No abstract

Background Many studies have shown that low health literacy (HL) is associated with several adverse outcomes. In this study, we systematically reviewed the prevalence of low HL in Europe. Methods PubMed, Embase, and Scopus were searched. Cross-sectional studies conducted in the European Union (EU), published from 2000, investigating the prevalence of low HL in adults using a reliable tool, were included. Quality was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Inverse-variance random effects methods were used to produce pooled prevalence estimates. A meta-regression analysis was performed to assess the association between low HL and the characteristics of the studies. Results The pooled prevalence of low HL ranged from of 27% (95% CI: 18–38%) to 48% (95% CI: 41–55%), depending on the literacy assessment method applied. Southern, Western, and Eastern EU countries had lower HL compared to northern Europe (β: 0.87, 95% CI: 0.40–1.35; β: 0.59, 95% CI: 0.25–0.93; and β: 0.72, 95% CI: 0.06–1.37, respectively). The assessment method significantly influenced the pooled estimate: compared to word recognition items, using self-reported comprehensions items (β: 0.61, 95% CI: 0.15–1.08), reading or numeracy comprehensions items (β: 0.77, 95% CI: 0.24–1.31), or a mixed method (β: 0.66, 95% CI: 0.01–1.33) found higher rates of low HL. Refugees had the lowest HL (β: 1.59, 95% CI: 0.26–2.92). Finally, lower quality studies reported higher rates of low HL (β: 0.56, 95% CI: 0.06–1.07). Discussion We found that low HL is a public health challenge throughout Europe, where one in every three to almost one in every two Europeans may not be able to understand essential health-related material. Additional research is needed to investigate the underlying causes and to develop remedies. PROSPERO Registration CRD42019133377

Background During the intensive care units’ (ICUs) reorganization that was forced by the COVID-19 emergency, attention to traditional infection control measures may have been reduced. Nevertheless, evidence on the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) is still limited and mixed. In this study, we estimated the pandemic impact on HAI incidence and investigated the HAI type occurring in COVID-19 patients. Methods Patients admitted to the main ICU of the Umberto I teaching hospital of Rome from March 1st and April 4th 2020 were compared with patients hospitalized in 2019. We assessed the association of risk factors and time-to-first event through multivariable Fine and Grey’s regression models, that consider the competitive risk of death on the development of HAI (Model 1) or device related-HAI (dr-HAI, Model 2) and provide estimates of the sub-distribution hazard ratio (SHR) and its associated confidence interval (CI). A subgroup analysis was performed on the 2020 cohort. Results Data from 104 patients were retrieved. Overall, 59 HAIs were recorded, 32 of which occurred in the COVID-19 group. Patients admitted in 2020 were found to be positively associated with both HAI and dr-HAI onset (SHR: 2.66, 95% CI 1.31–5.38, and SHR: 10.0, 95% CI 1.84–54.41, respectively). Despite being not confirmed at the multivariable analysis, a greater proportion of dr-HAIs seemed to occur in COVID-19 patients, especially ventilator-associated pneumonia, and catheter-related urinary tract infections. Conclusions We observed an increase in the incidence of patients with HAIs, especially dr-HAIs, mainly sustained by COVID-19 patients. A greater susceptibility of these patients to device-related infections was hypothesized, but further studies are needed.

Achieving high levels of vaccination coverage against COVID-19 may be hindered by vaccine hesitancy. We quantified over time the prevalence of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among university students, investigated its determinants, and analyzed student attitudes, risk perceptions and compliance with preventive measures. The survey was administered online from 1 March to 30 June 2021. A multivariable logistic regression model was built to identify predictors of hesitancy. Overall, we collected 5369 questionnaires that were grouped into three survey periods (March, April–May, and May–June). The response rate ranged from 81.2% to 76.4%, whereas vaccine hesitancy ranged from 22% to 29%. Multivariable analysis showed that April–May participants had higher odds of hesitancy than March respondents. Other positive predictors were being male, not being a healthcare student, having a lower academic level, and not disclosing a political position. Conversely, higher levels of perceived COVID-19 severity, concern for the emergency, confidence in vaccine safety and effectiveness, and self-reported adherence to mask wearing indoors and outdoors were negatively associated with hesitancy. We found that vaccine hesitancy changed over time and in relation to several factors. Strategies aimed at increasing the students’ awareness and engagement, restoring confidence in health authorities, and limiting disinformation around the vaccines should be devised.

Purpose: Lynch syndrome (LS) screening can significantly reduce cancer morbidity and mortality in mutation carriers. Our aim was to identify cost-effective LS screening programs that can be implemented in the "real world."Methods: We performed a systematic review of full economic evaluations of genetic screening for LS in different target populations; health outcomes were estimated in life-years gained or quality-adjusted life-years.Results: Overall, 20 studies were included in the systematic review. Based on the study populations, we identified six categories of LS screening program: colorectal cancer (CRC)-based, endometrial cancer-based, general population-based, LS family registry-based, cascade testing-based, and genetics clinic-based screening programs. We performed an in-depth analysis of CRC-based LS programs, classifying them into three additional subcategories: universal, age-targeted, and selective. In five studies, universal programs based on immunohistochemistry, either alone or in combination with the BRAF test, were cost-effective compared with no screening, while in two studies age-targeted programs with a cutoff of 70 years were cost-effective when compared with agetargeted programs with lower age thresholds.Conclusion: Universal or o70 years-age-targeted CRC-based LS screening programs are cost-effective and should be implemented in the "real world." Genet Med advance online publication 4 January 2018Key Words: colorectal cancer; cost-effectiveness; Lynch syndrome; screening program; systematic review INTRODUCTIONLynch syndrome (LS) is the most common cause of inherited colorectal cancer (CRC), accounting for about 3% of newly diagnosed cases, and results from a mutation in one of the DNA mismatch repair (MMR) genes (MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, and PMS2). As LS is associated with an increased risk of colorectal, endometrial, and other cancers, it is important to identify both the probands and their family members. 1 In 2009, the Evaluation of Genomic Applications in Practice and Prevention Working Group recommended testing for LS in individuals with newly diagnosed CRC to reduce cancer morbidity and mortality in relatives. 2 The working group declared that there is a moderate certainty that this would provide moderate population benefit, but it did not recommend a specific genetic testing strategy among the several examined, nor did it deal with implementation issues. 2 Thereafter the US Department of Health and Human Services adopted the following as a Healthy People 2020 developmental objective: 3 "Increase the proportion of persons with newly diagnosed colorectal cancer who receive genetic testing to identify Lynch syndrome (or familial colorectal cancer syndromes)."Although genomic information has the potential to improve the delivery of patient-centered care through tailored preventive, diagnostic, and treatment strategies, there is a considerable gap between discoveries in genomics research and the translation of these findings into genetic services that benefit patients. 4,5 A previous study highl...

Introduction A precise estimate of the frequency and severity of SARS‐CoV‐2 reinfections would be critical to optimize restriction and vaccination policies for the hundreds of millions previously infected subjects. We performed a meta‐analysis to evaluate the risk of reinfection and COVID‐19 following primary infection. Methods We searched MedLine, Scopus and preprint repositories for cohort studies evaluating the onset of new infections among baseline SARS‐CoV‐2‐positive subjects. Random‐effect meta‐analyses of proportions were stratified by gender, exposure risk, vaccination status, viral strain, time between episodes, and reinfection definition. Results Ninety‐one studies, enrolling 15,034,624 subjects, were included. Overall, 158,478 reinfections were recorded, corresponding to a pooled rate of 0.97% (95% CI: 0.71%–1.27%), with no substantial differences by definition criteria, exposure risk or gender. Reinfection rates were still 0.66% after ≥12 months from first infection, and the risk was substantially lower among vaccinated subjects (0.32% vs. 0.74% for unvaccinated individuals). During the first 3 months of Omicron wave, the reinfection rates reached 3.31%. Overall rates of severe/lethal COVID‐19 were very low (2–7 per 10,000 subjects according to definition criteria) and were not affected by strain predominance. Conclusions A strong natural immunity follows the primary infection and may last for more than one year, suggesting that the risk and health care needs of recovered subjects might be limited. Although the reinfection rates considerably increased during the Omicron wave, the risk of a secondary severe or lethal disease remained very low. The risk–benefit profile of multiple vaccine doses for this subset of population needs to be carefully evaluated.

No abstract

In recent years, an increase in vaccine hesitancy has led to a decrease in vaccination coverage in several countries. We conducted a systematic review of studies that assessed knowledge of and attitudes toward pediatric vaccinations, and the vaccination choices and their determinants among pregnant women. A total of 6,277 records were retrieved, and 16 full texts were included in the narrative synthesis. The published literature on the topic shows that, overall, pregnant women believe that vaccines are important for the protection of their children and the community, but various concerns and misunderstandings persist around vaccine safety and efficacy, which reduce the trust of expectant mothers in immunization. Nevertheless, such attitudes and choices vary depending on the vaccine being considered and the corresponding determinants should therefore be studied in the context of each specific vaccination. Further research on this topic is needed, particularly in non-western countries.