Supporting Argumentation in Online Political Debate: Evidence From an Experiment of Collective Deliberation

In this paper we report the results of an e-democracy experiment in which a group of supporters of a large political party were asked to debate online about ways to reform the electoral law. We compare a traditional forum with an online collaborative argumentation platform to capture the various proposals and their associated pros and cons. The aim of the study is to assess the capability of this toolto support online collective deliberation in a real world case,as compared to anonline discussion supported by a forum.By comparing users’ experience across several metrics related to usability, activity levels, and quality of collaboration our findings show that the forum produced more activity and ideas and its users perceived a better quality of the collaboration process, while the argumentation tool helped to reduce the amount of self-referential arguments and encourage viewing and rating of others’ post

Supporting Argumentation in Online Political Debate: Evidence From an Experiment of Collective Deliberation

In this article, we report the results of an e-democracy experiment in which a group of supporters of a large political party were asked to debate online about ways to reform the electoral law. We compare a traditional forum with an online collaborative argumentation platform to capture the various proposals and their associated pros and cons. The aim of this study is to assess the capability of this tool to support online collective deliberation in a real-world case, as compared to an online discussion supported by a forum. By comparing users’ experience across several metrics related to usability, activity levels, and quality of collaboration, our findings show that the forum produced more activity and ideas and its users perceived a better quality of the collaboration process, while the argumentation tool helped to reduce the amount of self-referential arguments and encourage viewing and rating of others’ posts

Impact of COVID-19 and vaccination campaign on 1,755 systemic sclerosis patients during first three years of pandemic. Possible risks for individuals with impaired immunoreactivity to vaccine, ongoing immunomodulating treatments, and disease-related lung involvement during the next pandemic phase

Introduction: The impact of COVID-19 pandemic represents a serious challenge for 'frail' patients' populations with inflammatory autoimmune systemic diseases such as systemic sclerosis (SSc). We investigated the prevalence and severity of COVID-19, as well the effects of COVID-19 vaccination campaign in a large series of SSc patients followed for the entire period (first 38 months) of pandemic. Patients and method: This prospective survey study included 1755 unselected SSc patients (186 M, 1,569F; mean age 58.7 ± 13.4SD years, mean disease duration 8.8 ± 7.3SD years) recruited in part by telephone survey at 37 referral centers from February 2020 to April 2023. The following parameters were carefully evaluated: i. demographic, clinical, serological, and therapeutical features; ii. prevalence and severity of COVID-19; and iii. safety, immunogenicity, and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines. Results: The prevalence of COVID-19 recorded during the whole pandemic was significantly higher compared to Italian general population (47.3 % vs 43.3 %, p < 0.000), as well the COVID-19-related mortality (1.91 % vs 0.72 %, p < 0.001). As regards the putative prognostic factors of worse outcome, COVID-19 positive patients with SSc-related interstitial lung involvement showed significantly higher percentage of COVID-19-related hospitalization compared to those without (5.85 % vs 1.73 %; p < 0.0001), as well as of mortality rate (2.01 % vs 0.4 %; p = 0.002). Over half of patients (56.3 %) received the first two plus one booster dose of vaccine; while a fourth dose was administered to 35.6 %, and only few of them (1.99 %) had five or more doses of vaccine. Of note, an impaired seroconversion was recorded in 25.6 % of individuals after the first 2 doses of vaccine, and in 8.4 % of patients also after the booster dose. Furthermore, the absence of T-cell immunoreactivity was observed in 3/7 patients tested by QuantiFERON® SARSCoV-2 Starter Set (Qiagen). The efficacy of vaccines, evaluated by comparing the COVID-19-related death rate recorded during pre- and post-vaccination pandemic periods, revealed a quite stable outcome in SSc patients (death rate from 2.54 % to 1.76 %; p = ns), despite the significant drop of mortality observed in the Italian general population (from 2.95 % to 0.29 %; p < 0.0001). Conclusions: An increased COVID-19 prevalence and mortality rate was recorded in SSc patients; moreover, the efficacy of vaccines in term of improved outcomes was less evident in SSc compared to Italian general population. This discrepancy might be explained by concomitant adverse prognostic factors: increased rate of non-responders to vaccine in SSc series, low percentage of individuals with four or more doses of vaccine, ongoing immunomodulating treatments, disease-related interstitial lung disease, and/or reduced preventive measures in the second half of pandemic. A careful monitoring of response to COVID-19 vaccines together with adequate preventive/therapeutical strategies are highly recommendable in the near course of pandemic in this frail patients' population

Diagnostic issues faced by a rare disease healthcare network during Covid-19 outbreak: data from the Campania Rare Disease Registry

Background: The aims of this study were: to investigate the capacity of the rare disease healthcare network in Campania to diagnose patients with rare diseases during the outbreak of Covid-19; and to shed light on problematic diagnoses during this period. Methods: To describe the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on the diagnosis of patients with rare diseases, a retrospective analysis of the Campania Region Rare Disease Registry was performed. A tailored questionnaire was sent to rare disease experts to investigate major issues during the emergency period. Results: Prevalence of new diagnoses of rare disease in March and April 2020 was significantly lower than in 2019 (117 versus 317, P &lt; 0.001 and 37 versus 349, P &lt; 0.001, respectively) and 2018 (117 versus 389, P &lt; 0.001 and 37 versus 282, P &lt; 0.001, respectively). Eighty-two among 98 rare disease experts completed the questionnaire. Diagnostic success (95%), access to diagnosis (80%) and follow-up (72%), lack of Personal Protective Equipment (60%), lack of Covid-19 guidelines (50%) and the need for home therapy (78%) were the most important issues raised during Covid-19 outbreak. Conclusions: This study describes the effects of the Covid-19 outbreak on the diagnosis of rare disease in a single Italian region and investigates potential issues of diagnosis and management during this period