Search

Background The European Union has used Healthy Life Years (HLY) as an indicator to monitor the health of its aging populations. Scholarly and popular interest in HLY across countries has grown, particularly regarding the ranking of countries. It is important to note that HLY is based on self-assessments of activity limitations, raising the possibility that it might be influenced by differences in health reporting behaviours between populations, a phenomenon known as differential item functioning (DIF). Methods We estimated DIF-adjusted HLY at age 50 for Belgium, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, and Sweden to determine the extent to which differences in HLY might be influenced by reporting heterogeneity across countries. We used anchoring vignettes, taken from the 2004 Survey of Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe, to estimate DIF-adjusted prevalence rates of activity limitations measured by the Global Activity Limitations Indicator (GALI). The Sullivan method was used to calculate DIF-adjusted HLY. Results Changes in HLY before and after adjustment ranged from a 1.20-year decrease for men in Italy to a 1.61-year increase for women in Spain. Adjustment for DIF produced changes in the rankings of the countries by HLY, with upward and downward movements of up to three positions. Conclusion Our results show that DIF is likely to affect HLY estimates, thereby posing a challenge to the validity of comparisons of HLY across European countries. The findings suggest that HLY should be used to monitor population health status within a country, rather than to make comparisons across countries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Document Reviewers: Rudolf A. de Boer (CPG Review Coordinator) (Netherlands), P. Christian Schulze (CPG Review Coordinator) (Germany), Magdy Abdelhamid (Egypt), Victor Aboyans (France), Stamatis Adamopoulos (Greece), Stefan D. Anker (Germany), Elena Arbelo (Spain), Riccardo Asteggiano (Italy), Johann Bauersachs (Germany), Antoni Bayes-Genis (Spain), Michael A. Borger (Germany), Werner Budts (Belgium), Maja Cikes (Croatia), Kevin Damman (Netherlands), Victoria Delgado (Netherlands), Paul Dendale (Belgium), Polychronis Dilaveris (Greece), Heinz Drexel (Austria), Justin Ezekowitz (Canada), Volkmar Falk (Germany), Laurent Fauchier (France), Gerasimos Filippatos (Greece), Alan Fraser (United Kingdom), Norbert Frey (Germany), Chris P. Gale (United Kingdom), Finn Gustafsson (Denmark), Julie Harris (United Kingdom), Bernard Iung (France), Stefan Janssens (Belgium), Mariell Jessup (United States of America), Aleksandra Konradi (Russia), Dipak Kotecha (United Kingdom), Ekaterini Lambrinou (Cyprus), Patrizio Lancellotti (Belgium), Ulf Landmesser (Germany), Christophe Leclercq (France), Basil S. Lewis (Israel), Francisco Leyva (United Kingdom), AleVs Linhart (Czech Republic), Maja-Lisa Løchen (Norway), Lars H. Lund (Sweden), Donna Mancini (United States of America), Josep Masip (Spain), Davor Milicic (Croatia), Christian Mueller (Switzerland), Holger Nef (Germany), Jens-Cosedis Nielsen (Denmark), Lis Neubeck (United Kingdom), Michel Noutsias (Germany), Steffen E. Petersen (United Kingdom), Anna Sonia Petronio (Italy), Piotr Ponikowski (Poland), Eva Prescott (Denmark), Amina Rakisheva (Kazakhstan), Dimitrios J. Richter (Greece), Evgeny Schlyakhto (Russia), Petar Seferovic (Serbia), Michele Senni (Italy), Marta Sitges (Spain), Miguel Sousa-Uva (Portugal), Carlo G. Tocchetti (Italy), Rhian M. Touyz (United Kingdom), Carsten Tschoepe (Germany), Johannes Waltenberger (Germany/Switzerland) All experts involved in the development of these guidelines have submitted declarations of interest. These have been compiled in a report and published in a supplementary document simultaneously to the guidelines. The report is also available on the ESC website www.escardio.org/guidelines For the Supplementary Data which include background information and detailed discussion of the data that have provided the basis for the guidelines see European Heart Journal online., (© 2022 European Society of Cardiology This article has been co-published with permission in European Heart Journal (published by Oxford University Press on behalf of European Society of Cardiology) and European Journal of Heart Failure (published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Society of Cardiology).)

Objective: The development and current state of hemorrhagic fever with renal syndrome (HFRS) over the past 40 years are analyzed in this study, along with explored and discovered the hotspots and frontiers in the field, which serve as the foundation for future investigation., Methods: CiteSpace and VOSviewer analysis software were used to visually analyze the literature data on HFRS from 1980 to 2022, including the annual number of publications, countries and research institutions, authors, co-cited literature and keywords., Results: The number of pertinent papers published in the field of HFRS displayed an overall upward trend from 1980 to 2022. The United States, China, Germany, Sweden, and France are the top 5 countries in terms of publishing volume, with high intermediate centrality mainly concentrated in Europe and the United States. The top 10 co-occurring keywords were hemorrhagic fever, renal syndrome, infection, virus, epidemic, nephropathia epidemical, disease, hantavirus, outbreak, and transmission. According to keyword cluster analysis, there were 4 main research fields. In the HFRS-related study, there were mainly 21 notable keywords and "Korean hemorrhagic fever" had the highest hemorrhagic value (28.87)., Conclusion: The United States, China, Germany, Sweden and other countries attached great importance to the HFRS-related research. Moreover, the collaboration between authors and institutions in various collaborator clusters should be strengthened. In recent decades, investigations have focused on the study of viral infection and the clinical symptoms and pathophysiology of HFRS. Future research may concentrate on factors affecting host population distribution and density, such as vaccine development and meteorological factors pertaining to virus transmission., Competing Interests: The authors have no funding and conflicts of interest to disclose., (Copyright © 2024 the Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.)

Background: Oral health, coupled with rising awareness on the impact that limited dental care coverage has on oral health and general health and well-being, has received increased attention over the past few years. The purpose of the study was to compare the statutory coverage and access to dental care for adult services in 11 European countries using a vignette approach. Methods: We used three patient vignettes to highlight the differences of the dimensions of coverage and access to dental care (coverage, cost-sharing and accessibility). The three vignettes describe typical care pathways for patients with the most common oral health conditions (caries, periodontal disease, edentulism). The vignettes were completed by health services researchers knowledgeable on dental care, dentists, or teams consisting of a health systems expert working together with dental specialists. Results: Completed vignettes were received from 11 countries: Bulgaria, Estonia, France, Germany, Republic of Ireland (Ireland), Lithuania, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia and Sweden. While emergency dental care, tooth extraction and restorative care for acute pain due to carious lesions are covered in most responding countries, root canal treatment, periodontal care and prosthetic restoration often require cost-sharing or are entirely excluded from the benefit basket. Regular dental visits are also limited to one visit per year in many countries. Beyond financial barriers due to out-of-pocket payments, patients may experience very different physical barriers to accessing dental care. The limited availability of contracted dentists (especially in rural areas) and the unequal distribution and lack of specialised dentists are major access barriers to public dental care. Conclusions: According to the results, statutory coverage of dental care varies across European countries, while access barriers are largely similar. Many dental services require substantial cost-sharing in most countries, leading to high out-of-pocket spending. Socioeconomic status is thus a main determinant for access to dental care, but other factors such as geography, age and comorbidities can also inhibit access and affect outcomes. Moreover, coverage in most oral health systems is targeted at treatment and less at preventative oral health care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Though the disease burden of varicella in Europe has been reported previously, the economic burden is still unknown. This study estimated the economic burden of varicella in Europe in the absence of Universal Varicella Vaccination (UVV) in 2018 Euros from both payer (direct costs) and societal (direct and indirect costs) perspectives.Methods: We estimated the country specific and overall annual costs of varicella in absence of UVV in 31 European countries (27 EU countries, plus Iceland, Norway, Switzerland and the United Kingdom). To obtain country specific unit costs and associated healthcare utilization, we conducted a systematic literature review, searching in PubMed, EMBASE, NEED, DARE, REPEC, Open Grey, and public heath websites (1/1/1999-10/15/2019). The number of annual varicella cases, deaths, outpatient visits and hospitalizations were calculated (without UVV) based on age-specific incidence rates (Riera-Montes et al. 2017) and 2018 population data by country. Unit cost per varicella case and disease burden data were combined using stochastic modeling to estimate 2018 costs stratified by country, age and healthcare resource.Results: Overall annual total costs associated with varicella were estimated to be €662,592,061 (Range: €309,552,363 to €1,015,631,760) in Europe in absence of UVV. Direct and indirect costs were estimated at €229,076,206 (Range €144,809,557 to €313,342,856) and €433,515,855 (Range €164,742,806 to €702,288,904), respectively. Total cost per case was €121.45 (direct: €41.99; indirect: €79.46). Almost half of the costs were attributed to cases in children under 5 years, owing mainly to caregiver work loss. The distribution of costs by healthcare resource was similar across countries. France and Germany accounted for 49.28% of total annual costs, most likely due to a combination of high numbers of cases and unit costs in these countries.Conclusions: The economic burden of varicella across Europe in the absence of UVV is substantial (over 600 M€), primarily driven by caregiver burden including work productivity losses. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]