Search

Aims: Norway and Sweden had different early pandemic responses that may have impacted mental health management. The aim was to assess the impact of the early COVID‐19 pandemic on mental health‐related care. Methods: We used national registries in Norway and Sweden (1 January 2018–31 December 2020) to define 2 cohorts: (i) general adult population; and (ii) mental health adult population. Interrupted times series regression analyses evaluated step and slope changes compared to prepandemic levels for monthly rates of medications (antidepressants, antipsychotics, anxiolytics, hypnotics/sedatives, lithium, opioid analgesics, psychostimulants), hospitalizations (for anxiety, bipolar, depressive/mood, eating and schizophrenia/delusional disorders) and specialist outpatient visits. Results: In Norway, immediate reductions occurred in the general population for medications (−12% antidepressants to −7% hypnotics/sedatives) except for antipsychotics; and hospitalizations (−33% anxiety disorders to −17% bipolar disorders). Increasing slope change occurred for all medications except psychostimulants (+1.1%/month hypnotics/sedatives to +1.7%/month antidepressants); and hospitalization for anxiety disorders (+5.5%/month), depressive/mood disorders (+1.7%/month) and schizophrenia/delusional disorders (+2%/month). In Sweden, immediate reductions occurred for antidepressants (−7%) and opioids (−10%) and depressive/mood disorder hospitalizations (−11%) only with increasing slope change in psychostimulant prescribing of (0.9%/month). In contrast to Norway, increasing slope changes occurred in specialist outpatient visits for depressive/mood disorders, eating disorders and schizophrenia/delusional disorders (+1.5, +1.9 and +2.3%/month, respectively). Similar changes occurred in the pre‐existing mental health cohorts. Conclusion: Differences in early COVID‐19 policy response may have contributed to differences in adult mental healthcare provision in Norway and Sweden. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Organophosphate flame retardants (OPFRs) are increasingly and widely used as substitutes for brominated flame retardants in daily life. The chemical structure of OPFRs is very similar to that of organophosphorus pesticides, leading to concerns about their neurotoxicity. A few epidemiological studies have been published with inconsistent results on this topic, and a systematic scoping review is needed to provide an overview or map of the current evidence on the relationship of OPFRs with neurodevelopmental toxicity. Therefore, MEDLINE (accessed through PubMed), Web of Science, and CNKI (Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure) were systematically searched for articles published in the last two decades. Nine eligible articles were included in the present systematic scoping review for adherence to the predefined PECOS (population, exposure, comparison, outcome, study design) statement. Six studies were conducted in the USA, and the remaining three studies were conducted in Austria, Norway and China. A total of 2 581 children (1 203 females and 1 378 males) were included. Half of the included studies focused on the adverse effects of OPFR exposure on cognition in children, while others primarily focused on the behaviors of children. In summary, the current evidence suggests inverse associations between early-life exposure to OPFRs and the childhood intelligence quotient and internalizing behavior and positive relationships of OPFR exposure with externalizing behavior. However, some differences in the timing of sample collection for exposure measurements, in the individual OPFR metabolites available, in the neurodevelopmental scales for outcome measurement, and in the statistical methods used to analyze the data are noted. In addition, further studies are warranted to evaluate some important issues, such as sex differences in the association, exposure-sensitive periods, and cumulative exposure risk assessment. • Human studies on neurotoxicity of organophosphate flame retardants (OPFRs) were rare. • The first systematic review was conducted for OPFRs linked with child neurotoxicity. • It indicated an inverse association of OPFR with child IQ and internalizing behavior. • It suggested a positive relationship between OPFR and child externalizing behavior. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• In Norway, 12–17-year-olds had greater COVID-19 vaccine uptake than younger children of age 5–11 years. • About one every eight children aged 5–11 years with high risk for severe COVID-19 was unvaccinated. • Parental COVID-19 vaccination status, especially in the mother, was major determinant of COVID-19 vaccine uptake in children and adolescents. • Prior SARS-CoV-2 infection, being born premature and having moderate or high risk of severe COVID-19 were important determinants of vaccine uptake. Factors related with COVID-19 vaccine uptake in children and adolescents in Norway remain unclear, despite this being useful knowledge for future pandemic preparedness. This study aimed to comprehensively examine individual and familial factors associated with vaccine uptake in children and adolescents in Norway. We utilized nationwide registry-data from various health registries and Statistics Norway, encompassing all children and adolescents living in Norway during the pandemic, until 31-Dec-2022. Vaccine uptake is defined as receiving at least one dose of COVID-19 vaccine. We employed a forward stepwise logistic regression model and a random forest machine-learning algorithm to explore the relationship between vaccine uptake and socio-cultural, demographic, and health-related factors. We included 423,548 5–11-year-olds, 269,830 12–15-year-olds, and 120,854 16–17-year-olds. Vaccine uptake in these three groups was respectively 2.6 %, 73.3 %, and 87.3 %. Factors associated with vaccine uptake varied by age group. In youngest children, immigrant background (Odds-ratio (OR) = 1.58, 95 % confidence interval (CI) (1.14–2.19)), born extremely preterm (OR = 2.38, 95 % CI (1.60–3.54)), having risk of severe COVID-19 (OR = 5.40, 95 % CI (4.69–6.23) and maternal COVID-19 vaccination (OR = 6.34, 95 % CI (5.35–7.53)) were positively associated with vaccine uptake. The latter two factors were also strongly, positively associated with vaccine uptake in 12–15-year-olds, while previous SARS-CoV-2 infection was negatively associated (OR = 0.12, 95 % CI (0.11–0.14). Similar findings were observed in 16–17-year-olds. COVID-19 vaccine uptake differed markedly by age group, and major associated factors included socio-demographics and parental COVID-19 vaccination status, prior SARS-CoV-2 infection, but also being born premature and having moderate or high risk of severe COVID-19. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]