Search

Background There is considerable policy, clinical and public interest about whether children should be vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2 and, if so, which children should be prioritised (particularly if vaccine resources are limited). To inform such deliberations, we sought to identify children and young people at highest risk of hospitalization from COVID-19. Methods We used the Early Pandemic Evaluation and Enhanced Surveillance of COVID-19 (EAVE II) platform to undertake a national incident cohort analysis to investigate the risk of hospitalization among 5-17 years old living in Scotland in risk groups defined by the living risk prediction algorithm (QCOVID). A Cox proportional hazard model was used to derive hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the association between risk groups and COVID-19 hospital admission. Adjustments were made for age, sex, socioeconomic status, co-morbidity, and prior hospitalization. Results Between March 1, 2020 and November 22, 2021, there were 146 183 (19.4% of all 752 867 children in Scotland) polymerase chain reaction (PCR) confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infections among 5-17 years old. Of those with confirmed infection, 973 (0.7%) were admitted to hospital with COVID-19. The rate of COVID-19 hospitalization was higher in those within each QCOVID risk group compared to those without the condition. Similar results were found in age stratified analyses (5-11 and 12-17 years old). Risk groups associated with an increased risk of COVID-19 hospital admission, included (adjusted HR, 95% CIs): sickle cell disease 14.35 (8.48-24.28), chronic kidney disease 11.34 (4.61-27.87), blood cancer 6.32 (3.24-12.35), rare pulmonary diseases 5.04 (2.58-9.86), type 2 diabetes 3.04 (1.34-6.92), epilepsy 2.54 (1.69-3.81), type 1 diabetes 2.48 (1.47-4.16), Down syndrome 2.45 (0.96-6.25), cerebral palsy 2.37 (1.26-4.47), severe mental illness 1.43 (0.63-3.24), fracture 1.41 (1.02-1.95), congenital heart disease 1.35 (0.82-2.23), asthma 1.28 (1.06-1.55), and learning disability (excluding Down syndrome) 1.08 (0.82-1.42), when compared to those without these conditions. Although our Cox models were adjusted for a number of potential confounders, residual confounding remains a possibility. Conclusions In this national study, we observed an increased risk of COVID-19 hospital admissions among school-aged children with specific underlying long-term health conditions compared with children without these conditions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Revista Ciência & Saúde Coletiva is the property of Associacao Brasileira de Pos-Graduacao em Saude Coletiva and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Introduction Reliable evidence syntheses, based on rigorous systematic reviews, provide essential support for evidence-informed clinical practice and health policy. Systematic reviews should use reproducible and transparent methods to draw conclusions from the available body of evidence. Narrative synthesis of quantitative data (NS) is a method commonly used in systematic reviews where it may not be appropriate, or possible, to meta-analyse estimates of intervention effects. A common criticism of NS is that it is opaque and subject to author interpretation, casting doubt on the trustworthiness of a review's conclusions. Despite published guidance funded by the UK's Economic and Social Research Council on the conduct of NS, recent work suggests that this guidance is rarely used and many review authors appear to be unclear about best practice. To improve the way that NS is conducted and reported, we are developing a reporting guideline for NS of quantitative data. Methods We will assess how NS is implemented and reported in Cochrane systematic reviews and the findings will inform the creation of a Delphi consensus exercise by an expert panel. We will use this Delphi survey to develop a checklist for reporting standards for NS. This will be accompanied by supplementary guidance on the conduct and reporting of NS, as well as an online training resource. Ethics and dissemination Ethical approval for the Delphi survey was obtained from the University of Glasgow in December 2017 (reference 400170060). Dissemination of the results of this study will be through peer-reviewed publications, and national and international conferences. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background A dissertation is often a core component of the Masters in Public Health (MPH) qualification. This study aims to explore its purpose, from the perspective of both students and supervisors, and identify practices viewed as constituting good supervision. Methods A multi-perspective qualitative study drawing on in-depth one-to-one interviews with MPH supervisors (n = 8) and students (n = 10), with data thematically analysed. Results The MPH dissertation was viewed as providing generic as well as discipline-specific knowledge and skills. It provided an opportunity for in-depth study on a chosen topic but different perspectives were evident as to whether the project should be grounded in public health practice rather than academia. Good supervision practice was thought to require topic knowledge, generic supervision skills (including clear communication of expectations and timely feedback) and adaptation of supervision to meet student needs. Conclusions Two ideal types of the MPH dissertation process were identified. Supervisor-led projects focus on achieving a clearly defined output based on a supervisor-identified research question and aspire to harmonize research and teaching practice, but often have a narrower focus. Student-led projects may facilitate greater learning opportunities and better develop skills for public health practice but could be at greater risk of course failure. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses a study which examine the quality of evidence that supports proposed actions in the Great Britain's white paper "Healthy Lives, Healthy People." The study utilizes a systematic approach to seek for quality evidence in connection with the white paper. Results show that the equivocal evidence that fastening assessment led in an increased in labour market participation. Moreover, it notes that the evidence was lack of community interventions and has poor quality evidence which affirms the use of community agents.

• A high proportion (>75%) of Scottish adults received all recommended doses during the study period. • Almost half a million adults with one COVID-19 vaccine did not receive all recommended doses. • Age was the biggest predictor of incomplete vaccination. • Household, demographic, and health factors are predictive of incomplete vaccination. • Several risk factors are associated with severe COVID-19 outcomes and incomplete vaccination. Vaccination continues to be the key public health measure for preventing severe COVID-19 outcomes. Certain groups may be at higher risk of incomplete vaccine schedule, which may leave them vulnerable to COVID-19 hospitalisation and death. To identify the sociodemographic and clinical predictors for not receiving a scheduled COVID-19 vaccine after previously receiving one. We conducted two retrospective cohort studies with ≥3.7 million adults aged ≥18 years in Scotland. Multivariable logistic regression was used to estimate adjusted odds ratios (aOR) of not receiving a second, and separately a third dose between December 2020 and May 2022. Independent variables included sociodemographic and clinical factors. Of 3,826,797 people in the study population who received one dose, 3,732,596 (97.5%) received two doses, and 3,263,153 (86.5%) received all doses available during the study period. The most strongly associated predictors for not receiving the second dose were: being aged 18–29 (reference: 50–59 years; aOR:4.26; 95% confidence interval (CI):4.14–4.37); hospitalisation due to a potential vaccine related adverse event of special interest (AESI) (reference: not having a potential AESI, aOR:3.78; 95%CI: 3.29–4.35); and living in the most deprived quintile (reference: least deprived quintile, aOR:3.24; 95%CI: 3.16–3.32). The most strongly associated predictors for not receiving the third dose were: being 18–29 (reference: 50–59 years aOR:4.44; 95%CI: 4.38–4.49), living in the most deprived quintile (reference: least deprived quintile aOR:2.56; 95%CI: 2.53–2.59), and Black, Caribbean, or African ethnicity (reference: White ethnicity aOR:2.38; 95%CI: 2.30–2.46). Pregnancy, previous vaccination with mRNA-1273, smoking history, individual and household severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) positivity, and having an unvaccinated adult in the household were also associated with incomplete vaccine schedule. We observed several risk factors that predict incomplete COVID-19 vaccination schedule. Vaccination programmes must take immediate action to ensure maximum uptake, particularly for populations vulnerable to severe COVID-19 outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In 2017, 15.6% of the people living in England were born abroad, yet we have a limited understanding of their use of health services and subsequent health conditions. This linked population-based cohort study aims to describe the hospital-based healthcare and mortality outcomes of 1.5 million non-European Union (EU) migrants and refugees in England. Methods and analysis: We will link four data sources: first, non-EU migrant tuberculosis pre-entry screening data; second, refugee pre-entry health assessment data; third, national hospital episode statistics; and fourth, Office of National Statistics death records. Using this linked dataset, we will then generate a population-based cohort to examine hospital-based events and mortality outcomes in England between Jan 1, 2006, and Dec 31, 2017. We will compare outcomes across three groups in our analyses: 1) non-EU international migrants, 2) refugees, and 3) general population of England. Ethics and dissemination: We will obtain approval to use unconsented patient identifiable data from the Secretary of State for Health through the Confidentiality Advisory Group and the National Health Service Research Ethics Committee. After data linkage, we will destroy identifying data and undertake all analyses using the pseudonymised dataset. The results will provide policy makers and civil society with detailed information about the health needs of non-EU international migrants and refugees in England., Competing Interests: Competing interests: RWA and IA undertook paid consultancy work in support of the Doctors of the World 2017 Observatory report—Falling through the cracks: the failure of universal healthcare coverage in Europe.