No abstract

Introduction Tele‐medicine services have been developed in response to the COVID‐19 pandemic, which disrupts mental health services. The present study investigates the effectiveness of telephone‐delivered services for psychological disorders in the COVID‐19 pandemic. Methods We searched PubMed/Medline, Embase and Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials for relevant clinical studies up to February 1, 2022. Following terms were used: “severe acute respiratory syndrome”, “Coronavirus”, “Coronavirus infection”, “SARS‐CoV‐2”, “COVID‐19”, “mental disorder”, “mental health”, “mental health program”, “mental health service”, “psychiatric service”, “telemedicine”, “Telehealth”, “Tele‐health”, “Telecare”, “Mobile health”. Results Twelve relevant clinical articles were included in our study. Eight articles were parallel randomized controlled trials (RCTs), two were Quasi‐experimental, and one was a multicenter retrospective cohort study. A total of 1900 adults (18 years old or above that) were included. Online telecommunication methods like online apps and videoconference were the most common interventions. The most prevalent measured outcome was levels of anxiety and depression among participants. Eleven out of 12 articles showed a significant association between telemedicine and mental health improvement. Conclusions The included studies in the current systematic review reported the probable efficacy of telemedicine in improving mental health disorders during the COVID‐19 pandemic. But it is not possible to determine the best telecommunication method for each mental disorder in different populations and the preference of patients is still face to face therapy. So RCTs in different populations with previous mental disorders or chronic diseases are required to investigate the further telemedicine's efficacy on managing mental problems.

No abstract

(1) Background: Type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1D) is an autoimmune disease characterized by progressive and irreversible autoimmune destruction of pancreatic beta cell islets, resulting in absolute insulin deficiency. To date, several epidemiologic and observational studies have evaluated the possible impact of BCG vaccination on T1D development, but the results are controversial. To elucidate this issue, we aimed to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of published cohort studies in this field. (2) Methods: A systematic search was performed for relevant studies published up to 20 September 2022 using Pubmed/Medline, Embase, and Scopus. Cohort studies, containing original information about the association between T1D and BCG vaccination, were included for further analysis. Pooled estimates and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the risk ratio of T1D in BCG-vaccinated individuals compared to unvaccinated ones were assessed using the fixed effect model. (3) Results: Out of 630 potentially relevant articles, five cohort studies met the inclusion criteria. The total population of all included studies was 864,582. The overall pooled risk ratio of T1D development in BCG vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals was found to be 1.018 (95% CI 0.908–1.141, I2: 0%). (4) Conclusions: Our study revealed no protective or facilitative effect of prior BCG vaccination in T1D development.

Background and Aims: Fatty liver disease is highly prevalent, resulting in overarching wellbeing and economic costs. Addressing it requires comprehensive and coordinated multisectoral action. We developed a fatty liver disease Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) country score to provide insights into country-level preparedness to address fatty liver disease through a whole-of-society lens. Approach and Results: We developed 2 fatty liver disease–SDG score sets. The first included 6 indicators (child wasting, child overweight, noncommunicable disease mortality, a universal health coverage service coverage index, health worker density, and education attainment), covering 195 countries and territories between 1990 and 2017. The second included the aforementioned indicators plus an urban green space indicator, covering 60 countries and territories for which 2017 data were available. To develop the fatty liver disease–SDG score, indicators were categorized as “positive” or “negative” and scaled from 0 to 100. Higher scores indicate better preparedness levels. Fatty liver disease–SDG scores varied between countries and territories (n = 195), from 14.6 (95% uncertainty interval: 8.9 to 19.4) in Niger to 93.5 (91.6 to 95.3) in Japan; 18 countries and territories scored > 85. Regionally, the high-income super-region had the highest score at 88.8 (87.3 to 90.1) in 2017, whereas south Asia had the lowest score at 44.1 (42.4 to 45.8). Between 1990 and 2017, the fatty liver disease–SDG score increased in all super-regions, with the greatest increase in south Asia, but decreased in 8 countries and territories. Conclusions: The fatty liver disease–SDG score provides a strategic advocacy tool at the national and global levels for the liver health field and noncommunicable disease advocates, highlighting the multisectoral collaborations needed to address fatty liver disease, and noncommunicable diseases overall.