As of January 12, 2021, Australia has reported 28,634 COVID-19 cases. Most (20,411) cases are from the state of Victoria. In response to rising infections and community transmission in July 2020, on August 2nd, several restrictions were imposed for the following 111 days, including an 8pm curfew, a travel restriction to 5 km from home, and closure of nonessential services. It is unknown how this affected people living with HIV (PLHIV), who already experience disproportionate levels of mental health issues, comorbidity, and stigma. An online survey was designed with HIV community-based organizations to investigate the impact of the pandemic on Victorian PLHIV. Participants were recruited voluntarily both through social media and Infectious Diseases clinics at participating hospitals. There were 153 respondents. Most were male (77%), aged between 30 and 60 years (77%), and Australian-born (63%). Forty-three percent, 31%, and 25% reported negative impacts upon personal relationships, employment, and income, respectively. HIV care continued with 95% and 98% being able to access their HIV provider and antiretroviral therapy (ART), respectively. Telehealth was used by 92% and was largely well received. PLHIV reported worry about physical health (68%), mental health (66%), finances (50%),z and accommodation (25%). Fifty percent of participants reported weight gain and 27% increased alcohol intake. This study demonstrated the widespread negative effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on PLHIV in Victoria, although provision of HIV care and ART continued uninterrupted. This highlighted the importance of mental health support and social welfare programs during times of health care and societal strain.

ObjectiveVerbal face-to-face feedback on clinical task performance is a fundamental component of health professions education. Experts argue that feedback is critical for performance improvement, but the evidence is limited. The aim of this systematic review was to investigate the effect of face-to-face verbal feedback from a health professional, compared with alternative or no feedback, on the objective workplace task performance of another health professional.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.MethodsWe searched the full holdings of Ovid MEDLINE, CENTRAL, Embase, CINAHL and PsycINFO up to 1 February 2019 and searched references of included studies. Two authors independently undertook study selection, data extraction and quality appraisal. Studies were included if they were randomised controlled trials investigating the effect of feedback, in which health professionals were randomised to individual verbal face-to-face feedback compared with no feedback or alternative feedback and available as full-text publications in English. The certainty of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations approach. For feedback compared with no feedback, outcome data from included studies were pooled using a random effects model.ResultsIn total, 26 trials met the inclusion criteria, involving 2307 participants. For the effect of verbal face-to-face feedback on performance compared with no feedback, when studies at high risk of bias were excluded, eight studies involving 392 health professionals were included in a meta-analysis: the standardised mean difference (SMD) was 0.7 (95% CI 0.37 to 1.03; p<0.001) in favour of feedback. The calculated SMD prediction interval was −0.06 to 1.46. For feedback compared with alternative feedback, studies could not be pooled due to substantial design and intervention heterogeneity. All included studies were summarised, and key factors likely to influence performance were identified including components within feedback interventions, instruction and practice opportunities.ConclusionsVerbal face-to-face feedback in the health professions may result in a moderate to large improvement in workplace task performance, compared with no feedback. However, the quality of evidence was low, primarily due to risk of bias and publication bias. Further research is needed. In particular, we found a lack of high-quality trials that clearly reported key components likely to influence performance.Trial registration numberCRD42017081796.

No abstract