Background: Methodological heterogeneity of studies and geographical variation limit conclusions about the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the mental health of youth. This study aimed to explore the health-related quality of life and mental health of children and adolescents in the second year of the pandemic in South Tyrol, Italy. Methods: An online survey representative for the age and gender of the children and adolescents in South Tyrol was conducted among 5159 families with children and adolescents aged 7–19 years, between 28 May and 16 June 2021. The survey collecting parental ratings and self-rated questionnaires from children and adolescents aged 11–19 years included instruments to measure health-related quality of life (KIDSCREEN-10), mental health problems (SDQ), anxiety (SCARED), and depression (CES-DC). The results were compared with data from corresponding studies conducted in Germany. Results: Decreased health-related quality of life and increased conduct problems, peer-related mental health problems, anxiety, and depressive and psychosomatic symptoms in children and adolescents observed in the second year of the pandemic in Germany were confirmed in the second year in South Tyrol. Children and adolescents with low socioeconomic status, a migration background, and limited living space were significantly affected. Female sex and older age were associated with increased psychosocial problems and a positive family climate supported the mental health of children and adolescents during the pandemic. Conclusions: Confirmation of findings of decreased health-related quality of life and increased emotional problems after the first year of the pandemic supports the ongoing call for low-threshold health promotion, prevention, and early intervention programs to support children and adolescents who have been severely affected by the pandemic.
BackgroundThere are several guidelines dealing with the management of low back pain (LBP), but only few studies on the quality of care provided within General Practices as judged against those guidelines.The objective of this study is to analyse the management of LBP in Italian General Practice and compare it with guideline recommendations.MethodsIn this observational study, all patients visiting their General Practitioners (GPs) for treatment of LBP within a 8-week period were monitored for at least four weeks with regard to symptoms and diagnostic and therapeutic interventions. Management of LBP was judged by pre-defined quality indicators based on guideline recommendations.ResultsTwenty-five of 114 eligible GPs participated in the study, representing a total of 43,012 registered patients. Of the 475 patients complaining of LBP and monitored for four weeks, 55.8% were diagnosed as having acute lumbar pain, 13.5% chronic lumbar pain, 17.1% acute sciatica, and 12.6% chronic sciatica; 76.0% underwent no technical investigations, 21.7% underwent x-rays, 5.5% MRI and 4% CT scans; 20.4% were referred to secondary care; 93.3% of all patients received some medication. In those receiving a medication, in 88.3% it was an NSAID, in 6.3% Paracetamol, in 10.4% Paracetamol combined with Codeine, and in 9% a muscle relaxants. When physiotherapy was prescribed (17,1%), it was mostly massage. Hardly more than 50% of GPs (partially) followed locally established guidelines, while the remainder seemed not to follow guidelines at all.ConclusionsOur study reveals gross deviations of GP management of LBP from current guidelines and points to two different types of deviators: those who partially follow guidelines, and those who do not follow them at all. Further research should evaluate whether these two types of deviation are best addressed by different foci of education, i.e. on knowledge versus attitudes, respectively.
The pandemic due to SARS-CoV-2 tested the resilience of health systems worldwide. The outcome of the pandemic is impacted by health management choices made over the course of the disaster, which in turn are strongly dependent on the underlying healthcare system – as mirrored by the fact that regional pandemic experiences differ considerably: In Italy (a country most impacted by the COVID-19 outbreak), infection and mortality rates vary vastly between regions, with Lombardy – a comparatively well-equipped region with regard to hospitals and centers of scientific excellence – being amongst the worst-affected areas. Within this article, we focus on the challenges within primary health care and hospital organization, cooperation between primary and specialist care, and access to health care services: In Lombardy, neglected primary health care with a comparatively low availability of general practitioners (GPs) per inhabitant, the initial prioritization of hospitals during the pandemic while neglecting primary health care in terms of personal protective equipment (PPE), the lack of testing resources, and a failure to achieve coordinated support contributed to a quick overburdening of hospitals, where the dissolution of traditional departments into “macro-areas” may favor nosocomial infections during an ongoing pandemic. Neither specialized medicine nor privatization, but rather flexible public healthcare services working in consistent cooperation with GPs, show better efficiency in containing viral spread and managing patients. Strengthening the primary health care sector with regard to human and technical resources and supporting the coordination between the different levels of health care providers help to avoid overcrowded hospitals, while protecting patients and health care workers during large-scale health emergencies. Overall, further in-depth analysis of structural determinants is needed in order to develop more-resilient and integrative health care systems.
Background Evidence regarding clinically relevant effects of interventions aiming at reducing polypharmacy is weak, especially for the primary care setting. This study was initiated with the objective to achieve clinical benefits for older patients (aged 75+) by means of evidence-based reduction of polypharmacy (defined as ≥8 prescribed drugs) and inappropriate prescribing in general practice. Methods The cluster-randomised controlled trial involved general practitioners and patients in a northern-Italian region. The intervention consisted of a review of patient’s medication regimens by three experts who gave specific recommendations for drug discontinuation. Main outcome measures were non-elective hospital admissions or death within 24 months (composite primary endpoint). Secondary outcomes were drug numbers, hospital admissions, mortality, falls, fractures, quality of life, affective status, cognitive function. Results Twenty-two GPs/307 patients participated in the intervention group, 21 GPs/272 patients in the control group. One hundred twenty-five patients (40.7%) experienced the primary outcome in the intervention group, 87 patients (32.0%) in the control group. The adjusted rates of occurrence of the primary outcome did not differ significantly between the study groups (intention-to-treat analysis: adjusted odds ratio 1.46, 95%CI 0.99–2.18, p = 0.06; per-protocol analysis: adjusted OR 1.33, 95%CI 0.87–2.04, p = 0.2). Hospitalisations as single endpoint occurred more frequently in the intervention group according to the unadjusted analysis (OR 1.61, 95%CI 1.03–2.51, p = 0.04) but not in the adjusted analysis (OR 1.39, 95%CI 0.95–2.03, p = 0.09). Falls occurred less frequently in the intervention group (adjusted OR 0.55, 95%CI 0.31–0.98; p = 0.04). No significant differences were found regarding the other outcomes. Definitive discontinuation was obtained for 67 (16.0%) of 419 drugs rated as inappropriate. About 6% of the prescribed drugs were PIMs. Conclusions No conclusive effects were found regarding mortality and non-elective hospitalisations as composite respectively single endpoints. Falls were significantly reduced in the intervention group, although definitive discontinuation was achieved for only one out of six inappropriate drugs. These results indicate that (1) even a modest reduction of inappropriate medications may entail positive clinical effects, and that (2) focusing on evidence-based new drug prescriptions and prevention of polypharmacy may be more effective than deprescribing. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials (ID ISRCTN: 38449870), date: 11/09/2013.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.