Objectives To quantify the effectiveness of safety education of pedestrians. Design Systematic review of randomised controlled trials of safety education programmes for pedestrians of all ages. Main outcome measures Effect of safety education on pedestrians' injuries, behaviour, attitude, and knowledge and on pedestrian-motor vehicle collisions. Quality of trials: methods of randomisation; and numbers lost to follow up Results We identified 15 randomised controlled trials of safety education programmes for pedestrians. Fourteen trials targeted children, and one targeted institutionalised adults. None assessed the effect of safety education on the occurrence of pedestrian injury, but six trials assessed its effect on behaviour. The effect of pedestrian education on behaviour varied considerably across studies and outcomes. Conclusions Pedestrian safety education can change observed road crossing behaviour, but whether this reduces the risk of pedestrian injury in road traffic crashes is unknown. There is a lack of good evidence of effectiveness of safety education for adult pedestrians, specially elderly people. None of the trials was conducted in low or middle income countries.

BACKGROUND: Dog bites can have dramatic consequences for children and adolescents. Educating young people on how to interact with dogs could contribute to reducing dog bite injuries. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness of educational interventions that target children and adolescents in reducing dog bite injuries and their consequences. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the following databases: The Cochrane Injuries Group's Specialised Register, CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library Issue 3, 2008), CAB Abstracts, Zetoc, SIGLE, MEDLINE, EMBASE, ERIC, PsycInfo, SPECTR, CINAHL, National Research Register, LILACs, African Healthline, Science Citation Index, Social Science Citation Index, CurrentClinicalTrials.Gov, Centrewatch, Controlledtrials.com, Vetgate and the WHO database. We checked the bibliographies of relevant reviews and trials and also contacted experts in the field. The searches were carried out to 18 July 2008. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials and controlled before-after studies that evaluated the effectiveness of educational interventions, in populations under 20 years old, for preventing dog bites. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors selected eligible studies based on information from the title and abstract. Two review authors decided on the inclusion of eligible trials and extracted data from the trial reports. We contacted authors of eligible studies to obtain more information. MAIN RESULTS: Two studies met the inclusion criteria. No study looked at our main outcome: dog bite rates. The included studies were randomised controlled trials conducted in kindergarten and primary schools. Their methodology was of moderate quality. One study showed that the intervention group showed less 'inappropriate behaviour' when observed in the presence of a dog after a 30-minute educational intervention. Another study showed an increase in knowledge and in caution after an information programme. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is no direct evidence that educational programmes can reduce dog bite rates in children and adolescents. Educating children who are less than 10 years old in school settings could improve their knowledge, attitude and behaviour towards dogs. Educating children and adolescents in settings other than schools should also be evaluated. There is a need for high quality studies that measure dog bite rates as an outcome. To date, evidence does not suggest that educating children and adolescents is effective as a unique public health strategy to reduce dog bite injuries and their consequences

No abstract

Background Research on SARS-CoV-2 transmission within households and other close settings using serological testing is scarce. Methods We invited COVID-19 cases diagnosed between February 27 and April 1, 2020, in canton of Vaud, Switzerland, to participate, along with household members and other close contacts. Anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies were measured using a Luminex immunoassay. We estimated factors associated with serological status using generalized estimating equations. Results Overall, 219 cases, 302 household members, and 69 other close contacts participated between May 4 and June 27, 2020. More than half of household members (57.2%, 95%CI 49.7-64.3) had developed a serologic response to SARS-CoV-2, while 19.0% (95%CI 10.0-33.2) of other close contacts were seropositive. After adjusting for individual and household characteristics, infection risk was higher in household members aged 65 or more than in younger adults (aOR 3.63, 95%CI 1.05-12.60), and in those not strictly adhering to simple hygiene rules like hand washing (aOR 1.80, 95%CI 1.02-3.17). The risk was lower when more than 5 people outside home were met during semi-confinement, compared to none (aOR 0.35, 95%CI 0.16-0.74). Individual risk of household members to be seropositive was lower in large households (22% less per each additional person). Conclusions During semi-confinement, household members of a COVID-19 case were at very high risk of getting infected, 3 times more than close contacts outside home. This highlights the need to provide clear messages on protective measures applicable at home. For elderly couples, who were especially at risk, providing external support for daily basic activities is essential.

These observations corroborate observations from Sweden and France, showing a levelling off in obesity and overweight in young children.

This cohort study examines the association of the COVID-19 vaccine booster with chronic spontaneous urticaria in Swiss patients.

Background Seroprevalence and the proportion of people with neutralizing activity (functional immunity) against SARS-CoV-2 variants were high in early 2022. In this prospective, population- based, multi-region cohort study, we assessed the development of functional and hybrid immunity (induced by vaccination and infection) in the general population during this period of high incidence of infections with Omicron variants. Methods We randomly selected and assessed individuals aged ≥16 years from the general population in southern (n = 739) and north-eastern (n = 964) Switzerland in March 2022. We assessed them again in June/July 2022, supplemented with a random sample from western (n = 850) Switzerland. We measured SARS-CoV-2 specific IgG antibodies and SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibodies against three variants (ancestral strain, Delta, Omicron). Results Seroprevalence remained stable from March 2022 (97.6%, n = 1894) to June/July 2022 (98.4%, n = 2553). In June/July, the percentage of individuals with neutralizing capacity against ancestral strain was 94.2%, against Delta 90.8% and against Omicron 84.9%, and 50.6% developed hybrid immunity. Individuals with hybrid immunity had highest median levels of anti-spike IgG antibodies titres [4518 World Health Organization units per millilitre (WHO U/mL)] compared with those with only vaccine- (4304 WHO U/mL) or infection- (269 WHO U/mL) induced immunity, and highest neutralization capacity against ancestral strain (hybrid: 99.8%, vaccinated: 98%, infected: 47.5%), Delta (hybrid: 99%, vaccinated: 92.2%, infected: 38.7%) and Omicron (hybrid: 96.4%, vaccinated: 79.5%, infected: 47.5%). Conclusions This first study on functional and hybrid immunity in the Swiss general population after Omicron waves showed that SARS-CoV-2 has become endemic. The high levels of antibodies and neutralization support the emerging recommendations of some countries where booster vaccinations are still strongly recommended for vulnerable persons but less so for the general population.

BackgroundUnderstanding community-based SARS-CoV-2 transmission is crucial to inform public health decisions. Research on SARS-CoV-2 transmission within households and other close settings using serological testing is scarce.MethodsWe invited COVID-19 cases diagnosed between February 27 and April 1, 2020 in canton of Vaud, Switzerland, to participate, along with household members and other close contacts. Anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies were measured using a Luminex immunoassay. We estimated factors associated with serological status using generalized estimating equations.FindingsOverall, 219 COVID-19 index cases, 302 household members, and 69 other close contacts participated between May 4 and June 27, 2020. More than half of household members (57·2%, 95%CI 49·7-64·3) had developed a serologic response to SARS-CoV-2, while 19·0% (95%CI 10·0-33·2) of other close contacts were seropositive. After adjusting for individual and household characteristics, infection risk was higher in household members aged 65 or more than in younger adults (aOR 3·63, 95%CI 1·05-12·60), and in those not strictly adhering to simple hygiene rules like hand washing (aOR 1·80, 95%CI 1·02-3·17). The risk was lower when more than 5 people outside home were met during the semi-confinement, compared to none (aOR 0·35, 95%CI 0·16-0·74). The individual risk of household members to be seropositive was lower in large households (22% less per each additional person).InterpretationWe find that, during semi-confinement, household members of a COVID-19 case were at very high risk of getting infected, 3 times more than close contacts outside home. This highlights the need to provide clear messages on specific protective measures applicable at home. For elderly couples, who were especially at risk, providing them external support for daily basic activities is essential.FundingCenter for Primary Care and Public Health (Unisanté), Canton of Vaud, Leenaards Foundation, Fondation pour l’Université de Lausanne. SerocoViD is part of Corona Immunitas coordinated by SSPH+.