Search

Objectives: to describe studies that evaluated the screening programmes implemented in the school during the COVID-19 pandemic., Design: a systematic literature review was conducted according to the PRISMA 2020 Guidelines. Studies published until December 2021 were included. The methodological quality of the studies was assessed with validated scales. Study selection, data extraction, and quality assessment were carried out by two authors independently., Setting and Participants: teachers and students belonging to schools of all levels, including universities., Main Outcomes Measures: a. transmission-related outcomes (such as the number or proportion of cases, cumulative frequency, incidence); b. feasibility/acceptability of the screening strategies; c. socioeconomic outcomes (such as testing cost, number of days spent in school, quarantine)., Results: after having removed duplicate articles, 2,822 records were retrieved. Thirty-six studies were included (15 used an observational design and 21 modelling study). Regarding the former, the methodological quality has been rated as high in 2 studies, intermediate in 6 and low in 2; in the remaining ones, it was not evaluated because only descriptive. Screenings were quite different in terms of school study population, types of tests used, methods of submission and analysis, and level of incidence in the community at the time of implementation. Outcome indicators were also varied, a heterogeneity that, on the one hand, did not allow for meta-analysis of results and, on the other, allowed for testing the performance of the screenings in very different settings. All of the field studies claim that the screenings reduced SARS-CoV-2 exposure and infection among children, adolescents, and college students, curbing at-school transmission and helping to reduce the number of closing school days. Studies that evaluated the cost of the intervention emphasized its cost-effectiveness, while those that focused on the acceptability of the instrument showed a preference among children, adolescents, and parents for minimally invasive, self-administered tests with high sensitivity and lower frequency of repetition. Simulation-based studies are mostly based on compartmental and agent-based models. Their quality is quite high methodologically, although uncertainty quantification and external validation, aimed at verifying the model ability to reproduce observed data, are lacking in many cases. The contexts to which the simulations refer are all school-based, although 7 studies consider residential situations, which are poorly suited to the Italian context. All simulation-based models indicate the importance of planning repeated testing on asymptomatic individuals to limit contagion. However, the costs of these procedures can be high unless assessments are spaced out or pool testing procedures are used. Obtaining high student adherence to the screening programme is extremely important to maximize results., Conclusions: school-based screenings, especially when combined with other preventive measures, have been important public health tools to contain infections during COVID-19 waves and to ensure children's and adolescents' right to education and to prevent the fallout in physical and mental health (with strong equity consequences) associated with school closures.

Objectives: to evaluate the impact of school closures, as a measure to contain the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 infection, on the psychological well-being of students of all levels starting from the 2020-2021 school year., Design: a systematic literature review was conducted according to the PRISMA 2020 Guidelines. The literature search was conducted on 4 different databases: MedLine, Embase, PsycINFO, and L.OVE Platform. Quantitative observational studies published until 10.01.2022 were included. Studies conducted during the first pandemic wave, i.e., during the 2019-2020 school year and/or during the mandatory lockdown or confinement period, were excluded. The methodological quality of the studies was assessed with validated scales. Study selection, data extraction, and quality assessment were carried out independently by two authors., Setting and Participants: children, adolescents, and young people attending all levels of education (including universities) and, for reasons related to COVID-19, having a suspension of "in presence" school or attending classes remotely., Main Outcome Measures: a. outcomes directly related to mental health: suicides, emergency department visits, and hospitalizations for psychiatric problems; anxiety and depression, emotional difficulties, feelings of loneliness and isolation; b. well-being outcomes: sleep quality, perceived well-being (by child/adolescent/youth or referred by parents); c. health-related behaviours: tobacco smoking, alcohol, drug use. Outcomes related to school/academic performance, physical health, and those related to parents were not considered., Results: after having removed duplicate articles, 2,830 records were retrieved with the bibliographic search. Twelve studies (2 uncontrolled before-after studies and 10 cross sectional surveys) were included, involving a total of 27,787 participants. Three studies involved university students, 2 involved high school students, and the remaining involved a mixed population of students attending primary and middle schools. The studies were conducted between September 2020 and April 2021. The methodological quality was rated as high in five studies and intermediate in the remaining studies. Due to the high heterogeneity of outcome measures and statistical analyses performed among the included studies, it was not possible to conduct a meta-analysis of the results of the considered publications. Nevertheless, the present review showed a clear signal of increase in mental health problems in relation to school closure or virtual instruction. In particular, results suggest evidence of association between school closure and risk of suicidal attempts or thoughts, mental health symptoms such as anxiety, depression, emotional disorders, psychological stress. Sleeping problems, drug and alcohol addiction were poorly studied., Conclusions: despite the limitations of the included studies and possible residual confounding and contamination due to restrictive measures and social isolation implemented during the pandemic, the available evidence confirms the negative impact on students' mental health associated with school closures and distance learning. Given the availability of vaccination also for young children, a long period of school closure should be avoided also in the case of the emergence of new pandemic waves.

Background: medical cannabis refers to the use of cannabis or cannabinoids as medical therapy to treat disease or alleviate symptoms. In the United States, 23 states and Washington DC (May 2015) have introduced laws to permit the medical use of cannabis. Within the European Union, medicinal cannabis laws and praxis vary wildly between Countries., Objectives: to provide evidence for benefits and harms of cannabis (including extracts and tinctures) treatment for adults in the following indications: control of spasticity and pain in patients with multiple sclerosis; control of pain in patients with chronic neuropathic pain; control of nausea and vomiting in adults with cancer receiving chemotherapy., Methods: we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed, and EMBASE from inception to September 2016. We also searched for on-going studies via ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization and International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) search portal. All searches included also non-English language literature. All relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the safety and efficacy of cannabis (including extracts and tinctures) compared with placebo or other pharmacological agents were included. Three authors independently evaluated the titles and abstracts of studies identified in the literature searches for their eligibility. For studies considered eligible, we retrieved full texts. Three investigators independently extracted data. For the assessment of the quality of evidence, we used the standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane and GRADE working Group., Results: 41 trials (4,550 participants) were included; 15 studies considered efficacy and safety of cannabis for patients with multiple sclerosis, 12 for patients with chronic pain, and 14 for patients with cancer receiving chemotherapy. The included studies were published between 1975 and 2015, and the majority of them were conducted in Europe. We judged almost 50% of these studies to be at low risk of bias. The large majority (80%) of the comparisons were with placebo; only 8 studies included patients with cancer receiving chemotherapy comparing cannabis with other antiemetic drugs. Concerning the efficacy of cannabis (compared with placebo) in patients with multiple sclerosis, confidence in the estimate was high in favour of cannabis for spasticity (numerical rating scale and visual analogue scale, but not the Ashworth scale) and pain. For chronic and neuropathic pain (compared with placebo), there was evidence of a small effect; however, confidence in the estimate is low and these results could not be considered conclusive. There is uncertainty whether cannabis, including extracts and tinctures, compared with placebo or other antiemetic drugs reduces nausea and vomiting in patients with cancer requiring chemotherapy, although the confidence in the estimate of the effect was low or very low. In the included studies, many adverse events were reported and none of the studies assessed the development of abuse or dependence., Conclusions: there is incomplete evidence of the efficacy and safety of medical use of cannabis in the clinical contexts considered in this review. Furthermore, for many of the outcomes considered, the confidence in the estimate of the effect was again low or very low. To give conclusive answers to the efficacy and safety of cannabis used for medical purposes in the clinical contexts considered, further studies are needed, with higher quality, larger sample sizes, and possibly using the same diagnostic tools for evaluating outcomes of interest.

BACKGROUND Improving quality and effectiveness of healthcare is one of the priorities of health policies. Hospital or physician volume represents a measurable variable with an impact on effectiveness of healthcare. An Italian law calls for the definition of «qualitative, structural, technological, and quantitative standards of hospital care». There is a need for an evaluation of the available scientific evidence in order to identify qualitative, structural, technological, and quantitative standards of hospital care, including the volume of care above or below which the public and private hospitals may be accredited (or not) to provide specific healthcare interventions. OBJECTIVES To identify conditions/interventions for which an association between volume and outcome has been investigated. To identify conditions/interventions for which an association between volume and outcome has been proved. To analyze the distribution of Italian health providers by volume of activity. To measure the association between volume of care and outcomes of the health providers of the Italian National Health Service (NHS). METHODS Systematic review An overview of systematic reviews was performed searching PubMed, EMBASE, and The Cochrane Library up to November 2016. Studies were evaluated by 2 researchers independently; quality assessment was performed using the AMSTAR checklist. For each health condition and outcome, if available, total number of studies, participants, high volume cut-off values, and metanalysis have been reported. According to the considered outcomes, health topics were classified into 3 groups: positive association: a positive association was demonstrated in the majority of studies/participants and/or a pooled measure (metanalysis) with positive results was reported; lack of association: both studies and/or metanalysis showed no association; no sufficient evidence of association: both results of single studies and metanalysis do not allow to draw firm conclusions on the association between volume and outcome. Analysis of the distribution of Italian hospitals by volume of activity and the association between volume of activity and outcomes: the Italian National Outcome evaluation Programme 2016 The analyses were performed using the Hospital Information System and the National Tax Register (year 2015). For each condition, the number of hospitals by volume of activity was calculated. Hospitals with a volume lower than 3-5 cases/year were excluded. For conditions with more than 1,500 cases/year and frequency of outcome ≥1%, the association between volume of care and outcome was analyzed estimating risk-adjusted outcomes. RESULTS Bibliographic searches identified 80 reviews, evaluating 48 different clinical areas. The main outcome considered was intrahospital/30-day mortality. The other outcomes vary depending on the type of condition or intervention in study. The relationship between hospital volume and outcomes was considered in 47 out of 48 conditions: 34 conditions showed evidence of a positive association; • 14 conditions consider cancer surgery for bladder, breast, colon, rectum, colon rectum, oesophagus, kidney, liver, lung, ovaries, pancreas, prostate, stomach, head and neck; • 11 conditions consider cardiocerebrovascular area: nonruptured and ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm, acute myocardial infarction, brain aneurysm, carotid endarterectomy, coronary angioplasty, coronary artery bypass, paediatric heart surgery, revascularization of lower limbs, stroke, subarachnoid haemorrhage; • 2 conditions consider orthopaedic area: knee arthroplasty, hip fracture; • 7 conditions consider other areas: AIDS, bariatric surgery, cholecystectomy, intensive care unit, neonatal intensive care unit, sepsis, and traumas; for 3 conditions, no association was demonstrated: hip arthroplasty, dialysis, and thyroidectomy. for the remaining 10 conditions, the available evidence does not allow to draw firm conclusions about the association between hospital volume and considered outcomes: surgery for testicular cancer and intracranial tumours, paediatric oncology, aortofemoral bypass, cardiac catheterization, appendectomy, colectomy, inguinal hernia, respiratory failure, and hysterectomy. The relationship between volume of clinician/surgeon and outcomes was assessed only through the literature re view; to date, it is not possible to analyze this association for Italian health provider hospitals, since information on the clinician/surgeon on the hospital discharge chart is missing. The literature found a positive association for 21 conditions: 9 consider surgery for cancer: bladder, breast, colon, colon rectum, pancreas, prostate, rectum, stomach, and head and neck; 5 consider the cardiocerebrovascular area: ruptured and nonruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm, carotid endarterectomy, paediatric heart surgery, and revascularization of the lower limbs; 2 consider the orthopaedic area: knee and hip arthroplasty; 5 consider other areas: AIDS, bariatric surgery, hysterectomy, intensive care unit, and thyroidectomy. The analysis of the distribution of Italian hospitals concerned the 34 conditions for which the systematic review has shown a positive volume-outcome association. For the following, it was possible to conduct the analysis of the association using national data: unruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm, coronary angioplasty, hip arthroplasty, knee arthroplasty, coronary artery bypass, cancer surgery (colon, liver, breast, pancreas, lung, prostate, kidney, and stomach), laparoscopic cholecystectomy, hip fracture, stroke, acute myocardial infarction. For these conditions, the association between volume and outcome of care was observed. For laparoscopic cholecystectomy and surgery of the breast and stomach cancer, the association between the volume of the discharge (o dismissal) operating unit and the outcome was analyzed. The outcomes differ depending on the condition studied. The shape of the relationship is variable among different conditions, with heterogeneous slope of the curves. DISCUSSION For many conditions, the overview of systematic reviews has shown a strong evidence of association between higher volumes and better outcomes. The quality of the available reviews can be considered good for the consistency of the results between the studies and for the strength of the association; however, this does not mean that the included studies are of good quality. Analyzing national data, potential confounders, including age and comorbidities, have been considered. The systematic review of the literature does not permit to identify predefined volume thresholds. The analysis of national data shows a strong improvement in outcomes in the first part of the curve (from very low to higher volumes) for most conditions. In some cases, the improvement in outcomes remains gradual or constant with the increasing volume of care; in other, the analysis could allow the identification of threshold values beyond which the outcome does not further improve. However, a good knowledge of the relationship between effectiveness of treatments and costs, the geographical distribution and the accessibility to healthcare services are necessary to choose the minimum volumes of care, under which specific health procedures could not been provided in the NHS. Some potential biases due to the use of information systems data should also be considered. The different way of coding among hospitals could lead to a different selection of cases for some conditions. Regarding the definition of the exposure (volume of care), a possible bias could result from misclassification of health providers with high volume of activity. Performing the intervention in different departments/ units of the same hospital would result in an overestimation of the volume of care measured for hospital rather than for department/unit. For the conditions with a further fragmentation within the same structure, the association between volumes of discharge department and outcomes has also been evaluated. In this case, the two curves were different. The limit is to attribute the outcome to the discharge unit, which in case of surgery may not be the intervention unit. A similar bias could occur if the main determinant of the outcome of treatment was the caseload of each surgeon. The results of the analysis may be biased when different operators in the same hospital/unit carried out the same procedure. In any case, the observed association between volumes and outcome is very strong, and it is unlikely to be attributable to biases of the study design. Another aspect on which there is still little evidence is the interaction between volume of the hospital and of the surgeon. A MEDICARE study suggests that in some conditions, especially for specialized surgery, the effect of the surgeon's volume of activity is different depending on the structure volume, whereas it would not differ for some less specialized surgery conditions. The data here presented still show extremely fragmented volumes of both clinical and surgical areas, with a predominance of very low volume structures. Health systems operate, by definition, in a context of limited resources, especially when the amount of resources to allocate to the health system is reduced. In such conditions, the rationalization of the organization of health services based on the volume of care may make resources available to improve the effectiveness of interventions. The identification and certification of services and providers with high volume of activity can help to reduce differences in the access to non-effective procedures. To produce additional evidence to guide the reorganization of the national healthcare system, it will be necessary to design further primary studies to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of policies aimed at concentrating interventions in structures with high volumes of activity.

Objective: The objective of the study was to obtain reliable data from recent surveys carried out in Italy on the prevalence of overweight (OW) and obesity (OB) in children., Design: We searched in MEDLINE/Pubmed and Scopus. The keywords included "overweight ", "obesity", "children", "aged 6-11 years", "Italy", associated to the boolean operators AND/OR. The limits applied to the research were: English AND/OR Italian language, publication time period January 2000-September 2010, target of 6-11 years; Body Mass Index assessed according to IOTF criteria. StatsDirect 2.7.8 was utilized to perform statistical analysis., Results: 25 studies have been select, the percentage of overweight varied between 18% and 33,7% and obesity between 5,5% and 21,9%. The highest values were in Southern Italy (OW: 25,6%, CI95% 24,8-26,3; OB: 15,2%, CI95% 13-17,5) vs Central Italy (OW: 22,6%, CI95% 21-24,1; OB: 9,3%, CI95% 7,9-10,7) vs Northern Italy (OW: 21%, CI95% 19,6-22,3; OB: 8,2%, CI95% 6,8-9,7)., Conclusion: A relevant prevalence of overweight and obesity was found In Italian children; the excess weight concerns one child out of four. There are significant differences in the prevalence of overweight and obesity in relation to geographical distribution (Northern, Central and Southern Italy), the high prevalence of overweight and obesity resulted statistically significant in the Southern compared to Central and Northern Italy. These differences are likely linked to different geographical areas in relation to socioeconomic and environmental condition that must be further investigated. There is a need of promoting better eating habits in young children in Italy, above all in areas with highest prevalence.