Conectar
by Olivia de Villiers, Claudia Elliot-Wilson, Kevin G. F. Thomas, Patrick L. Semple, Thurandrie Naiker, Michelle Henry, Ian L. Ross
Strong lines of evidence in the neuroscience literature indicate that (a) healthy sleep facilitates cognitive processing, and (b) sleep disruption is associated with cognitive dysfunction. Despite the fact that patients with pituitary disease often display both disrupted sleep and cognitive dysfunction, few previous studies investigate whether these clinical characteristics in these patients might be related. Hence, we explored whether sleep disruption in patients with pituitary disease mediates their cognitive dysfunction. We recruited 18 patients with non-functioning pituitary adenomas (NFPA) and 19 sociodemographically matched healthy controls. They completed the Global Sleep Assessment Questionnaire (thus providing self-report data regarding sleep disruption) and were administered the Brief Test of Adult Cognition by Telephone, which assesses cognitive functioning in the domains of processing speed, working memory, episodic memory, inhibition, and reasoning. We found no significant differences in cognition between patients and controls. Furthermore, spectra of sleep disturbance did not differ significantly between patients and controls. Our data suggest that NFPA patients’ cognition and sleep quality is relatively intact, and that sleep disruption does not mediate cognitive dysfunction. Larger studies should characterize sleep and cognition in patients with NFPA (and other pituitary diseases) to confirm whether disruption of the former mediates impairment in the latter.The Bronchiolitis Endotracheal Surfactant Study (BESS) is a randomised controlled trial to determine the efficacy of endo-tracheal surfactant therapy for critically ill infants with bronchiolitis. To explore acceptability of BESS, including approach to consent within a limited time frame, we explored parent and staff experiences of trial involvement in the first two bronchiolitis seasons to inform subsequent trial conduct.
A mixed-method embedded study involving a site staff survey, questionnaires and interviews with parents approached about BESS.
Fourteen UK paediatric intensive care units.
Of the 179 parents of children approached to take part in BESS, 75 parents (of 69 children) took part in the embedded study. Of these, 55/69 (78%) completed a questionnaire, and 15/69 (21%) were interviewed. Thirty-eight staff completed a questionnaire.
Parents and staff found the trial acceptable. All constructs of the Adapted Theoretical Framework of Acceptability were met. Parents viewed surfactant as being low risk and hoped their child’s participation would help others in the future. Although parents supported research without prior consent in studies of time critical interventions, they believed there was sufficient time to consider this trial. Parents recommended that prospective informed consent should continue to be sought for BESS. Many felt that the time between the consent process and intervention being administered took too long and should be ‘streamlined’ to avoid delays in administration of trial interventions. Staff described how the training and trial processes worked well, yet patients were missed due to lack of staff to deliver the intervention, particularly at weekends.
Parents and staff supported BESS trial and highlighted aspects of the protocol, which should be refined, including a streamlined informed consent process. Findings will be useful to inform proportionate approaches to consent in future paediatric trials where there is a short timeframe for consent discussions.
by Kelsey McOwat, Snehal M. Pinto Pereira, Manjula D. Nugawela, Shamez N. Ladhani, Fiona Newlands, Terence Stephenson, Ruth Simmons, Malcolm G. Semple, Terry Segal, Marta Buszewicz, Isobel Heyman, Trudie Chalder, Tamsin Ford, Emma Dalrymple, Consortium , Roz Shafran
BackgroundDuring the COVID-19 pandemic children and young people (CYP) were socially restricted during a stage of life crucial to development, potentially putting an already vulnerable population at higher risk of loneliness, social isolation, and poorer wellbeing. The objectives of this study are to conduct an exploratory analysis into loneliness before and during the pandemic, and determine which self-reported factors are associated with loneliness.
Methods and findingsParticipants from The Children with Long COVID (CLoCk) national study were invited to take part via an online survey, with a total of 31,017 participants taking part, 31,016 of which reported on their experience of loneliness. Participants retrospectively answered questions on demographics, lifestyle, physical health and mental health and loneliness before the pandemic and at the time of answering the survey. Before the pandemic 6.5% (2,006/31,016) of participants reported experiencing loneliness “Often/Always” and at the time of survey completion 17.4% (5,395/31,016) reported feeling lonelier. There was an association between meeting the research definition of long COVID and loneliness [3.49 OR, 95%CI 3.28–3.72]. CYP who reported feeling lonelier at the time of the survey than before the pandemic were assigned female at birth, older CYP, those from Black/African/Caribbean/Black British or other ethnicity groups, those that had 3–4 siblings and lived in more deprived areas.
ConclusionsWe demonstrate associations between multiple factors and experiences of loneliness during the pandemic. There is a need for a multi-faceted integrated approach when developing interventions targeted at loneliness. It is important to follow up the CYP involved at regular intervals to investigate the progression of their experience of loneliness over time.
FreshRSS 