Objectives 1) Compare physical function and fitness outcomes in people infected with SARS-CoV to healthy controls; 2) quantify the recovery of physical function and fitness following SARS-CoV infection; 3) determine the effects of exercise following SARS-CoV infection. Methods Four databases (CINAHL, MEDLINE, ProQuest, and Web of Science Core Collections) were searched in April 2020 using keywords relating to SARS-CoV, physical function, fitness, and exercise. Observational studies or randomised controlled trials were included if they involved people following SARS-CoV infection and either assessed the change or recovery in physical function/fitness or evaluated the effects exercise postinfection. Results 10 articles were included in this review. Evidence from nine articles demonstrated that SARS-CoV patients had reduced levels of physical function and fitness postinfection in comparison to healthy controls. Furthermore, patients demonstrated incomplete recovery of physical function, with some experiencing residual impairments 1 to 2 years postinfection. Evidence from one randomised controlled trial found that a combined aerobic and resistance training intervention significantly improved physical function and fitness postinfection in comparison to a control group. Conclusions Physical function and fitness are impaired following SARS-CoV infection, and impairments may persist up to 1 to 2 years postinfection. Researchers and clinicians can use these findings to understand the potential impairments and rehabilitation needs of people recovering from the current COVID-19 outbreak. While one study demonstrated that exercise can improve physical function and fitness postinfection, further research is required to determine the effectiveness of exercise in people recovering from similar infections (eg, COVID-19). Impact statement Considering the similarities in pathology and clinical presentation of SARS-CoV and COVID-19, it is likely that COVID-19 patients will present with similar impairments to physical function. Accordingly, research is required to measure the extent of functional impairments in COVID-19 cohorts. In addition, research should evaluate whether rehabilitation interventions such as exercise can promote postinfection recovery.

Faced with the rapidly evolving COVID-19 pandemic, in March 2020 the UK Government advocated strict self-isolation ('shielding') to protect extremely vulnerable patient groups deemed at high risk of severe SARS-CoV-2 infection. 1 These included children and adults with sickle cell anemia (HbSS). On the advice of the National Hemoglobinopathy Panel (NHP), a multidisciplinary expert advisory group, shielding guidance was extended to all sickle cell disease (SCD) sub-types. Patients with transfusion dependent (TDT) and non-transfusion dependent thalassemia (NTDT), Diamond-Blackfan anemia (DBA) and other rare inherited anemias were also advised to shield if considered at high risk based on agreed clinical criteria. These included severe iron overload, splenectomy, diabetes and cardiac disease. 2 Data provided by two participating centers with the largest thalassemia cohorts indicate up to 30% of patients meet these criteria. In order to evaluate the impact of these measures and inform guidance on the clinical management of COVID-19 and public health policy, a real-time survey of confirmed and suspected cases of COVID-19 in hemoglobinopathy and rare inherited anemia patients was initiated on behalf of the NHP and National Health Service (NHS) England Clinical Reference Group for Hemoglobinopathies. Data were submitted weekly by the 14 Hemoglobinopathy Coordinating Centers (HCC) in England, providing national coverage. HCC were encouraged to follow World Health Organization (WHO) case definitions which include both confirmed and clinically suspected COVID-19. 3 Anonymised data were collected using a standardised report template (see the Online Supplementary Data) and presented weekly to the NHP. Between April 8 and May 6, 2020, a total of 195 confirmed or suspected COVID-19 cases (male: 87; female: 108) were reported. The timeline of case accrual is shown in Figure 1A. The median age was 33 years (range: 6 weeks to 92 years). The distribution according to age and sex is shown in Figure 1B. PCR for SARS-CoV-2 RNA was positive in 99 of 157 (63%) cases tested (Figure 2A). Laboratory confirmation was not available for 34 (17.4%) cases, 31 of which were managed in the community for suspected COVID-19 before widespread testing became available. SCD accounted for 166 (85.1%) of cases reported, with 129 (77.7%) severe (HbSS or HbSβ 0-thalassemia) and 37 (22.3%) mild (HbSC, HbSβ +-thalassemia or HbSE) genotypes (Figures 2A-B). There were 149 adults and 17 children (defined as ≤18 years). Ninety-five (57%) were female. One hundred and twenty-eight (77.1%) SCD patients were admitted to hospital of whom 15 (11.7%), all adults, required non-invasive and/or mechanical ventilation (Figure 2B). The proportion of patients who required critical care was higher in mild genotypes, 8 of 29 (27.6%), than severe genotypes, 7 of 99 (7.1%) (Figure 2B). Sixty of 154 (39%) patients for whom data were available received transfusion (red cell exchange 46 [29%]; simple [top-up] transfusion 15 [10%]) during the COVID-19 episode. The proportion of tr...

No abstract

BackgroundIn Victoria, Australia, the law regulating abortion was reformed in 2008, and a clause (‘Section 8’) was introduced requiring doctors with a conscientious objection to abortion to refer women to another provider. This study reports the views of abortion experts on the operation of Section 8 of the Abortion Law Reform Act in Victoria.MethodsNineteen semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with purposively selected Victorian abortion experts in 2015. Interviews explored the impact of abortion law reform on service provision, including the understanding and implementation of Section 8. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed thematically.ResultsThe majority of participants described Section 8 as a mechanism to protect women’s right to abortion, rather than a mechanism to protect doctors’ rights. All agreed that most doctors would not let moral or religious beliefs impact on their patients, and yet all could detail negative experiences related to Section 8. The negative experiences arose because doctors had: directly contravened the law by not referring; attempted to make women feel guilty; attempted to delay women’s access; or claimed an objection for reasons other than conscience. Use or misuse of conscientious objection by Government telephone staff, pharmacists, institutions, and political groups was also reported.ConclusionSome doctors are not complying with Section 8, with adverse effects on access to care for some women. Further research is needed to inform strategies for improving compliance with the law in order to facilitate timely access to abortion services.