Rapid response in the COVID-19 pandemic: a Delphi study from the European Pediatric Dialysis Working Group

A rapid qualitative methods assessment and reporting tool for epidemic response as the outcome of a rapid review and expert consultation

During the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Methods Sub-Group of the WHO COVID-19 Social Science Research Roadmap Working Group conducted a rapid evidence review of rapid qualitative methods (RQMs) used during epidemics. The rapid review objectives were to (1) synthesize the development, implementation, and uses of RQMs, including the data collection tools, research questions, research capacities, analytical approaches, and strategies used to speed up data collection and analysis in their specific epidemic and institutional contexts; and (2) propose a tool for assessing and reporting RQMs in epidemics emergencies. The rapid review covered published RQMs used in articles and unpublished reports produced between 2015 and 2021 in five languages (English, Mandarin, French, Portuguese, and Spanish). We searched multiple databases in these five languages between December 2020 and January 31, 2021. Sources employing "rapid" (under 6 months from conception to reporting of results) qualitative methods for research related to epidemic emergencies were included. We included 126 published and unpublished sources, which were reviewed, coded, and classified by the research team. Intercoder reliability was found to be acceptable (Krippendorff's α = 0.709). We employed thematic analysis to identify categories characterizing RQMs in epidemic emergencies. The review protocol was registered at PROSPERO (no. CRD42020223283) and Research Registry (no. reviewregistry1044). We developed an assessment and reporting tool of 13 criteria in three domains, to document RQMs used in response to epidemic emergencies. These include I. Design and Development (i. time frame, ii. Training, iii. Applicability to other populations, iv. Applicability to low resource settings, v. community engagement, vi. Available resources, vii. Ethical approvals, viii. Vulnerability, ix. Tool selection); II. Data Collection and Analysis (x. concurrent data collection and analysis, xi. Targeted populations and recruitment procedures); III. Restitution and Dissemination (xii. Restitution and dissemination of findings, xiii. Impact). Our rapid review and evaluation found a wide range of feasible and highly effective tools, analytical approaches and timely operational insights and recommendations during epidemic emergencies.

Impact of coronavirus disease-2019 on pediatric nephrology practice and education: an ESPN survey

BACKGROUND

Coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) has been challenging for patients and medical staff. Radical changes have been needed to prevent disruptions in patient care and medical education.

METHODS

A web-based survey was sent to European Society for Pediatric Nephrology (ESPN) members via the ESPN mailing list to evaluate the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on delivery of pediatric nephrology (PN) care and educational activities. There were ten questions with subheadings.

RESULTS

Seventy-six centers from 24 countries completed the survey. The time period was between the beginning of the pandemic and May 30, 2020. The number of patients admitted in PN wards and outpatient clinics were significantly decreased (2.2 and 4.5 times, respectively). Telemedicine tools, electronic prescriptions, online applications for off-label drugs, and remote access to laboratory/imaging results were used in almost half of the centers. Despite staff training and protective measures, 33% of centers reported COVID-19 infected staff, and 29% infected patients. Difficulties in receiving pharmaceuticals were reported in 25% of centers. Sixty percent of centers suspended living-related kidney transplantation, and one-third deceased-donor kidney transplantation. Hands-on education was suspended in 91% of medical schools, and face-to-face teaching was replaced by online systems in 85%. Multidisciplinary training in PN was affected in 54% of the centers.

CONCLUSIONS

This survey showed a sharp decline in patient admissions and a significant decrease in kidney transplantation. Telemedicine and online teaching became essential tools, requiring integration into the current system. The prolonged and fluctuating course of the pandemic may pose additional challenges necessitating urgent and rational solutions.

Mandatory vaccination against COVID-19: A Twitter poll analysis on public health opinion (Preprint)

Background

On January 30, 2020, the World Health Organization Emergency Committee declared the rapid worldwide spread of COVID-19 a global health emergency. By December 2020, the safety and efficacy of the first COVID-19 vaccines had been demonstrated. However, international vaccination coverage rates have remained below expectations (in Europe at the time of manuscript submission). Controversial mandatory vaccination is currently being discussed and has already been introduced in some countries (Austria, Greece, and Italy). We used the Twitter survey system as a viable method to quickly and comprehensively gather international public health insights on mandatory vaccination against COVID-19.

Objective

The purpose of this study was to better understand the public’s perception of mandatory COVID-19 vaccination in real time using Twitter polls.

Methods

Two Twitter polls were developed (in the English language) to seek the public’s opinion on the possibility of mandatory vaccination. The polls were pinned to the Digital Health and Patient Safety Platform’s (based in Vienna, Austria) Twitter timeline for 1 week in mid-November 2021, 3 days after the official public announcement of mandatory COVID-19 vaccination in Austria. Twitter users were asked to participate and retweet the polls to reach the largest possible audience.

Results

Our Twitter polls revealed two extremes on the topic of mandatory vaccination against COVID-19. Almost half of the 2545 respondents (n=1246, 49%) favor mandatory vaccination, at least in certain areas. This attitude contrasts with the 45.7% (n=1162) who categorically reject mandatory vaccination. Over one-quarter (n=621, 26.3%) of participating Twitter users said they would never get vaccinated, as reflected by the current Western European and North American vaccination coverage rate. Concatenating interpretation of these two polls should be done cautiously as participating populations might substantially differ.

Conclusions

Mandatory vaccination against COVID-19 (in at least certain areas) is favored by less than 50%, whereas it is opposed by almost half of the surveyed Twitter users. Since (social) media strongly influences public perceptions and views, and social media discussions and surveys are specifically susceptible to the “echo chamber effect,” the results should be interpreted as a momentary snapshot. Therefore, the results of this study need to be complemented by long-term surveys to maintain their validity.

The frail world of haemodialysis patients in the COVID-19 pandemic era: a systematic scoping review

BACKGROUND

Patients undergoing in-centre haemodialysis (HD) are particularly exposed to the dire consequences of COVID-19. The present systematic scoping review aims to identify the extent, range, and nature of articles related to COVID-19 and maintenance HD: it reports specifically the prevalence of the COVID-19 pandemic in the HD population, implementation of strategies for the prevention, mitigation and containment of the COVID-19 pandemic in HD centres, demographic and clinical characteristics, and outcomes of the pediatric and adult HD patients.

METHODS

A multi-step systematic search of the literature in Pubmed, Scopus, Ovid Medline, Embase and Web of Science, published between December 1, 2019, and January 30, 2021 was performed. Two authors separately screened the titles and abstracts of the documents and ruled out irrelevant articles. A report of the papers that met inclusion criteria was performed; then, a descriptive analysis of the characteristics of the included articles and a narrative synthesis of the results were performed.

RESULTS

The review process ended with the inclusion of 145 articles. Most of them were based on single-centre experiences, which spontaneously developed best practices. Most studies were conducted in high-income countries (69.7%) and a part of them (9.6%) were not in English. Prevalence of COVID-19 among dialysis patients accounted for 0%-37.6%. Preventive measures were reported in 54% of the included articles, with particular emphasis on education, triage, hygiene, and containment measures. Patients experienced a heterogeneous spectrum of symptoms that led 35%-88.2% of them to hospital admission. Median and mean hospital length of stay ranged from 8 to 28.5 and 16.2 to 22 days, respectively. Admission to intensive care units varied widely across studies (from 2.6% to 70.5%) and was associated with high mortality (42.8%-100%). Overall, prognosis was poor in 0%-47% of the hospitalized patients.

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic scoping review provides an overview of the current knowledge on the impact of COVID-19 on the frail world of HD patients. Furthermore, it may help to implement the existing strategies of COVID-19 prevention and provide a list of unmet needs (safe transport, testing, shelter). Finally, it may be a stimulus for performing systematic reviews and meta-analyses which will form the basis for evidence-based guidelines.

Impact of COVID-19 on Families of Pediatric Solid Organ Transplant Recipients

OBJECTIVE

The COVID-19 pandemic and lockdown measures have had a clear psychological impact on families, and specifically those with children with chronic illnesses have reported greater overloads and exhaustion. The objective of this study was to evaluate the exposure, impact and experience of the pandemic on families of pediatric solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients compared to families of healthy children and adolescents.

METHODS

We recruited 96 families, 48 with a pediatric SOT recipient and 48 healthy controls, matched by child age and gender. A primary caregiver from each family responded to an online sociodemographic questionnaire and the COVID-19 Exposure and Family Impact Survey (CEFIS), which explores the exposure, impact and experience of the pandemic and lockdown on families.

RESULTS

Exposure to the pandemic was greater in families of healthy children and adolescents. The impact was mostly negative in both groups: caregivers reported increased anxiety (76%) and mood disturbances (71.9%) and hindered quality of sleep (64.6%) and health habits (58.3%). On the positive side, family relationships improved. Qualitatively, the SOT group positively perceived isolation and established hygienic measures as protective and destigmatizing, although they reported fear of virus transmission to their child.

CONCLUSIONS

The psychological impact of the pandemic has been similar in both groups, although families of transplant recipients have protected themselves more, probably because they are used to prevention measures and they see contagion as a graver risk. Additionally, SOT recipients' families presented some idiosyncratic elements, especially a decrease in their perception of stigma associated with the medical condition.

Privacy-protecting, reliable response data discovery using COVID-19 patient observations

OBJECTIVE

To utilize, in an individual and institutional privacy-preserving manner, electronic health record (EHR) data from 202 hospitals by analyzing answers to COVID-19-related questions and posting these answers online.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We developed a distributed, federated network of 12 health systems that harmonized their EHRs and submitted aggregate answers to consortia questions posted at https://www.covid19questions.org. Our consortium developed processes and implemented distributed algorithms to produce answers to a variety of questions. We were able to generate counts, descriptive statistics, and build a multivariate, iterative regression model without centralizing individual-level data.

RESULTS

Our public website contains answers to various clinical questions, a web form for users to ask questions in natural language, and a list of items that are currently pending responses. The results show, for example, that patients who were taking angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin II receptor blockers, within the year before admission, had lower unadjusted in-hospital mortality rates. We also showed that, when adjusted for, age, sex, and ethnicity were not significantly associated with mortality. We demonstrated that it is possible to answer questions about COVID-19 using EHR data from systems that have different policies and must follow various regulations, without moving data out of their health systems.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

We present an alternative or a complement to centralized COVID-19 registries of EHR data. We can use multivariate distributed logistic regression on observations recorded in the process of care to generate results without transferring individual-level data outside the health systems.

Delphi methodology in healthcare research: How to decide its appropriateness

The Delphi technique is a systematic process of forecasting using the collective opinion of panel members. The structured method of developing consensus among panel members using Delphi methodology has gained acceptance in diverse fields of medicine. The Delphi methods assumed a pivotal role in the last few decades to develop best practice guidance using collective intelligence where research is limited, ethically/logistically difficult or evidence is conflicting. However, the attempts to assess the quality standard of Delphi studies have reported significant variance, and details of the process followed are usually unclear. We recommend systematic quality tools for evaluation of Delphi methodology; identification of problem area of research, selection of panel, anonymity of panelists, controlled feedback, iterative Delphi rounds, consensus criteria, analysis of consensus, closing criteria, and stability of the results. Based on these nine qualitative evaluation points, we assessed the quality of Delphi studies in the medical field related to coronavirus disease 2019. There was inconsistency in reporting vital elements of Delphi methods such as identification of panel members, defining consensus, closing criteria for rounds, and presenting the results. We propose our evaluation points for researchers, medical journal editorial boards, and reviewers to evaluate the quality of the Delphi methods in healthcare research.

Delphi methodology in healthcare research: How to decide its appropriateness

The Delphi technique is a systematic process of forecasting using the collective opinion of panel members. The structured method of developing consensus among panel members using Delphi methodology has gained acceptance in diverse fields of medicine. The Delphi methods assumed a pivotal role in the last few decades to develop best practice guidance using collective intelligence where research is limited, ethically/logistically difficult or evidence is conflicting. However, the attempts to assess the quality standard of Delphi studies have reported significant variance, and details of the process followed are usually unclear. We recommend systematic quality tools for evaluation of Delphi methodology; identification of problem area of research, selection of panel, anonymity of panelists, controlled feedback, iterative Delphi rounds, consensus criteria, analysis of consensus, closing criteria, and stability of the results. Based on these nine qualitative evaluation points, we assessed the quality of Delphi studies in the medical field related to coronavirus disease 2019. There was inconsistency in reporting vital elements of Delphi methods such as identification of panel members, defining consensus, closing criteria for rounds, and presenting the results. We propose our evaluation points for researchers, medical journal editorial boards, and reviewers to evaluate the quality of the Delphi methods in healthcare research.

An analysis of chronic kidney disease as a prognostic factor in pediatric cases of COVID-19

Advanced age is a risk factor for severe infection by acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Children, however, often present with milder manifestations of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). Associations have been found between COVID-19 and multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C). Patients with the latter condition present more severe involvement. Adults with comorbidities such as chronic kidney disease (CKD) are more severely affected. This narrative review aimed to look into whether CKD contributed to more severe involvement in pediatric patients with COVID-19. The studies included in this review did not report severe cases or deaths, and indicated that pediatric patients with CKD and previously healthy children recovered quickly from infection. However, some patients with MIS-C required hospitalization in intensive care units and a few died, although it was not possible to correlate MIS-C and CKD. Conversely, adults with CKD reportedly had increased risk of severe infection by SARS-CoV-2 and higher death rates. The discrepancies seen between age groups may be due to immune system and renin-angiotensin system differences, with more pronounced expression of ACE2 in children. Immunosuppressant therapy has not been related with positive or negative effects in individuals with COVID-19, although current recommendations establish decreases in the dosage of some medications. To sum up with, CKD was not associated with more severe involvement in children diagnosed with COVID-19. Studies enrolling larger populations are still required.

Readiness for and Response to Coronavirus Disease 2019 Among Pediatric Healthcare Providers: The Role of Simulation for Pandemics and Other Disasters

OBJECTIVES

Early preparation for the training and education of healthcare providers, as well as the continuation or modification of routine medical education programs, is of great importance in times of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic or other public health emergencies. The goal of this study was to characterize these self-reported efforts by the pediatric simulation community.

DESIGN

This was a global, multicenter survey developed via a Delphi process.

SETTING

International survey study.

SUBJECTS

The survey was sent to 555 individual members of the three largest international pediatric simulation societies (The International Pediatric Simulation Society, International Network for Simulation-based Pediatric Innovation, Research & Education, and Netzwerk Kindersimulation e.V.) between April 27, 2020, and May 18, 2020.

INTERVENTIONS

None.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Description of coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic simulation-based preparation activities of pediatric acute and critical care healthcare providers. The Delphi process included 20 content experts and required three rounds to reach consensus. The survey was completed by 234 participants (42.2%) from 19 countries. Preparation differed significantly between the geographic regions, with 79.3% of Anglo-American/Anglo-Saxon, 82.6% of Indian, and 47.1% of European participants initiating specifically coronavirus disease 2019-related simulation activities. Frequent modifications to existing simulation programs included the use of telesimulation and virtual reality training. Forty-nine percent of institutions discontinued noncoronavirus disease 2019-related simulation training.

CONCLUSIONS

The swift incorporation of disease-specific sessions and the transition of standard education to virtual or hybrid simulation training modes occurred frequently. The approach used, however, depended heavily on local requirements, limitations, and circumstances. In particular, the use of telesimulation allowed education to continue while maintaining social distancing requirements.

Countermeasures against COVID-19: how to navigate medical practice through a nascent, evolving evidence base - a European multicentre mixed methods study

OBJECTIVES

In a previously published Delphi exercise the European Pediatric Dialysis Working Group (EPDWG) reported widely variable counteractive responses to COVID-19 during the first week of statutory public curfews in 12 European countries with case loads of 4-680 infected patients per million. To better understand these wide variations, we assessed different factors affecting countermeasure implementation rates and applied the capability, opportunity, motivation model of behaviour to describe their determinants.

DESIGN

We undertook this international mixed methods study of increased depth and breadth to obtain more complete data and to better understand the resulting complex evidence.

SETTING

This study was conducted in 14 paediatric nephrology centres across 12 European countries during the COVID-19 pandemic.

PARTICIPANTS

The 14 participants were paediatric nephrologists and EPDWG members from 12 European centres.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

52 countermeasures clustered into eight response domains (access control, patient testing, personnel testing, personal protective equipment policy, patient cohorting, personnel cohorting, suspension of routine care, remote work) were categorised by implementation status, drivers (expert opinion, hospital regulations) and resource dependency. Governmental strictness and media attitude were independently assessed for each country and correlated with relevant countermeasure implementation factors.

RESULTS

Implementation rates varied widely among response domains (median 49.5%, range 20%-71%) and centres (median 46%, range 31%-62%). Case loads were insufficient to explain response rate variability. Increasing case loads resulted in shifts from expert opinion-based to hospital regulation-based decisions to implement additional countermeasures despite increased resource dependency. Higher governmental strictness and positive media attitude towards countermeasure implementation were associated with higher implementation rates.

CONCLUSIONS

COVID-19 countermeasure implementation by paediatric tertiary care centres did not reflect case loads but rather reflected heterogeneity of local rules and of perceived resources. These data highlight the need of ongoing reassessment of current practices, facilitating rapid change in 'institutional behavior' in response to emerging evidence of countermeasure efficacy.

A comparative study of international and Chinese public health emergency management from the perspective of knowledge domains mapping

BACKGROUND

At the end of 2019, the outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) severely damaged and endangered people's lives. The public health emergency management system in China has played an essential role in handling the response to the outbreak, which has been appreciated by the World Health Organization and some countries. Hence, it is necessary to conduct an overall analysis of the development of the health emergency management system in China. This can provide a reference for scholars to aid in understanding the current situation and to reveal new research topics.

METHODS

We collected 2247 international articles from the Web of Science database and 959 Chinese articles from the China National Knowledge Infrastructure database. Bibliometric and mapping knowledge domain analysis methods were used in this study for temporal distribution analysis, cooperation network analysis, and co-word network analysis.

RESULTS

The first international article in this field was published in 1991, while the first Chinese article was published in 2005. The research institutions producing these studies mainly existed in universities and health organizations. Developed countries and European countries published the most articles overall, while eastern China published the most articles within China. There were 52 burst words for international articles published from 1999-2018 and 18 burst words for Chinese articles published from 2003-2018. International top-ranked articles according to the number of citations appeared in 2005, 2007, 2009, 2014, 2015, and 2016, while the corresponding Chinese articles appeared in 2003, 2004, 2009, and 2011.

CONCLUSIONS

There are differences in the regional and economic distribution of international and Chinese cooperation networks. International research is often related to timely issues mainly by focusing on emergency preparedness and monitoring of public health events, while China has focused on public health emergencies and their disposition. International research began on terrorism and bioterrorism, followed by disaster planning and emergency preparedness, epidemics, and infectious diseases. China considered severe acute respiratory syndrome as the starting research background and the legal system construction as the research starting point, which was followed by the mechanism, structure, system, and training abroad for public health emergency management.

Privacy-Protecting, Reliable Response Data Discovery Using COVID-19 Patient Observations.. [PMID: 32995818 PMCID: PMC7523159 DOI: 10.1101/2020.09.21.20196220]

There is an urgent need to answer questions related to COVID-19’s clinical course and associations with underlying conditions and health outcomes. Multi-center data are necessary to generate reliable answers, but centralizing data in a single repository is not always possible. Using a privacy-protecting strategy, we launched a public Questions & Answers web portal (https://covid19questions.org) with analyses of comorbidities, medications and laboratory tests using data from 202 hospitals (59,074 COVID-19 patients) in the USA and Germany. We find, for example, that 8.6% of hospitalizations in which the patient was not admitted to the ICU resulted in the patient returning to the hospital within seven days from discharge and that, when adjusted for age, mortality for hospitalized patients was not significantly different by gender or ethnicity.

Publicly Sharing Knowledge on COVID19 Without Sharing Patient-Level Data: A Privacy-Protecting Multivariate Analysis Approach