T is associated with severe dyspepsia

Contains fulltext : 96333.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access

Assessing the role of criminality in neighbourhood safety feelings and self-reported health: Results from a cross-sectional study in a Dutch municipality

Background: Neighbourhood safety has repeatedly been shown to be associated with the health and well-being of the residents. Criminality is often seen as one of the key factors affecting neighbourhood safety. However, the relationship between crime, fear of crime and feelings of safety remains underexplored. Methods: Data on socio-demographic, health and safety perceptions was extracted from the Maastricht municipality survey (the Netherlands) (n = 9656 adults) and merged with data on official neighbourhood crime rates from the Police Registry. Pearson correlation coefficients and multilevel logistic regression models were computed to assess the association between aspects of objective and perceived criminality, individuals' feelings of safety and health. Results: The correlation between the police recorded crime and residents' perceptions of the neighbourhood crime rates was weak (0.14-0.38), with the exception of violent crime (0.59), which indicates that other factors contribute to the perceptions of safety. In turn, the perception of higher rates of violent crime and more nuisance (on the scale 0-10) but not other types of crime or nuisance was positively associated with feeling unsafe (OR 1.27 [1.22;1.32] and 1.39 [1.33;1.46], respectively). Lower general feelings of safety at both the individual and neighbourhood level were consistently associated with worse self-rated health. Among different indicators of safety, the general feelings of safety had the most pronounced association with health, while subjective or objective measures of crime showed limited to no direct relationship with health. Conclusions: Public health policies targeting safety as a social determinant of health should consider prioritizing areas of violent crime and nuisance to improve general feelings of safety. Further research is needed to understand which factors aside from criminality are driving residents' feelings of safety

Evaluation of symptomatology and viral load among residents and healthcare staff in long-term care facilities:A coronavirus disease 2019 retrospective case-cohort study

OBJECTIVES: We evaluated COVID-19 symptoms, case fatality rate (CFR), and viral load among all Long-Term Care Facility (LTCF) residents and staff in South Limburg, the Netherlands (February 2020-June 2020, wildtype SARS-CoV-2 Wuhan strain). METHODS: Patient information was gathered via regular channels used to notify the public health services. Ct-values were obtained from the Maastricht University Medical Centre laboratory. Logistic regression analyses were performed to assess associations between COVID-19, symptoms, CFR, and viral load. RESULTS: Of 1,457 staff and 1,540 residents, 35.1% and 45.2% tested positive for COVID-19. Symptoms associated with COVID-19 for female staff were fever, cough, muscle ache and loss of taste and smell. Associated symptoms for men were cough, and loss of taste and smell. Associated symptoms for residents were subfebrility, fatigue, and fever for male residents only. LTCF residents had a higher mean viral load compared to staff. Male residents had a higher CFR (35.8%) compared to women (22.5%). Female residents with Ct-values 31 or less had increased odds of mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Subfebrility and fatigue seem to be associated with COVID-19 in LTCF residents. Therefore, physicians should also consider testing residents who (only) show aspecific symptoms whenever available resources prohibit testing of all residents. Viral load was higher in residents compared to staff, and higher in male residents compared to female residents. All COVID-19 positive male residents, as well as female residents with a medium to high viral load (Ct-values 31 or lower) should be monitored closely, as these groups have an overall increased risk of mortality

Effect and cost-effectiveness of step-up versus step-down treatment with antacids, H-2-receptor antagonists, and proton pump inhibitors in patients with new onset dyspepsia (DIAMOND study): a primary-care-based randomised controlled trial

Background Substantial physician workload and high costs are associated with the treatment of dyspepsia in primary health care. Despite the availability of consensus statements and guidelines, the most cost-effective empirical strategy for initial management of the condition remains to be determined. We compared step-up and step-down treatment strategies for initial management of patients with new onset dyspepsia in primary care. Methods Patients aged 18 years and older who consulted with their family doctor for new onset dyspepsia in the Netherlands were eligible for enrolment in this double-blind, randomised controlled trial. Between October, 2003, and January, 2006, 664 patients were randomly assigned to receive stepwise treatment with antacid, H-2-receptor antagonist, and proton pump inhibitor (step-up; n=341), or these drugs in the reverse order (step-down; n=323), by use of a computer-generated sequence with blocks of six. Each step lasted 4 weeks and treatment only continued with the next step if symptoms persisted or relapsed within 4 weeks. Primary outcomes were symptom relief and cost-effectiveness of initial management at 6 months. Analysis was by intention to treat (ITT); the ITT population consisted of all patients with data for the primary outcome at 6 months. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00247715. Findings 332 patients in the step-up, and 313 in the step-down group reached an endpoint with sufficient data for evaluation; the main reason for dropout was loss to follow-up. Treatment success after 6 months was achieved in 238 (72%) patients in the step-up group and 219 (70%) patients in the step-down group (odds ratio 0.92, 95% CI 0.7-1.3). The average medical costs were lower for patients in the step-up group than for those in the step-down group ((euro)228 vs (euro)245; p=0 . 0008), which was mainly because of costs of medication. One or more adverse drug events were reported by 94 (28%) patients in the step-up and 93 (29%) patients in the step-down group. All were minor events, including (other) dyspeptic symptoms, diarrhoea, constipation, and bad/dry taste. Interpretation Although treatment success with either step-up or step-down treatment is similar, the step-up strategy is more cost effective at 6 months for initial treatment of patients with new onset dyspeptic symptoms in primary care. Funding The Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Developmen