Search

Background During the first epidemic wave, COVID-19 surveillance focused on quantifying the magnitude and the escalation of a growing global health crisis. The scientific community first assessed risk through basic indicators, such as the number of cases or rates of new cases and deaths, and later began using other direct impact indicators to conduct more detailed analyses. We aimed at synthesizing the scientific community's contribution to assessing the direct impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on population health through indicators reported in research papers. Methods We conducted a rapid scoping review to identify and describe health indicators included in articles published between January 2020 and June 2021, using one strategy to search PubMed, EMBASE and WHO COVID-19 databases. Sixteen experts from European public health institutions screened papers and retrieved indicator characteristics. We also asked in an online survey how the health indicators were added to and used in policy documents in Europe. Results After reviewing 3891 records, we selected a final sample of 67 articles and 233 indicators. We identified 52 (22.3%) morbidity indicators from 33 articles, 105 severity indicators (45.1%, 27 articles) and 68 mortality indicators (29.2%, 51). Respondents from 22 countries completed 31 questionnaires, and the majority reported morbidity indicators (29, 93.5%), followed by mortality indicators (26, 83.9%). Conclusions The indicators collated here might be useful to assess the impact of future pandemics. Therefore, their measurement should be standardized to allow for comparisons between settings, countries and different populations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background This study aimed to describe the mortality excess during the three first epidemic periods of COVID-19 in all regions of France. Methods Two complementary approaches were implemented. First, we described the number of death of patients infected with or diagnosed with COVID-19 in health care (HC) and medico-social (MS) institutions. Then, we estimated general all-cause mortality excess (all ages) by comparing the mortality observed with the expected mortality. We used a daily number of death model according to a negative binomial distribution, as a function of the long-term trend in mortality (penalized spline function of time) and its seasonal variation (cyclic spline function). The model provided expected mortality during epidemic periods with a 95% credibility interval. Each region defined three epidemic periods, including the overseas territories. Results The two approaches were consistent in the most affected regions but there are major regional disparities that vary according to the epidemic period. There is an east–west gradient in the relative excess of deaths from all-causes during each epidemic period. The deaths observed in HC and MS institutions alone do not explain the excess (or deficit) of mortality in each region and epidemic period. Conclusion An analysis by age group according to the two approaches and a comparison of death specific causes could provide a better understanding of these differences. Electronic death registration system (mortality by medical causes) would allow a rapid mortality related estimation to an emerging pathology like Coronavirus Disease-2019 (COVID-19) but is still insufficient for real-time medical causes of death monitoring. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused major disruptions in healthcare services worldwide. Yet, little is known about the association between perceived disruption in healthcare services and sociodemographic factors, pre-existing health conditions as well as concurrent physical and psychological symptoms. Methods: Leveraging data from the Icelandic COVID-19 National Resilience Cohort, we performed a repeated measure analysis among 15 754 participants who responded to the question on perceived disruption in healthcare services from December 2020 to July 2021, to explore its association with socio-demographic factors, health indicators and conditions. Furthermore, we performed a longitudinal analysis among 7848 participants with two repeated measures to explore the association between timing and duration of perceived disruption in healthcare services and changes in depression, anxiety, sleep quality and somatic symptoms. Results: The prevalence of perceived disruption in healthcare services slightly decreased over time (P<0.01). Perceived disruption in healthcare services was more prevalent among individuals with pre-existing health conditions, i.e. history of psychiatric disorders (prevalence ratio=1.59, 95% confidence interval 1.48-1.72) and chronic somatic conditions [1.40 (1.30-1.52)]. However, no increase in the prevalence of perceived disruption in healthcare services was observed among individuals diagnosed with COVID-19 [0.99 (0.84-1.18)]. Moreover, we found that emerging perceived disruption in healthcare services was associated with an increase in symptoms of mental illness during the pandemic (bs 0.06-0.68). Conclusions: A disruption in healthcare services during the COVID-19 pandemic was reported by vulnerable groups, while the Icelandic healthcare system managed to maintain accessible services to individuals with COVID-19. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction The primary objective of this study was to determine whether workplace culture in academic oncology differed by gender, during the COVID-19 pandemic. Materials and Methods We used the Culture Conducive to Women's Academic Success (CCWAS), a validated survey tool, to investigate the academic climate at an NCI-designated Cancer Center. We adapted the CCWAS to be applicable to people of all genders. The full membership of the Cancer Center was surveyed (total faculty = 429). The questions in each of 4 CCWAS domains (equal access to opportunities, work-life balance, freedom from gender bias, and leadership support) were scored using a 5-point Likert scale. Median score and interquartile ranges for each domain were calculated. Results A total of 168 respondents (men = 58, women = 106, n = 4 not disclosed) submitted survey responses. The response rate was 39% overall and 70% among women faculty. We found significant differences in perceptions of workplace culture by gender, both in responses to individual questions and in the overall score in the following domains: equal access to opportunities, work-life balance, and leader support, and in the total score for the CCWAS. Conclusions Our survey is the first of its kind completed during the COVID-19 pandemic at an NCI-designated Cancer Center, in which myriad factors contributed to burnout and workplace challenges. These results point to specific issues that detract from the success of women pursuing careers in academic oncology. Identifying these issues can be used to design and implement solutions to improve workforce culture, mitigate gender bias, and retain faculty. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]