Search

BackgroundHealth knowledge and literacy are among the main determinants of health. Assessment of these issues via Web-based surveys is growing continuously. Research has suggested that approximately one-fifth of respondents submit cribbed answers, or cheat, on factual knowledge items, which may lead to measurement error. However, little is known about methods of discouraging cheating in Web-based surveys on health knowledge. ObjectiveThis study aimed at exploring the usefulness of imposing a survey time limit to prevent help-seeking and cheating. MethodsOn the basis of sample size estimation, 94 undergraduate students were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to complete a Web-based survey on nutrition knowledge, with or without a time limit of 15 minutes (30 seconds per item); the topic of nutrition was chosen because of its particular relevance to public health. The questionnaire consisted of two parts. The first was the validated consumer-oriented nutrition knowledge scale (CoNKS) consisting of 20 true/false items; the second was an ad hoc questionnaire (AHQ) containing 10 questions that would be very difficult for people without health care qualifications to answer correctly. It therefore aimed at measuring cribbing and not nutrition knowledge. AHQ items were somewhat encyclopedic and amenable to Web searching, while CoNKS items had more complex wording, so that simple copying/pasting of a question in a search string would not produce an immediate correct answer. ResultsA total of 72 of the 94 subjects started the survey. Dropout rates were similar in both groups (11%, 4/35 and 14%, 5/37 in the untimed and timed groups, respectively). Most participants completed the survey from portable devices, such as mobile phones and tablets. To complete the survey, participants in the untimed group took a median 2.3 minutes longer than those in the timed group; the effect size was small (Cohen’s r=.29). Subjects in the untimed group scored significantly higher on CoNKS (mean difference of 1.2 points, P=.008) and the effect size was medium (Cohen’s d=0.67). By contrast, no significant between-group difference in AHQ scores was documented. Unexpectedly high AHQ scores were recorded in 23% (7/31) and 19% (6/32) untimed and timed respondents, respectively, very probably owing to “e-cheating”. ConclusionsCribbing answers to health knowledge items in researcher-uncontrolled conditions is likely to lead to overestimation of people’s knowledge; this should be considered during the design and implementation of Web-based surveys. Setting a time limit alone may not completely prevent cheating, as some cheats may be very fast in Web searching. More complex and contextualized wording of items and checking for the “findability” properties of items before implementing a Web-based health knowledge survey may discourage help-seeking, thus reducing measurement error. Studies with larger sample sizes and diverse populations are needed to confirm our results.

Background Missed opportunities constitute a main driver of suboptimal seasonal influenza vaccination (SIV) coverage in older adults. Vaccine co-administration is a way to reduce these missed opportunities. In this study, we quantified missed opportunities for SIV, identified some of their socio-structural correlates and documented SIV co-administration patterns. Methods In this registry-based retrospective cohort study, we verified the SIV status of all subjects aged ≥65 years who received at least one dose of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), pneumococcal or herpes zoster vaccines during the 2022/23 influenza season. The frequency of concomitant same-day administration of SIV with other target vaccines was also assessed. Results Among 41 112, 5482 and 3432 older adults who received ≥1 dose of COVID-19, pneumococcal and herpes zoster vaccines, missed opportunities for SIV accounted for 23.3%, 5.0% and 13.2%, respectively. Younger, male and foreign-born individuals were generally more prone to missing SIV. The co-administration of SIV with other recommended vaccines was relatively low, being 11.0%, 53.1% and 17.1% in COVID-19, pneumococcal and herpes zoster cohorts, respectively. Conclusions A sizeable proportion of older adults who received other recommended vaccines during the last influenza season did not receive SIV. This share of missed opportunities, which are subject to some social inequalities, may be addressed by increasing vaccine co-administration rates and implementing tailored health promotion interventions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related deaths in Europe, with low survival rates primarily due to late-stage diagnosis. Early detection can significantly improve survival rates, but lung cancer screening is not currently implemented in Italy. Many countries have implemented lung cancer screening programs for high-risk populations, with studies showing a reduction in mortality. This review aimed to identify key areas for establishing a lung cancer screening program in Italy. A literature search was conducted in October 2022, using the PubMed and Scopus databases. Items of interest included updated evidence, approaches used in other countries, enrollment and eligibility criteria, models, cost-effectiveness studies, and smoking cessation programs. A literature search yielded 61 scientific papers, highlighting the effectiveness of low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening in reducing mortality among high-risk populations. The National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) in the United States demonstrated a 20% reduction in lung cancer mortality with LDCT, and other trials confirmed its potential to reduce mortality by up to 39% and detect early-stage cancers. However, false-positive results and associated harm were concerns. Economic evaluations generally supported the cost-effectiveness of LDCT screening, especially when combined with smoking cessation interventions for individuals aged 55 to 75 with a significant smoking history. Implementing a screening program in Italy requires the careful consideration of optimal strategies, population selection, result management, and the integration of smoking cessation. Resource limitations and tailored interventions for subpopulations with low-risk perception and non-adherence rates should be addressed with multidisciplinary expertise. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic continues to spread worldwide, generating a high impact on healthcare systems. The aim of the study was to examine the epidemiological burden of SARS-CoV-2 reinfections and to identify potential related risk factors. A retrospective observational study was conducted in Liguria Region, combining data from National Vaccines Registry and Regional Chronic Condition Data Warehouse. In the study period (September 2021 to May 2022), 335,117 cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection were recorded in Liguria, of which 15,715 were reinfected once. During the Omicron phase (which predominated from 3 January 2022), the risk of reinfection was 4.89 times higher (p < 0.001) than during the Delta phase. Unvaccinated and vaccinated individuals with at least one dose for more than 120 days were at increased risk of reinfection compared with vaccinated individuals with at least one dose for ≤120 days, respectively (odds ratio (OR) of 1.26, p < 0.001; OR of 1.18, p < 0.001). Healthcare workers were more than twice as likely to be reinfected than non-healthcare workers (OR of 2.38, p < 0.001). Lower ORs were seen among people aged 60 to 79 years. Two doses or more of vaccination were found to be protective against the risk of reinfection rather than a single dose (mRNA vaccines: OR of 0.06, p < 0.0001, and OR of 0.1, p < 0.0001; vector vaccines: OR of 0.05, p < 0.0001). Patients with chronic renal failure, cardiovascular disease, bronchopneumopathy, neuropathy and autoimmune diseases were at increased risk of reinfection (OR of 1.38, p = 0.0003; OR of 1.09, p < 0.0296; OR of 1.14, p = 0.0056; OR of 1.78, p < 0.0001; OR of 1.18, p = 0.0205). Estimating the epidemiological burden of SARS-CoV-2 reinfections and the role played by risk factors in reinfections is relevant for identifying risk-based preventive strategies in a pandemic context characterized by a high circulation of the virus and a high rate of pathogen mutations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]