Ensuring that COVID-19 research is inclusive: guidance from the NIHR INCLUDE project

Shining a spotlight on the inclusion of disabled participants in clinical trials: a mixed methods study

BACKGROUND

It is crucial to include a wide range of the population in clinical trials for the outcome to be applicable in real-world settings. Existing literature indicates that under-served groups, including disabled people, have been excluded from participating in clinical trials without justification. Exclusion from clinical trials exacerbates disparities in healthcare and diminishes the benefits for excluded populations. Therefore, this study was conducted to investigate potential obstacles that prevent disabled people from participating in clinical trials in the United Kingdom (UK).

METHODS

The study was carried out through an explanatory sequential mixed methods design. The Imperial Clinical Trials Unit devised and implemented an online questionnaire-based survey (with open/closed-ended questions) and an online focus group discussion. The target population were disabled people, family members/carers of disabled people and staff involved in clinical trials, whereupon the sample was recruited by convenience sampling methods via posters and emails through various networks. The Qualtrics XM survey system was used as the host platform for the online survey, and Microsoft Teams was used for an online focus group discussion. The focus group discussion was conducted to gain a deeper understanding of the themes identified from the survey responses. We analysed responses to the survey via descriptive analysis and used thematic analysis to synthesise the free-text answers from the survey and focus group discussion.

RESULTS

We received 45 responses to the survey questionnaire and 5 disabled people took part in a focus group discussion. Our findings highlighted the differences between the perspectives of researchers and those "being researched" and different types of barriers experienced by disabled people: opportunity barriers (inadequate recruitment strategy and ambiguous eligibility criteria), awareness barriers (perception of disability) and acceptance/refusal barriers (available support and adjustment, and sharing of trial results).

CONCLUSION

Our findings support perspectives drawn from the Ford Framework regarding the need to consider all barriers, not just up to the point of enrolment into trials but also beyond the point of inclusion in clinical trials. We support calls for the introduction of legislation on including disabled people in clinical trials, implementation of industry/community-wide participatory approaches and the development of guidelines, a combined public-private approach.

How inclusive were UK-based randomised controlled trials of COVID-19 vaccines? A systematic review investigating enrolment of Black adults and adult ethnic minorities

OBJECTIVES

To establish if Black adults and adult ethnic minorities, defined as any group except White British, were represented in UK-based COVID-19 vaccination randomised controlled trials (RCTs) when compared to corresponding UK population proportions, based on 2011 census data.

DESIGN

Systematic review of COVID-19 Randomised Controlled Vaccine Trials SETTING: United Kingdom PARTICIPANTS: Randomised Controlled Trials of COVID-19 vaccines conducted in the UK were systematically reviewed following PRISMA guidelines. MeSH terms included "Covid-19 vaccine", "Ad26COVS1", and "BNT162 Vaccine" with keywords such as [covishield OR coronavac OR Vaxzevria OR NVX-CoV2373] also used. Studies that provided (A) participant demographics and (B) full eligibility criteria were included. The following key data was extracted for analysis: number of participants analysed, number of Black adults and number of adult minority ethnicity participants.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome is the mean percentage of Black adults randomised to COVID-19 vaccine trials deemed eligible within this review. The secondary outcome is the mean percentage of adult ethnic minorities randomised.

RESULTS

The final review included 7 papers and a total of 87 sets of data collated from trial sites across the UK. The standard mean percentage of Black adults included in the trials (0.59%, 95% CI: 0.13% - 1.05%) was significantly lower compared to the recorded Black adult population (2.67%) indicating that they were under-served in UK based COVID-19 vaccine RCTs (p < 0.001). Adult ethnic minority presence (8.94%, 95% CI: 2.07% - 15.80%) was also lower than census data (16.30%), indicating they were also under-served (p = 0.039).

CONCLUSION

The findings show that COVID-19 vaccine trials failed to adequately randomise proportionate numbers of Black adults and adult minority ethnicities. More inclusive practices must be developed and implemented in the recruitment of underserved groups to understand the true impact of COVID-19.

Inclusive approaches to involvement of community groups in health research: the co-produced CHICO guidance

BACKGROUND

Racially marginalised groups are underserved in healthcare and underrepresented in health research. Patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) is established as the method to ensure equity in health research. However, methods traditionally employed in PPIE can lead to the exclusion of some communities and exacerbation of existing inequalities, highlighting the need to develop inclusive processes for more inclusive community involvement in health research. We aimed to produce guidance to promote good practice for inclusive involvement of racially marginalised community groups in health research via public and community involvement and engagement.

METHODS

The CHecklist for Inclusive COmmunity involvement in health research (CHICO) was co-produced by researchers and three Bristol-based community organisations: Dhek Bhal, My Friday Coffee Morning-Barton Hill, and Malcolm X Elders. After initial conversations and link building with community leaders to develop relationships, researchers attended at least three meetings with each community group to discuss preferred approaches to involvement. Each community group had a different format, and discussions were open and tailored to fit the groups preferences. The meetings were held in the community groups' usual meeting venue. Notes from meetings were reviewed by researchers to identify key themes, which were used to inform the creation of a draft illustration which was then taken back to the community groups for refinement and used to inform the development of written guidance and the final illustration.

RESULTS

Checklist items were structured into three stages: (1) building relationships, (2) reciprocal relationships and (3) practicalities. Stage 1 highlights the importance of building trust with the community group over time through regular visits to community venues and talking to people informally to understand the history of the group, their preferences and needs, and topics that are likely to be of interest to them. Stage 2 focusses on maintaining a reciprocal relationship and understanding how to best to give back to the community. Stage 3 provides guidance on the practicalities of designing and running inclusive community-based involvement activities, including consideration of the venue, format, communication-style, language requirements, social activities, and provision of food.

CONCLUSIONS

Our co-produced checklist can guide researchers in how to involve people from different ethnicities in health research that is relevant to their community.

A scoping review establishes need for consensus guidance on reporting health equity in observational studies

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the support from the available guidance on reporting of health equity in research for our candidate items and to identify additional items for the Strengthening Reporting of Observational studies in Epidemiology-Equity extension.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We conducted a scoping review by searching Embase, MEDLINE, CINAHL, Cochrane Methodology Register, LILACS, and Caribbean Center on Health Sciences Information up to January 2022. We also searched reference lists and gray literature for additional resources. We included guidance and assessments (hereafter termed "resources") related to conduct and/or reporting for any type of health research with or about people experiencing health inequity.

RESULTS

We included 34 resources, which supported one or more candidate items or contributed to new items about health equity reporting in observational research. Each candidate item was supported by a median of six (range: 1-15) resources. In addition, 12 resources suggested 13 new items, such as "report the background of investigators".

CONCLUSION

Existing resources for reporting health equity in observational studies aligned with our interim checklist of candidate items. We also identified additional items that will be considered in the development of a consensus-based and evidence-based guideline for reporting health equity in observational studies.

The impact of COVID-19 on communicative accessibility and well-being in adults with hearing impairment: a survey study

BACKGROUND

COVID-19 measures, such as face masks, have clear consequences for the communicative accessibility of people with hearing impairment because they reduce speech perception. As communication is essential to participate in society, this might have impact on their mental well-being. This study was set out to investigate the impact of the COVID-19 measures on the communicative accessibility and well-being of adults with hearing impairment.

METHOD

Two groups of adults took part in this study, with (N = 150) and without (N = 50) hearing loss. The participants answered statements on a five point Likert-scale. Statements regarding communicative accessibility involved speech perception abilities, behavioral changes and access to information. Well-being was measured at the overall level in daily community life and at work, and in particular also with respect to perceived stress. We asked participants with hearing impairment on their audiological needs during the pandemic.

RESULTS

Significant group differences were found on speech perception abilities due to COVID-19 measures. Behavioral changes were observed to compensate for the loss in speech perception. Hearing loss was associated with an increased request for repetition or for removal of the face mask. Using information technology (e.g. Zoom) or contacting colleagues did not pose any major problems for the hearing group, whereas participants with hearing loss gave mixed responses. A significant difference emerged between groups on well-being in daily life, but not on well-being at work or perceived stress.

CONCLUSIONS

This study shows the detrimental effect of COVID-19 measures on the communicative accessibility of individuals with hearing loss. It also shows their resilience as only partial group differences were found on well-being. Protective factors are indicated, such as access to information and audiological care.

Barriers and facilitators to the recruitment of disabled people to clinical trials: a scoping review

INTRODUCTION

Underrepresentation of disabled groups in clinical trials results in an inadequate evidence base for their clinical care, which drives health inequalities. This study aims to review and map the potential barriers and facilitators to the recruitment of disabled people in clinical trials to identify knowledge gaps and areas for further extensive research. The review addresses the question: 'What are the barriers and facilitators to recruitment of disabled people to clinical trials?'.

METHODS

The Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Scoping review guidelines were followed to complete the current scoping review. MEDLINE and EMBASE databases were searched via Ovid. The literature search was guided by a combination of four key concepts from the research question: (1) disabled populations, (2) patient recruitment, (3) barriers and facilitators, and (4) clinical trials. Papers discussing barriers and facilitators of all types were included. Papers that did not have at least one disabled group as their population were excluded. Data on study characteristics and identified barriers and facilitators were extracted. Identified barriers and facilitators were then synthesised according to common themes.

RESULTS

The review included 56 eligible papers. The evidence on barriers and facilitators was largely sourced from Short Communications from Researcher Perspectives (N = 22) and Primary Quantitative Research (N = 17). Carer perspectives were rarely represented in articles. The most common disability types for the population of interest in the literature were neurological and psychiatric disabilities. A total of five emergent themes were determined across the barriers and facilitators. These were as follows: risk vs benefit assessment, design and management of recruitment protocol, balancing internal and external validity considerations, consent and ethics, and systemic factors.

CONCLUSIONS

Both barriers and facilitators were often highly specific to disability type and context. Assumptions should be minimised, and study design should prioritise principles of co-design and be informed by a data-driven assessment of needs for the study population. Person-centred approaches to consent that empower disabled people to exercise their right to choose should be adopted in inclusive practice. Implementing these recommendations stands to improve inclusive practices in clinical trial research, serving to produce a well-rounded and comprehensive evidence base.

Remote collection of physical performance measures for older people: a systematic review

Remotely collected physical performance measures could improve inclusion of under-served groups in clinical research as well as enabling continuation of research in pandemic conditions. It is unclear whether remote collection is feasible and acceptable to older patients, or whether results are comparable to face-to-face measures. We conducted a systematic review according to a prespecified protocol. We included studies with mean participant age ≥ 60 years, with no language restriction. Studies examining the gait speed, Short Physical Performance Battery, distance walk tests, grip strength, Tinetti score, Berg balance test, sit-to-stand test and timed up and go were included. Reports of feasibility, acceptability, correlation between remote and face-to-face assessments and absolute differences between remote and face-to-face assessments were sought. Data were synthesised using Synthesis Without Meta-analysis methodology; 30 analyses from 17 publications were included. Study size ranged from 10 to 300 participants, with a mean age ranging from 61 to >80 years. Studies included a broad range of participants and conditions. Most studies had a moderate or high risk of bias. Only two studies undertook assessment of acceptability or feasibility, reporting good results. Correlation between face-to-face and remote measures was variable across studies, with no measure showing consistently good correlation. Only nine studies examined the accuracy of remote measures; in six studies, accuracy was rated as good (<5% mean difference between face-to-face and remote measures). There is a lack of robust evidence that remote collection of physical performance measures is acceptable to patients, feasible or provides comparable results to face-to-face measures.

Barriers to and solutions for representative inclusion across the lifespan and in life course research: The need for structural competency highlighted by the COVID-19 pandemic

Exclusion of special populations (older adults; pregnant women, children, and adolescents; individuals of lower socioeconomic status and/or who live in rural communities; people from racial and ethnic minority groups; individuals from sexual or gender minority groups; and individuals with disabilities) in research is a pervasive problem, despite efforts and policy changes by the National Institutes of Health and other organizations. These populations are adversely impacted by social determinants of health (SDOH) that reduce access and ability to participate in biomedical research. In March 2020, the Northwestern University Clinical and Translational Sciences Institute hosted the "Lifespan and Life Course Research: integrating strategies" "Un-Meeting" to discuss barriers and solutions to underrepresentation of special populations in biomedical research. The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted how exclusion of representative populations in research can increase health inequities. We applied findings of this meeting to perform a literature review of barriers and solutions to recruitment and retention of representative populations in research and to discuss how findings are important to research conducted during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. We highlight the role of SDOH, review barriers and solutions to underrepresentation, and discuss the importance of a structural competency framework to improve research participation and retention among special populations.

The mental health experiences of ethnic minorities in the UK during the Coronavirus pandemic: A qualitative exploration

Background

Worldwide, the Coronavirus pandemic has had a major impact on people's health, lives, and livelihoods. However, this impact has not been felt equally across various population groups. People from ethnic minority backgrounds in the UK have been more adversely affected by the pandemic, especially in terms of their physical health. Their mental health, on the other hand, has received less attention. This study aimed to explore the mental health experiences of UK adults from ethnic minorities during the Coronavirus pandemic. This work forms part of our wider long-term UK population study "Mental Health in the Pandemic."

Methods

We conducted an exploratory qualitative study with people from ethnic minority communities across the UK. A series of in-depth interviews were conducted with 15 women, 14 men and 1 non-binary person from ethnic minority backgrounds, aged between 18 and 65 years old (mean age = 40). We utilized purposefully selected maximum variation sampling in order to capture as wide a variety of views, perceptions and experiences as possible. Inclusion criteria: adults (18+) from ethnic minorities across the UK; able to provide full consent to participate; able to participate in a video- or phone-call interview. All interviews took place via MS Teams or Zoom. The gathered data were transcribed verbatim and underwent thematic analysis following Braun and Clarke carried out using NVivo 12 software.

Results

The qualitative data analysis yielded seven overarching themes: (1) pandemic-specific mental health and wellbeing experiences; (2) issues relating to the media; (3) coping mechanisms; (4) worries around and attitudes toward vaccination; (5) suggestions for support in moving forward; (6) best and worst experiences during pandemic and lockdowns; (7) biggest areas of change in personal life. Generally, participants' mental health experiences varied with some not being affected by the pandemic in a way related to their ethnicity, some sharing positive experiences and coping strategies (exercising more, spending more time with family, community cohesion), and some expressing negative experiences (eating or drinking more, feeling more isolated, or even racism and abuse, especially toward Asian communities). Concerns were raised around trust issues in relation to the media, the inadequate representation of ethnic minorities, and the spread of fake news especially on social media. Attitudes toward vaccinations varied too, with some people more willing to have the vaccine than others.

Conclusion

This study's findings highlight the diversity in the pandemic mental health experiences of ethnic minorities in the UK and has implications for policy, practice and further research. To enable moving forward beyond the pandemic, our study surfaced the need for culturally appropriate mental health support, financial support (as a key mental health determinant), accurate media representation, and clear communication messaging from the Governments of the UK.

Opportunities for improved clinical trial designs in acute respiratory distress syndrome

The acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is a common critical illness syndrome with high morbidity and mortality. There are no proven pharmacological therapies for ARDS. The current definition of ARDS is based on shared clinical characteristics but does not capture the heterogeneity in clinical risk factors, imaging characteristics, physiology, timing of onset and trajectory, and biology of the syndrome. There is increasing interest within the ARDS clinical trialist community to design clinical trials that reduce heterogeneity in the trial population. This effort must be balanced with ongoing work to craft an inclusive, global definition of ARDS, with important implications for trial design. Ultimately, the two aims-to design trials that are applicable to the diverse global ARDS population while also advancing opportunities to identify targetable traits-should coexist. In this Personal View, we recommend two primary strategies to improve future ARDS trials: the development of new methods to target treatable traits in clinical trial populations, and improvements in the representativeness of ARDS trials, with the inclusion of global populations. We emphasise that these two strategies are complementary. We also discuss how a proposed expansion of the definition of ARDS could affect the future of clinical trials.

Trial Forge Guidance 3: randomised trials and how to recruit and retain individuals from ethnic minority groups-practical guidance to support better practice

Randomised trials, especially those intended to directly inform clinical practice and policy, should be designed to reflect all those who could benefit from the intervention under test should it prove effective. This does not always happen. The UK National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) INCLUDE project identified many groups in the UK that are under-served by trials, including ethnic minorities.This guidance document presents four key recommendations for designing and running trials that include the ethnic groups needed by the trial. These are (1) ensure eligibility criteria and recruitment pathway do not limit participation in ways you do not intend, (2) ensure your trial materials are developed with inclusion in mind, (3) ensure staff are culturally competent and (4) build trusting partnerships with community organisations that work with ethnic minority groups. Each recommendation comes with best practice advice, public contributor testimonials, examples of the inclusion problem tackled by the recommendation, or strategies to mitigate the problem, as well as a collection of resources to support implementation of the recommendations.We encourage trial teams to follow the recommendations and, where possible, evaluate the strategies they use to implement them. Finally, while our primary audience is those designing, running and reporting trials, we hope funders, grant reviewers and approvals agencies may also find our guidance useful.

Empowering nurses through inclusive leadership to promote research capacity building: A James Lind Alliance priority setting Partnership in Community Nursing

Aims

This paper focuses on the benefits of inclusive leadership when undertaking a priority setting partnership in community nursing, through providing a collaborative and committed nurse‐led forum for initiating impactful changes, identifying evidence uncertainties and driving research capacity‐building initiatives.

Design

This is a Discussion paper. The project was undertaken between 2020 and 2021.

Data sources

This paper is based on shared reflections as 70@70 Senior Nurse Research Leaders and is supported by literature and theory. It draws on issues relating to collective leadership, stakeholder engagement, diversity, inclusivity and COVID‐19.

Implications for nursing

The James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership catalysed the development of a rigorous evidence‐base in community nursing. The collaborative opportunities, networks and connections developed with patients, carers, nursing leaders, policy makers and healthcare colleagues raised the profile of community nursing research. This will benefit nursing research, practice, education and patients in receipt of community nursing care. Collective buy in from national leaders in policy, education, funding and commissioning has secured a commitment that the evidence uncertainties will be funded.

Conclusion

Four key learnings emerged: collective leadership can ensure learning is embedded and sustained; developing an engaged stakeholder community to promote community nursing research is essential; a diverse membership ensures inclusivity and representation; and insights into the impact of COVID‐19 aid progress. The process increased research engagement and created capacity and capability‐building initiatives. This will help community nurses feel empowered to lead changes to practice. Sustained engagement and commitment are required to integrate research priorities into community nursing research, education and practice and to drive forward changes to commissioning and service delivery.

Impact

The study promoted research capacity building through inclusive leadership. This can increase community nurses' research engagement and career development and patient care quality and safety; this can incentivize funders and policy makers to prioritize community nursing research.

Remote Fieldwork With African Migrant Women During COVID-19 Pandemic in London: A Reflection

As coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic unraveled, state-led preventative restrictions created a "new" normal through remote home-working. A long-planned follow-up qualitative research study on risk perceptions and experiences regarding Clay Ingestion among black African women during pregnancy, in London, was disrupted as England went into lockdown. Against this backdrop, we shifted to remote data collection which raised pertinent concerns around access to technology and participant digital skills. We share our experiences of navigating through remote fieldwork during the pandemic with black African mothers with caring responsibilities as well as the extra burden of homeschooling, the challenges we encountered and how we mitigate these and the lessons learnt. Thus, drawing from our remote qualitative research experiences, we refer to notable examples of challenges, mitigating strategies applied and potential lessons to inform future practice.

Allocation of Opportunities to Participate in Clinical Trials during the Covid-19 Pandemic and Other Public Health Emergencies

Covid-19 raised many novel ethical issues including regarding the allocation of opportunities to participate in clinical trials during a public health emergency. In this article, we explore how hospitals that have a scarcity of trial opportunities, either overall or in a specific trial, can equitably allocate those opportunities in the context of an urgent medical need with limited therapeutic interventions. We assess the three main approaches to allocating trial opportunities discussed in the literature: patient choice, physician referral, and randomization/lottery. As, we argue, none of the three typical approaches are ethically ideal for allocating trial opportunities in the pandemic context, many hospitals have instead implemented hybrid solutions. We offer practical guidance to support those continuing to face these challenges, and we analyze options for the future.

Dementia wellbeing and COVID-19: Review and expert consensus on current research and knowledge gaps

OBJECTIVES

In response to a commissioned research update on dementia during the COVID-19 pandemic, a UK-based working group, comprising dementia researchers from a range of fields and disciplines, aimed to describe the impact of the pandemic on dementia wellbeing and identify priorities for future research.

METHODS

We supplemented a rapid literature search (including unpublished, non-peer reviewed and ongoing studies/reports) on dementia wellbeing in the context of COVID-19 with expert group members' consensus about future research needs. From this we generated potential research questions the group judged to be relevant that were not covered by the existing literature.

RESULTS

Themes emerged from 141 studies within the six domains of the NHS England COVID-19 Dementia Wellbeing Pathway: Preventing Well, Diagnosing Well, Treating Well, Supporting Well, Living Well and Dying Well. We describe current research findings and knowledge gaps relating to the impact on people affected by dementia (individuals with a diagnosis, their carers and social contacts, health and social care practitioners and volunteers), services, research activities and organisations. Broad themes included the potential benefits and risks of new models of working including remote healthcare, the need for population-representative longitudinal studies to monitor longer-term impacts, and the importance of reporting dementia-related findings within broader health and care studies.

CONCLUSIONS

The COVID-19 pandemic has had a disproportionately negative impact on people affected by dementia. Researchers and funding organisations have responded rapidly to try to understand the impacts. Future research should highlight and resolve outstanding questions to develop evidence-based measures to improve the quality of life of people affected by dementia.

Clinical trial recruiters' experiences working with trial eligibility criteria: results of an exploratory, cross-sectional, online survey in the UK

BACKGROUND

Eligibility criteria are a fundamental element of clinical trial design, defining who can and who should not participate in a trial. Problems with the design or application of criteria are known to occur and pose risks to participants' safety and trial integrity, sometimes also negatively impacting on trial recruitment and generalisability. We conducted a short, exploratory survey to gather evidence on UK recruiters' experiences interpreting and applying eligibility criteria and their views on how criteria are communicated and developed.

METHODS

Our survey included topics informed by a wider programme of work at the Clinical Trials Research Unit, University of Leeds, on assuring eligibility criteria quality. Respondents were asked to answer based on all their trial experience, not only on experiences with our trials. The survey was disseminated to recruiters collaborating on trials run at our trials unit, and via other mailing lists and social media. The quantitative responses were descriptively analysed, with inductive analysis of free-text responses to identify themes.

RESULTS

A total of 823 eligible respondents participated. In total, 79% of respondents reported finding problems with eligibility criteria in some trials, and 9% in most trials. The main themes in the types of problems experienced were criteria clarity (67% of comments), feasibility (34%), and suitability (14%). In total, 27% of those reporting some level of problem said these problems had led to patients being incorrectly included in trials; 40% said they had led to incorrect exclusions. Most respondents (56%) reported accessing eligibility criteria mainly in the trial protocol. Most respondents (74%) supported the idea of recruiter review of eligibility criteria earlier in the protocol development process.

CONCLUSIONS

Our survey corroborates other evidence about the existence of suboptimal trial eligibility criteria. Problems with clarity were the most often reported, but the number of comments on feasibility and suitability suggest some recruiters feel eligibility criteria and associated assessments can hinder recruitment to trials. Our proposal for more recruiter involvement in protocol development has strong support and some potential benefits, but questions remain about how best to implement this. We invite other trialists to consider our other suggestions for how to assure quality in trial eligibility criteria.

Brain structure and function in people recovering from COVID-19 after hospital discharge or self-isolation: a longitudinal observational study protocol

BACKGROUND

The detailed extent of neuroinvasion or deleterious brain changes resulting from COVID-19 and their time courses remain to be determined in relation to "long-haul" COVID-19 symptoms. Our objective is to determine whether there are alterations in functional brain imaging measures among people with COVID-19 after hospital discharge or self-isolation.

METHODS

This paper describes a protocol for NeuroCOVID-19, a longitudinal observational study of adults aged 20-75 years at Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre in Toronto, Ontario, that began in April 2020. We aim to recruit 240 adults, 60 per group: people who contracted COVID-19 and were admitted to hospital (group 1), people who contracted COVID-19 and self-isolated (group 2), people who experienced influenza-like symptoms at acute presentation but tested negative for COVID-19 and self-isolated (group 3, control) and healthy people (group 4, control). Participants are excluded based on premorbid neurologic or severe psychiatric illness, unstable cardiovascular disease, and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) contraindications. Initial and 3-month follow-up assessments include multiparametric brain MRI and electroencephalography. Sensation and cognition are assessed alongside neuropsychiatric assessments and symptom self-reports. We will test the data from the initial and follow-up assessments for group differences based on 3 outcome measures: MRI cerebral blood flow, MRI resting state fractional amplitude of low-frequency fluctuation and electroencephalography spectral power.

INTERPRETATION

If neurophysiologic alterations are detected in the COVID-19 groups in our NeuroCOVID-19 study, this information could inform future research regarding interventions for long-haul COVID-19. The study results will be disseminated to scientists, clinicians and COVID-19 survivors, as well as the public and private sectors to provide context on how brain measures relate to lingering symptoms.

The future is now: our experience starting a remote clinical trial during the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic

Background

The World Health Organization declared the outbreak of SARS-CoV-2 a pandemic on February 11, 2020. This organism causes COVID-19 disease and the rapid rise in cases and geographic spread strained healthcare systems. Clinical research trials were hindered by infection control measures discouraging physical contact and diversion of resources to meet emergent requirements. The need for effective treatment and prevention of COVID-19 prompted an untested investigational response. Trial groups adapted approaches using remote enrolment and consenting, newly developed diagnostic tests, delivery of study medications and devices to participants’ homes, and remote monitoring to ensure investigator/enrollee safety while preserving ethical integrity, confidentiality, and data accuracy.

Methods

Clinical researchers at our community health system in the USA undertook an outpatient randomized open-label study of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) prophylaxis versus observation of SARS-CoV-2 infection in household COVID-19 contacts. Designed in March 2020, challenges included COVID-19 infection in the research group, HCQ shortage, and lack of well-established home SARS-CoV-2 tests and remote ECG monitoring protocols in populations naive to these procedures. The study was written, funded, and received ethical committee approval in 4 months and was completed by September 2020 during a period of fluctuating infection rates and conflicting political opinions on HCQ use; results have been published. Singular methodology included the use of a new RNA PCR saliva SARS-CoV-2 home diagnostic test and a remote smartphone-based 6-lead ECG recording system.

Results

Of 483 households contacted regarding trial participation, 209 (43.3%) did not respond to telephone calls/e-mails and 90 (18.6%) declined; others were not eligible by inclusion or exclusion criteria. Ultimately, 54 individuals were enrolled and 42 completed the study. Numbers were too small to determine the efficacy of HCQ prophylaxis. No serious treatment-related adverse events were encountered.

Conclusions

Flexibility in design, a multidisciplinary research team, prompt cooperation among research, funding, ethics review groups, and finding innovative study approaches enabled this work. Concerns were balancing study recruitment against unduly influencing individuals anxious for protection from the pandemic and exclusion of groups based on lack of Internet access and technology. An issue to address going forward is establishing research cooperation across community health systems before emergencies develop.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.govNCT04652648. Registered on December 3, 2020.

Health Risks and Consequences of a COVID-19 Infection for People with Disabilities: Scoping Review and Descriptive Thematic Analysis

This study aims to synthesize the literature on any disproportionate health risks or consequences of a COVID-19 infection for people with disabilities. Scoping review with a descriptive thematic analysis was carried out. Up to mid-September 2020, seven scientific databases and three preprint servers were searched to identify empirical or perspective papers. Snowballing searches and expert' consultations also took place. Two independent reviewers were used for the screenings and data extractions. Of 1027 references, 58 were included, 15 of which were empirical articles. The thematic analysis showed that: (1) People with disabilities living in residential or long-term care facilities were more likely to have greater infection rates; (2) Intersecting mediators of greater infection risks were multiple (e.g., lack of accessible information); (3) People with disabilities often face greater health problems when infected; and (4) Unethical disadvantages in the rationing of lifesaving and critical care can be experienced by people with disabilities. Conclusions: Beyond any health-related vulnerabilities (e.g., comorbidity rates), multiple yet modifiable environmental factors can provide disproportionate health risks and consequences of a COVID-19 infection for people with disabilities. Public health and policy measures must prevent or reduce modifiable environmental risks.