 3) and one qualitative data source (clinician interviews: data source 4) collected as part of the PEACH study. Analysis of data sources initially took place independently, and then, key findings for each data source were added to a matrix. A series of interactive discussion meetings took place with quantitative, qualitative and clinical researchers, together with patient and public involvement (PPI) representatives, to group the key findings and produce seven statements relating to the study objectives. Each statement and the key findings related to that statement were considered alongside an assessment of whether there was agreement, partial agreement, dissonance or silence across all four data sources (convergence coding). The matrix was then interpreted to produce a narrative for each statement.
To explore whether PCT testing safely reduced antibiotic use during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Seven statements were produced relating to the PEACH study objective. There was agreement across all four data sources for our first key statement, ‘During the first wave of the pandemic (01/02/2020-30/06/2020), PCT testing reduced antibiotic prescribing’. The second statement was related to this key statement, ‘During the first wave of the pandemic (01/02/2020-30/06/2020), PCT testing safely reduced antibiotic prescribing’. Partial agreement was found between data sources 3 (quantitative patient-level data) and 4 (qualitative clinician interviews). There were no data regarding safety from data sources 1 or 2 (quantitative survey and organisational-level data) to contribute to this statement. For statements three and four, ‘PCT was not used as a central factor influencing antibiotic prescribing’, and ‘PCT testing reduced antibiotic prescribing in the emergency department (ED)/acute medical unit (AMU),’ there was agreement between data source 2 (organisational-level data) and data source 4 (interviews with clinicians). The remaining two data sources (survey and patient-level data) contributed no data on this statement. For statement five, ‘PCT testing reduced antibiotic prescribing in the intensive care unit (ICU)’, there was disagreement between data sources 2 and 3 (organisational-level data and patient-level data) and data source 4 (clinician interviews). Data source 1 (survey) did not provide data on this statement. We therefore assigned dissonance to this statement. For statement six, ‘There were many barriers to implementing PCT testing during the first wave of COVID-19’, there was partial agreement between data source 1 (survey) and data source 4 (clinician interviews) and no data provided by the two remaining data sources (organisational-level data and patient-level data). For statement seven, ‘Local PCT guidelines/protocols were perceived to be valuable’, only data source 4 (clinician interviews) provided data. The clinicians expressed that guidelines were valuable, but as there was no data from the other three data sources, we assigned silence to this statement.
There was agreement between all four data sources on our key finding ‘during the first wave of the pandemic (01/02/2020-30/06/2020), PCT testing reduced antibiotic prescribing’. Data, methodological and investigator triangulation, and a transparent triangulation protocol give validity to this finding.
FreshRSS 