Background The COVID-19 pandemic triggered vast governmental lockdowns. The impact of these lockdowns on mental health is inadequately understood. On the one hand such drastic changes in daily routines could be detrimental to mental health. On the other hand, it might not be experienced negatively, especially because the entire population was affected. Methods The aim of this study was to determine mental health outcomes during pandemic induced lockdowns and to examine known predictors of mental health outcomes. We therefore surveyed n = 9,565 people from 78 countries and 18 languages. Outcomes assessed were stress, depression, affect, and wellbeing. Predictors included country, sociodemographic factors, lockdown characteristics, social factors, and psychological factors. Results Results indicated that on average about 10% of the sample was languishing from low levels of mental health and about 50% had only moderate mental health. Importantly, three consistent predictors of mental health emerged: social support, education level, and psychologically flexible (vs. rigid) responding. Poorer outcomes were most strongly predicted by a worsening of finances and not having access to basic supplies. Conclusions These results suggest that on whole, respondents were moderately mentally healthy at the time of a population-wide lockdown. The highest level of mental health difficulties were found in approximately 10% of the population. Findings suggest that public health initiatives should target people without social support and those whose finances worsen as a result of the lockdown. Interventions that promote psychological flexibility may mitigate the impact of the pandemic.

Background Although at present there is broad agreement among researchers, health professionals, and policy makers on the need to control and combat health misinformation, the magnitude of this problem is still unknown. Consequently, it is fundamental to discover both the most prevalent health topics and the social media platforms from which these topics are initially framed and subsequently disseminated. Objective This systematic review aimed to identify the main health misinformation topics and their prevalence on different social media platforms, focusing on methodological quality and the diverse solutions that are being implemented to address this public health concern. Methods We searched PubMed, MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science for articles published in English before March 2019, with a focus on the study of health misinformation in social media. We defined health misinformation as a health-related claim that is based on anecdotal evidence, false, or misleading owing to the lack of existing scientific knowledge. We included (1) articles that focused on health misinformation in social media, including those in which the authors discussed the consequences or purposes of health misinformation and (2) studies that described empirical findings regarding the measurement of health misinformation on these platforms. Results A total of 69 studies were identified as eligible, and they covered a wide range of health topics and social media platforms. The topics were articulated around the following six principal categories: vaccines (32%), drugs or smoking (22%), noncommunicable diseases (19%), pandemics (10%), eating disorders (9%), and medical treatments (7%). Studies were mainly based on the following five methodological approaches: social network analysis (28%), evaluating content (26%), evaluating quality (24%), content/text analysis (16%), and sentiment analysis (6%). Health misinformation was most prevalent in studies related to smoking products and drugs such as opioids and marijuana. Posts with misinformation reached 87% in some studies. Health misinformation about vaccines was also very common (43%), with the human papilloma virus vaccine being the most affected. Health misinformation related to diets or pro–eating disorder arguments were moderate in comparison to the aforementioned topics (36%). Studies focused on diseases (ie, noncommunicable diseases and pandemics) also reported moderate misinformation rates (40%), especially in the case of cancer. Finally, the lowest levels of health misinformation were related to medical treatments (30%). Conclusions The prevalence of health misinformation was the highest on Twitter and on issues related to smoking products and drugs. However, misinformation on major public health issues, such as vaccines and diseases, was also high. Our study offers a comprehensive characterization of the dominant health misinformation topics and a comprehensive description of their prevalence on different social media platforms, which can guide future studies and help in the development of evidence-based digital policy action plans.

BackgroundThe harmonization of European health systems brings with it a need for tools to allow the standardized collection of information about medical care. A common coding system and standards for the description of services are needed to allow local data to be incorporated into evidence-informed policy, and to permit equity and mobility to be assessed. The aim of this project has been to design such a classification and a related tool for the coding of services for Long Term Care (DESDE-LTC), based on the European Service Mapping Schedule (ESMS).MethodsThe development of DESDE-LTC followed an iterative process using nominal groups in 6 European countries. 54 researchers and stakeholders in health and social services contributed to this process. In order to classify services, we use the minimal organization unit or “Basic Stable Input of Care” (BSIC), coded by its principal function or “Main Type of Care” (MTC). The evaluation of the tool included an analysis of feasibility, consistency, ontology, inter-rater reliability, Boolean Factor Analysis, and a preliminary impact analysis (screening, scoping and appraisal).ResultsDESDE-LTC includes an alpha-numerical coding system, a glossary and an assessment instrument for mapping and counting LTC. It shows high feasibility, consistency, inter-rater reliability and face, content and construct validity. DESDE-LTC is ontologically consistent. It is regarded by experts as useful and relevant for evidence-informed decision making.ConclusionDESDE-LTC contributes to establishing a common terminology, taxonomy and coding of LTC services in a European context, and a standard procedure for data collection and international comparison.

Studies show that the association between socio-economic status (SES) and self-rated health (SRH) varies in different countries, however there are not many country-comparisons that examine this relationship over time. The objective of the present study is to determine the effect of three SES measures on SRH in 29 countries according to findings in European Social Surveys (2002–2008), in order to study how socio-economic inequalities can vary our subjective state of health. In line with previous studies, income inequalities seem to be greater not only in Anglo-Saxon and Scandinavian countries, but especially in Eastern European countries. The impact of education is greater in Southern countries, and this effect is similar in Eastern and Scandinavian countries, although occupational status does not produce significant differences in southern countries. This study shows the general relevance of socio-educational factors on SRH. Individual economic conditions are obviously a basic factor contributing to a good state of health, but education could be even more relevant to preserve it. In this sense, policies should not only aim at reducing income inequalities, but should also further the education of people who are in risk of social exclusion.

ObjectiveInternational recognition of the unique needs of young people with cancer is growing. Many countries have developed specialist age-appropriate cancer services believing them to be of value. In England, 13 specialist principal treatment centres (PTCs) deliver cancer care to young people. Despite this expansion of specialist care, systematic investigation of associated outcomes and costs has, to date, been lacking. The aim of this paper is to describe recruitment and baseline characteristics of the BRIGHTLIGHT cohort and the development of the bespoke measures of levels of care and disease severity, which will inform the evaluation of cancer services in England.DesignProspective, longitudinal, observational study.SettingNinety-seven National Health Service hospitals in England.ParticipantsA total of 1114 participants were recruited and diagnosed between July 2012 and December 2014: 55% (n=618) were men, mean age was 20.1 years (SD=3.3), most (86%) were white and most common diagnoses were lymphoma (31%), germ cell tumour (19%) and leukaemia (13%).ResultsAt diagnosis, median quality of life score was significantly lower than a published control threshold (69.7 points); 40% had borderline to severe anxiety, and 21% had borderline to severe depression. There was minimal variation in other patient-reported outcomes according to age, diagnosis or severity of illness. Survival was lower in the cohort than for young people diagnosed during the same period who were not recruited (cumulative survival probability 4 years after diagnosis: 88% vs 92%).ConclusionsData collection was completed in March 2018. Longitudinal comparisons will determine outcomes and costs associated with access/exposure to PTCs. Findings will inform international intervention and policy initiatives to improve outcomes for young people with cancer.

IntroductionStudies have shown that perceived discrimination has an impact on our physical and mental health. A relevant part of literature has highlighted the influence of discrimination based on race or ethnicity on mental and physical health outcomes. However, the influence of other types of discrimination on health has been understudied. This study is aimed to explore how different types of discrimination are related to our subjective state of health, and so to compare the intensity of these relationships in the European context.MethodsWe have performed a multilevel ordered analysis on the fifth wave of the European Social Survey (ESS 2010). This dataset has 52,458 units at individual level that are grouped in 26 European countries. In this study, the dependent variable is self-rated health (SRH) that is analyzed in relationship to ten explanatory variables of perceived discrimination: color or race, nationality, religion, language, ethnic group, age, gender, sexuality, disability and others.ResultsThe model identifies statistically significant differences in the effect that diverse types of perceived discrimination can generate on the self-rated health of Europeans. Specifically, this study identifies three well-defined types of perceived discrimination that can be related to poor health outcomes: (1) age discrimination; (2) disability discrimination; and (3) sexuality discrimination. In this sense, the effect on self-rated health of perceived discrimination related to aging and disabilities seems to be more relevant than other types of discrimination in the European context with a longer tradition in literature (e.g. ethnic and/or race-based).ConclusionThe present study shows that the relationship between perceived discrimination and health inequities in Europe are not random, but systematically distributed depending on factors such as age, sexuality and disabilities. Therefore the future orientation of EU social policies should aim to reduce the impact of these social determinants on health equity.

No abstract

a b s t r a c tStudies assume that socioeconomic status determines individuals' states of health, but how does health determine socioeconomic status? And how does this association vary depending on contextual differences? To answer this question, our study uses an additive Bayesian Networks model to explain the interrelationships between health and socioeconomic determinants using complex and messy data. This model has been used to find the most probable structure in a network to describe the interdependence of these factors in five European welfare state regimes. The advantage of this study is that it offers a specific picture to describe the complex interrelationship between socioeconomic determinants and health, producing a network that is controlled by socio-demographic factors such as gender and age. The present work provides a general framework to describe and understand the complex association between socioeconomic determinants and health.