11
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Supports for People with Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities during the COVID-19 Pandemic from their Own Perspective

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Highlights

          • Organizations have provided people with IDD with the most information on COVID-19.

          • Supports received by people with IDD have been conditioned by their living context.

          • People with IDD living in specific environments had fewer natural supports.

          • Those living with their family relied on it because of services limitations.

          • People with IDD have also provided support to other people during the lockdown.

          Abstract

          Background

          Individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD) represent a particularly vulnerable group to the threats posed by COVID-19. However, they have not yet been given a voice on how their living conditions have been affected by COVID-19.

          Aims

          This study aims to report the impact on people with IDD of COVID-19 and the response measures applied in Spain during the lockdown.

          Method

          Data on 582 individuals with IDD were collected through a survey. Seven open questions were included to capture the perspectives of people with IDD on COVID-19 and its consequences. Content analysis was performed to identify themes and categories across participant responses. Chi-square tests were used to analyze the relationship between reporting a specific category and participants’ characteristics.

          Results

          Supports have been conditioned by the living context. People living in specific settings had fewer natural supports, while those living with their family relied heavily on it. Participants also lacked supports considered necessary. It is worth stressing that persons with IDD have also provided support to others.

          Conclusions

          Although people with IDD have generally received the assistance they need during the lockdown, it must be ensured that appropriate supports are provided regardless of the context in which they live.

          Related collections

          Most cited references35

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found

          Remdesivir for the Treatment of Covid-19 — Final Report

          Abstract Background Although several therapeutic agents have been evaluated for the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19), none have yet been shown to be efficacious. Methods We conducted a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of intravenous remdesivir in adults hospitalized with Covid-19 with evidence of lower respiratory tract involvement. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either remdesivir (200 mg loading dose on day 1, followed by 100 mg daily for up to 9 additional days) or placebo for up to 10 days. The primary outcome was the time to recovery, defined by either discharge from the hospital or hospitalization for infection-control purposes only. Results A total of 1063 patients underwent randomization. The data and safety monitoring board recommended early unblinding of the results on the basis of findings from an analysis that showed shortened time to recovery in the remdesivir group. Preliminary results from the 1059 patients (538 assigned to remdesivir and 521 to placebo) with data available after randomization indicated that those who received remdesivir had a median recovery time of 11 days (95% confidence interval [CI], 9 to 12), as compared with 15 days (95% CI, 13 to 19) in those who received placebo (rate ratio for recovery, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.12 to 1.55; P<0.001). The Kaplan-Meier estimates of mortality by 14 days were 7.1% with remdesivir and 11.9% with placebo (hazard ratio for death, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.47 to 1.04). Serious adverse events were reported for 114 of the 541 patients in the remdesivir group who underwent randomization (21.1%) and 141 of the 522 patients in the placebo group who underwent randomization (27.0%). Conclusions Remdesivir was superior to placebo in shortening the time to recovery in adults hospitalized with Covid-19 and evidence of lower respiratory tract infection. (Funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and others; ACTT-1 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04280705.)
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Safety and immunogenicity of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine against SARS-CoV-2: a preliminary report of a phase 1/2, single-blind, randomised controlled trial

            Summary Background The pandemic of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) might be curtailed by vaccination. We assessed the safety, reactogenicity, and immunogenicity of a viral vectored coronavirus vaccine that expresses the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2. Methods We did a phase 1/2, single-blind, randomised controlled trial in five trial sites in the UK of a chimpanzee adenovirus-vectored vaccine (ChAdOx1 nCoV-19) expressing the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein compared with a meningococcal conjugate vaccine (MenACWY) as control. Healthy adults aged 18–55 years with no history of laboratory confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection or of COVID-19-like symptoms were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 at a dose of 5 × 1010 viral particles or MenACWY as a single intramuscular injection. A protocol amendment in two of the five sites allowed prophylactic paracetamol to be administered before vaccination. Ten participants assigned to a non-randomised, unblinded ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 prime-boost group received a two-dose schedule, with the booster vaccine administered 28 days after the first dose. Humoral responses at baseline and following vaccination were assessed using a standardised total IgG ELISA against trimeric SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, a muliplexed immunoassay, three live SARS-CoV-2 neutralisation assays (a 50% plaque reduction neutralisation assay [PRNT50]; a microneutralisation assay [MNA50, MNA80, and MNA90]; and Marburg VN), and a pseudovirus neutralisation assay. Cellular responses were assessed using an ex-vivo interferon-γ enzyme-linked immunospot assay. The co-primary outcomes are to assess efficacy, as measured by cases of symptomatic virologically confirmed COVID-19, and safety, as measured by the occurrence of serious adverse events. Analyses were done by group allocation in participants who received the vaccine. Safety was assessed over 28 days after vaccination. Here, we report the preliminary findings on safety, reactogenicity, and cellular and humoral immune responses. The study is ongoing, and was registered at ISRCTN, 15281137, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324606. Findings Between April 23 and May 21, 2020, 1077 participants were enrolled and assigned to receive either ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (n=543) or MenACWY (n=534), ten of whom were enrolled in the non-randomised ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 prime-boost group. Local and systemic reactions were more common in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and many were reduced by use of prophylactic paracetamol, including pain, feeling feverish, chills, muscle ache, headache, and malaise (all p<0·05). There were no serious adverse events related to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19. In the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group, spike-specific T-cell responses peaked on day 14 (median 856 spot-forming cells per million peripheral blood mononuclear cells, IQR 493–1802; n=43). Anti-spike IgG responses rose by day 28 (median 157 ELISA units [EU], 96–317; n=127), and were boosted following a second dose (639 EU, 360–792; n=10). Neutralising antibody responses against SARS-CoV-2 were detected in 32 (91%) of 35 participants after a single dose when measured in MNA80 and in 35 (100%) participants when measured in PRNT50. After a booster dose, all participants had neutralising activity (nine of nine in MNA80 at day 42 and ten of ten in Marburg VN on day 56). Neutralising antibody responses correlated strongly with antibody levels measured by ELISA (R 2=0·67 by Marburg VN; p<0·001). Interpretation ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 showed an acceptable safety profile, and homologous boosting increased antibody responses. These results, together with the induction of both humoral and cellular immune responses, support large-scale evaluation of this candidate vaccine in an ongoing phase 3 programme. Funding UK Research and Innovation, Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Thames Valley and South Midland's NIHR Clinical Research Network, and the German Center for Infection Research (DZIF), Partner site Gießen-Marburg-Langen.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Understanding interobserver agreement: the kappa statistic.

              Items such as physical exam findings, radiographic interpretations, or other diagnostic tests often rely on some degree of subjective interpretation by observers. Studies that measure the agreement between two or more observers should include a statistic that takes into account the fact that observers will sometimes agree or disagree simply by chance. The kappa statistic (or kappa coefficient) is the most commonly used statistic for this purpose. A kappa of 1 indicates perfect agreement, whereas a kappa of 0 indicates agreement equivalent to chance. A limitation of kappa is that it is affected by the prevalence of the finding under observation. Methods to overcome this limitation have been described.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Res Dev Disabil
                Res Dev Disabil
                Research in Developmental Disabilities
                Elsevier Ltd.
                0891-4222
                1873-3379
                9 November 2020
                9 November 2020
                : 103813
                Affiliations
                [a ]Institute on Community Integration (INICO). Department of Personality, Assessment, and Psychological Treatments. University of Salamanca, Spain
                [b ]Department of Radiology. University Hospital of Salamanca, Spain
                Author notes
                [* ]Corresponding author at: Laboratory -03, Faculty of Psychology, University of Salamanca, Avda. de la Merced, 109-131, 37005 Salamanca, Castile and Leon, Spain.
                Article
                S0891-4222(20)30245-6 103813
                10.1016/j.ridd.2020.103813
                7651232
                33271448
                5b916e0a-139f-4f3b-a5ae-e7b62aa4bf2c
                © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

                Since January 2020 Elsevier has created a COVID-19 resource centre with free information in English and Mandarin on the novel coronavirus COVID-19. The COVID-19 resource centre is hosted on Elsevier Connect, the company's public news and information website. Elsevier hereby grants permission to make all its COVID-19-related research that is available on the COVID-19 resource centre - including this research content - immediately available in PubMed Central and other publicly funded repositories, such as the WHO COVID database with rights for unrestricted research re-use and analyses in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for free by Elsevier for as long as the COVID-19 resource centre remains active.

                History
                : 8 September 2020
                : 28 October 2020
                : 5 November 2020
                Categories
                Article

                Neurology
                covid-19,intellectual and developmental disabilities,supports,rights,self-perception
                Neurology
                covid-19, intellectual and developmental disabilities, supports, rights, self-perception

                Comments

                Comment on this article