No abstract

To conduct a systematic review and develop a conceptual framework on the mechanisms linking loneliness, social isolation, health outcomes and mortality. Electronic databases were systematically searched (PubMed, MEDLINE, Scopus and EMBASE) from inception to October 2018 followed by manual searching to identify research on loneliness, social isolation and mortality in adults published in the English language. Articles were assessed for quality and synthesised into a conceptual framework using meta-ethnographical approaches. A total of 122 articles were included. These collated observational designs examining mediators and moderations of the association in addition to qualitative studies exploring potential mechanisms were included. A framework incorporating 18 discrete factors implicated in the association between loneliness, social isolation and mortality was developed. Factors were categorised into societal or individual, and sub-categorised into biological, behavioural and psychological. These findings emphasise the complex multidirectional relationship between loneliness, social isolation and mortality. Our conceptual framework may allow development of more holistic interventions, targeting many of the interdependent factors that contribute to poor outcomes for lonely and socially isolated people.

No abstract

ImportanceAccurate identification of patient groups with the lowest level of protection following COVID-19 vaccination is important to better target resources and interventions for the most vulnerable populations. It is not known whether SARS-CoV-2 antibody testing has clinical utility for high-risk groups, such as people with cancer.ObjectiveTo evaluate whether spike protein antibody vaccine response (COV-S) following COVID-19 vaccination is associated with the risk of SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infection or hospitalization among patients with cancer.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis was a population-based cross-sectional study of patients with cancer from the UK as part of the National COVID Cancer Antibody Survey. Adults with a known or reported cancer diagnosis who had completed their primary SARS-CoV-2 vaccination schedule were included. This analysis ran from September 1, 2021, to March 4, 2022, a period covering the expansion of the UK’s third-dose vaccination booster program.InterventionsAnti–SARS-CoV-2 COV-S antibody test (Elecsys; Roche).Main Outcomes and MeasuresOdds of SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infection and COVID-19 hospitalization.ResultsThe evaluation comprised 4249 antibody test results from 3555 patients with cancer and 294 230 test results from 225 272 individuals in the noncancer population. The overall cohort of 228 827 individuals (patients with cancer and the noncancer population) comprised 298 479 antibody tests. The median age of the cohort was in the age band of 40 and 49 years and included 182 741 test results (61.22%) from women and 115 737 (38.78%) from men. There were 279 721 tests (93.72%) taken by individuals identifying as White or White British. Patients with cancer were more likely to have undetectable anti-S antibody responses than the general population (199 of 4249 test results [4.68%] vs 376 of 294 230 [0.13%]; P < .001). Patients with leukemia or lymphoma had the lowest antibody titers. In the cancer cohort, following multivariable correction, patients who had an undetectable antibody response were at much greater risk for SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infection (odds ratio [OR], 3.05; 95% CI, 1.96-4.72; P < .001) and SARS-CoV-2–related hospitalization (OR, 6.48; 95% CI, 3.31-12.67; P < .001) than individuals who had a positive antibody response.Conclusions and RelevanceThe findings of this cross-sectional study suggest that COV-S antibody testing allows the identification of patients with cancer who have the lowest level of antibody-derived protection from COVID-19. This study supports larger evaluations of SARS-CoV-2 antibody testing. Prevention of SARS-CoV-2 transmission to patients with cancer should be prioritized to minimize impact on cancer treatments and maximize quality of life for individuals with cancer during the ongoing pandemic.

Purpose The COVID-19 pandemic has forced reorganization of clinical services to minimize face-to-face contact between patients and health-care providers. Specialist services, including clinical genetics, must consider methods of remote delivery including videoconferencing—termed telegenetics. This review evaluates the evidence for telegenetics and its applicability to future service development. Methods A systematic review of six databases was conducted to identify studies from 2005 onward using synchronous videoconferencing to deliver clinical genetics services. Included studies compared telegenetics to an alternative method or used a before and after design. Results Thirteen studies met the inclusion criteria (eight compared telegenetics to in-person consultations and three to telephone delivery). Patient satisfaction, genetic knowledge, and psychosocial outcomes were similar for in-person and telegenetic counseling. There was some evidence that telegenetics may be superior to telephone delivery for knowledge gain and reduction in anxiety and depression. There is limited evidence concerning the effect of telegenetics on provider satisfaction and behavioral outcomes. Conclusions are limited by at least moderate risk of bias in all evaluated studies and small sample sizes. Conclusion Across most outcomes measured, telegenetics had equivalent outcomes to in-person appointment; however, the extent to which the available evidence is applicable to longer-term use is debatable.