Suchergebnisse

Background: Breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening are evidence-based interventions recommended by most governmental agencies and scientific societies. The aim of this review is to assess the quality of guidelines on screening and to describe differences according to the context in which they were produced. Methods: A literature search of the main databases, websites on health care, and guidelines, as well as the websites of several scientific societies was carried out in order to identify the most recent guidelines (since 2000) on cervical, breast, and colorectal cancer screening. Only documents written in Italian or English were included. Two investigators independently assessed quality by using the AGREE (Appraisal of Guidelines, Research and Evaluation in Europe) instrument. Results: Thirty-three, 32, and 18 relevant documents for cervical, breast, and colorectal cancer, respectively, were identified. Only some documents (19, 12 and 13 for cervical, breast, and colorectal cancer, respectively) could be evaluated with AGREE. Items included in the domain "scope and purpose" obtained the highest scores, followed by "clarity of presentation" domain, while "applicability", "patient involvement," and "conflict of interest disclosure" domains obtained the lowest scores. The quality did not improve in more recent documents. Documents produced by governmental agencies, on average, had higher scores than documents by scientific societies, particularly for "stakeholder involvement" and "applicability". Conclusions: Documents from different countries and health systems differ in terms of the main recommendations given and in the quality of the documents. Those produced by governmental agencies have a more multidisciplinary authorship and pay more attention to applicability than do those produced by scientific societies.

Abstract Background currently road accidents are mostly monitored through mortality and injury rates. This paper reports the methodology and the results of a project set forth by the European Union (EU) and coordinated by the WHO aimed at identifying and evaluating a core set of indicators to monitor the causal chain of road accident health effects. The project is part of the ECOEHIS (Development of Environment and Health Indicators for European Union Countries). Methods a group of experts (WG), identified 14 indicators after a review of the information collected at the EU level, each of them representing a specific aspect of the DPSEEA (Driving, Pressure, State, Exposure, Effect, Action) model applied and adapted to the road accidents. Each indicator was scored according to a list of 16 criteria chosen by the WG. Those found to have a high score were analysed to determine if they were compatible with EU legislation and then tested in the feasibility study. Results 11 of the 14 indicators found to be relevant and compatible with the criteria of selection were proposed for the feasibility study. Mortality, injury, road accident rate, age of vehicle fleet, and distance travelled are the indicators recommended for immediate implementation. Conclusion after overcoming the limitations that emerged (absence of a common definition of death by road accident and injury severity, underestimation of injuries, differences in information quality) this core set of indicators will allow Member States to carry out effective internal/external comparisons over time.

We conducted a scoping review of literature to improve our understanding of the accuracy of infectious disease monitoring in migrants in the Europe. We searched PubMed for papers relevant to the topic including: case reports, observational and experimental studies, reviews, guidelines or policy documents; published after 1994. We identified 532 papers, 27 of which were included in the review. Legislation and right to access health care influence both the accuracy of rates and risk measures under estimating the at risk population, i.e., the denominator. Furthermore, the number of reported cases, i.e., the numerator, may also include cases not accounted for in the denominator. Both biases lead to an overestimated disease occurrence. Restriction to healthcare access and low responsiveness may cause under-detection of cases, however a quantification of this phenomenon has not been produced. On the contrary, screening for asymptomatic diseases increases ascertainment leading to increased detection of cases. Incompleteness of denominator data underestimates the at-risk population. In conclusion, most studies show a lower probability of under-reporting infectious diseases in migrants compared with native populations.

Introduction. In Italy, regional governments are in charge of implementing cervical, breast and colorectal cancer screening programmes. The 2020 Coronavirus pandemic led to a national lockdown and the temporary suspension of several non-urgent healthcare activities, including cancer screening. This paper aims to describe the results of a national survey carried out by the National Centre for Screening Monitoring (ONS) on cervical, breast and colorectal cancer screening activities in 2020.Materials and methods. A national survey was conducted by ONS in 2020 to assess: the number of screening invitations by Region; the volumes of screening tests and the attitude to attend the screening programme compared to 2019; the number of delayed diagnoses of malignant or pre-malignant lesions caused by the slowing down of screening programmes, based on the average Region-specific screening detection rate for cervical, breast and colorectal cancers.Results. Screening tests for breast, colorectal and cervical cancer decreased by 37.6%, 45.5% and 43.4% in 2020 compared with 2019. In 2020 the estimated numbers of undiagnosed lesions are: 3,324 breast cancers, 1,299 colorectal cancers, 7,474 colorectal advanced adenomas and 2,782 CIN2 or more severe cervical lesions. Participation in cancer screening programmes decreased by 15%, 15% and 20%, for cervical, breast and CRC screening, respectively.Discussion and conclusions. An urgent call to action is needed to prevent further delaysand to limit the impact of the pandemic on cancer diagnosis and prevention.

<b><i>Background and Aim:</i></b> This study assesses whether individuals with substance use disorder are at greater risk of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection than people in the general population. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> A population-based study was conducted including 3,780 individuals, diagnosed with alcohol or other drug dependence and cared for by the addiction service (AS) in the province of Reggio Emilia. Standardised incidence ratios (SIRs) and relative 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of being tested and of being SARS-CoV-2 positive in the population of interest compared with those in the general population of Reggio Emilia were calculated. <b><i>Results:</i></b> Both individuals with alcohol and those with other drug use disorders had a lower risk of being SARS-CoV-2 positive (SIR = 0.69; 95% CI 0.32–1.30, SIR = 0.56; 95% CI 0.24–1.10, respectively), despite higher rates of being tested than the general population (SIR = 1.48; 95% CI 1.14–1.89, SIR = 1.51; 95% CI 1.20–1.86, respectively). Among HIV-negative persons, 12.5% were positive to SARS-CoV-2, while none was positive among HIV-positive persons. HCV-infected AS clients had a higher risk of both being tested for SARS-CoV-2 (SIR = 1.99; 95% CI 1.26–2.98) and of resulting positive (SIR = 1.53; 95% CI 0.50–3.58). <b><i>Conclusions:</i></b> Individuals with alcohol and/or other drug use disorders are at higher risk of being tested for SARS-CoV-2 infection but at lower risk of resulting positive than the general population. Further research is warranted in order to support our findings and to address plausible factors underpinning such associations.