The Intangible Legacy of the Indonesian Bajo

The Sama-Bajau, or Bajo diaspora, extends from the southern Philippines and Sabah (Malaysian Borneo) to the eastern part of Indonesia. The Indonesian Bajo, now scattered along the coasts of Sulawesi (Celebes) and East Kalimantan, the Eastern Lesser Sunda Islands and Maluku, were once mostly nomadic fishermen of the sea or ocean freight carriers. Today, the Bajo are almost all fishermen and settled. Their former and present ways of life made them favour intangible forms of culture: it is impossible to transport bulky artefacts when moving frequently by boat, or when living in stilt houses, very close to the sea or on a reef. It is therefore an intangible legacy that is the essence of the Bajo\u27s culture. Sandro healers have a vast range of expertise that allows them to protect and heal people when they suffer from natural or supernatural diseases. On the other hand, music and especially oral literature are very rich. In addition to song and the pantun poetry contests, the most prestigious genre is the iko-iko, long epic songs that the Bajo consider to be historical rather than fictional narratives. The Bajo\u27s intangible heritage is fragile, since it is based on oral transmission. In this article, I give a description of this heritage, dividing it into two areas: the knowledge that allows them to “protect and heal” on the one hand, and to “distract and relax”, on the other

How primary healthcare in Iceland swiftly changed its strategy in response to the COVID-19 pandemic

Funding Information: Contributors All authors contributed to the planning, conduct and reporting of the study. ELS, JSJ, MOT, HH, KL worked on acquisition of the data. ELS, ABB and JSJ drafted the manuscript with input from MOT, HH, KL and JAS which was critically reviewed by all the authors. HH performed the statistical analysis. ELS, ABB, JSJ, MOT, HH, KL, JAS read and approved the final version of the manuscript. Funding This research was supported by the Research Fund of the Icelandic College of Family Physicians. Publisher Copyright: ©Objective To describe how the primary healthcare (PHC) in Iceland changed its strategy to handle the COVID-19 pandemic. Design Descriptive observational study. Setting Reykjavik, the capital of Iceland. Population The Reykjavik area has a total of 233 000 inhabitants. Main outcome measures The number and the mode of consultations carried out. Drug prescriptions and changes in the 10 most common diagnoses made in PHC. Laboratory tests including COVID-19 tests. Average numbers in March and April 2020 compared with the same months in 2018 and 2019. Results Pragmatic strategies and new tasks were rapidly applied to the clinical work to meet the foreseen healthcare needs caused by the pandemic. The number of daytime consultations increased by 35% or from 780 to 1051/1000 inhabitants (p<0.001) during the study period. Telephone and web-based consultations increased by 127% (p<0.001). The same tendency was observed in out-of-hours services. The number of consultations in maternity and well-child care decreased only by 4% (p=0.003). Changes were seen in the 10 most common diagnoses. Most noteworthy, apart from a high number of COVID-19 suspected disease, was that immunisation, depression, hypothyroidism and lumbago were not among the top 10 diagnoses during the epidemic period. The number of drug prescriptions increased by 10.3% (from 494 to 545 per 1000 inhabitants, p<0.001). The number of prescriptions from telephone and web-based consultations rose by 55.6%. No changes were observed in antibiotics prescriptions. Conclusions As the first point of contact in the COVID-19 pandemic, the PHC in Iceland managed to change its strategy swiftly while preserving traditional maternity and well-child care, indicating a very solid PHC with substantial flexibility in its organisation.Peer reviewe

Association between prescription of hypnotics/anxiolytics and mortality in multimorbid and non-multimorbid patients: a longitudinal cohort study in primary care.

ObjectivesTo assess the risk of mortality in primary care patients, multimorbid (≥2 chronic conditions) or not, prescribed hypnotics/anxiolytics.DesignA longitudinal cohort studysettingPrimary healthcare in the Reykjavik area.Participants114 084 individuals (aged 10–79 years, average 38.5, SD 18.4) contacting general practitioners during 2009–2012 (mortality follow-up to 31 December 2016). Of those, the reference group comprised 58 560 persons who were neither multimorbid nor had redeemed prescriptions for hypnotics/anxiolytics. Participants (16 108) redeeming prescriptions for hypnotics/anxiolytics on a regular basis for 3 consecutive years were considered as consistent, long-term users. They were subdivided into low-dose (1–300 defined daily doses (DDD)/3 years),medium-dose (301–1095 DDDs/3 years) and high-dose users (>1095 DDDs/3 years). All six groups taking these drugs were compared with the reference group.Main outcome measuresAll-cause mortality.resultsHRs were calculated with the no multimorbidity—no drug group as a reference, using Cox proportional hazards regression model adjusting for age, sex and the number of chronic conditions (n=111 767), patients with cancer excluded. During follow-up, 516 358 person-years in total,1926 persons died. Mean follow-up was 1685 days (4.6years), range 1–1826 days (5.0 years). For all multimorbid patients who took no drugs the HR was 1.14 (95% CI 1.00 to 1.30) compared with those without multimorbidity. HRs in the non-multimorbid participants varied from 1.49 to 3.35(95% CI ranging from 1.03 to 4.11) with increasing doses of hypnotics/anxiolytics, and correspondingly from 1.55 to 3.52 (1.18 to 4.29) in multimorbid patients.ConclusionsMortality increased in a dose-dependent manner among both multimorbid and non-multimorbid patients taking hypnotics/anxiolytics. This increase was clearly associated with prescribing of these drugs. Their use should be limited to the recommended period of 2–4 up to 6 weeks; long-term usemay incur increased risk and should be re-examined

Use of pregnancy ultrasound before the 19th week scan: an analytical study based on the Icelandic Childbirth and Health Cohort

Abstract Background and aim Use of ultrasound scans early in pregnancy is increasing, but we have limited knowledge about the actual prevalence, associated decision-making and impact on expectant women/couples in a general population. The aim of this study was to document the use of, and experiences related to, foetal scanning before the recommended 19th week scan among pregnant women in Iceland. Population and methods The data come from the Icelandic Childbirth and Health Cohort Study 2009–11. A total of 1111 women attending prenatal care at primary care health centres answered questionnaires before mid-pregnancy and after birth, including questions about the number of scanning procedures during pregnancy. These might include consumer-initiated ‘pregnancy confirmation scans,’ scans for clinical reasons, and screening for foetal anomalies in week 11–14 which is optional in Iceland. The questionnaires also addressed parental decision-making associated with the 11–14 week screening, perception of the pre-screening information, reasons for attending or declining, and whether/how early foetal screening affected the women’s concerns related to the unborn child. Results A total of 95% of the women reported some kind of foetal ultrasound scanning before the 19th week scan, and 64% reported two or more scans in this period. 78% of the women chose to participate in screening for foetal anomalies in week 11–14. Decision-making in relation to this screening was mainly informed by sources outside the healthcare system, and many women characterized participation as ‘self-evident’. Most women felt they got sufficient information about the scope of screening, whilst information regarding potential downsides and risks was frequently perceived as insufficient. Most women who chose the 11–14 week screening reported a reassuring or neutral effect, whilst 10% of the women reported that it increased their concerns related to their unborn child. Conclusions Ultrasound scans in the first half of pregnancy are in high use in Iceland and have apparently become part of a broader pregnancy culture, encompassing both high- and low-risk pregnancies. Whether this is a favourable development or to some extent represents unwarranted medicalization, can be debated. More balanced information might be provided prior to early screening for foetal anomalies

How primary healthcare in Iceland swiftly changed its strategy in response to the COVID-19 pandemic

Objective To describe how the primary healthcare (PHC) in Iceland changed its strategy to handle the COVID-19 pandemic. Design Descriptive observational study. Setting Reykjavik, the capital of Iceland. Population The Reykjavik area has a total of 233 000 inhabitants. Main outcome measures The number and the mode of consultations carried out. Drug prescriptions and changes in the 10 most common diagnoses made in PHC. Laboratory tests including COVID-19 tests. Average numbers in March and April 2020 compared with the same months in 2018 and 2019. Results Pragmatic strategies and new tasks were rapidly applied to the clinical work to meet the foreseen healthcare needs caused by the pandemic. The number of daytime consultations increased by 35% or from 780 to 1051/1000 inhabitants (p<0.001) during the study period. Telephone and web-based consultations increased by 127% (p<0.001). The same tendency was observed in out-of-hours services. The number of consultations in maternity and well-child care decreased only by 4% (p=0.003). Changes were seen in the 10 most common diagnoses. Most noteworthy, apart from a high number of COVID-19 suspected disease, was that immunisation, depression, hypothyroidism and lumbago were not among the top 10 diagnoses during the epidemic period. The number of drug prescriptions increased by 10.3% (from 494 to 545 per 1000 inhabitants, p<0.001). The number of prescriptions from telephone and web-based consultations rose by 55.6%. No changes were observed in antibiotics prescriptions. Conclusions As the first point of contact in the COVID-19 pandemic, the PHC in Iceland managed to change its strategy swiftly while preserving traditional maternity and well-child care, indicating a very solid PHC with substantial flexibility in its organisation

Multimorbidity and use of hypnotic and anxiolytic drugs: Cross-sectional and follow-up study in primary healthcare in Iceland

Background The prevalence of multimorbidity is increasing worldwide, presumably leading to an increased use of medicines. During the last decades the use of hypnotic and anxiolytic benzodiazepine derivatives and related drugs has increased dramatically. These drugs are frequently prescribed for people with a sleep disorder often merely designated as “insomnia” in the medical records and lacking a clear connection with the roots of the patients’ problems. Our aim was to analyse the prevalence of multimorbidity in primary healthcare in Iceland, while concurrently investigating a possible association with the prevalence and incidence of hypnotic/anxiolytic prescriptions, short-term versus chronic use. Methods Data were retrieved from a comprehensive database of medical records from primary healthcare in Iceland to find multimorbid patients and prescriptions for hypnotics and anxiolytics, linking diagnoses (ICD-10) and prescriptions (2009–2012) to examine a possible association. Nearly 222,000 patients, 83 % being local residents in the capital area, who contacted 16 healthcare centres served in total by 140 general practitioners, were set as a reference to find the prevalence of multimorbidity as well as the prevalence and incidence of hypnotic/anxiolytic prescriptions. Results The prevalence of multimorbidity in the primary care population was 35 %, lowest in the young, increasing with age up to the 80+ group where it dropped somewhat. The prevalence of hypnotic/anxiolytic prescriptions was 13.9 %. The incidence rate was 19.4 per 1000 persons per year in 2011, and 85 % of the patients prescribed hypnotics/anxiolytics were multimorbid. Compared to patients without multimorbidity, multimorbid patients were far more likely to be prescribed a hypnotic and/or an anxiolytic, OR = 14.9 (95 % CI = 14.4–15.4). Conclusions Patients with multiple chronic conditions are common in the primary care setting, and prevalence and incidence of hypnotic/anxiolytic prescriptions are high. Solely explaining use of these drugs by linear thinking, i.e. that “insomnia” leads to their prescription is probably simplistic, since the majority of patients prescribed these drugs are multimorbid having several chronic conditions which could lead to sleeping problems. However, multimorbidity as such is not an indication for hypnotics, and doctors should be urged to greater caution in their prescribing, bearing in mind non-pharmacological therapy options

Does ‘existential unease’ predict adult multimorbidity? Analytical cohort study on embodiment based on the Norwegian HUNT population

Objectives: Multimorbidity is prevalent, and knowledge regarding its aetiology is limited. The general pathogenic impact of adverse life experiences, comprising a wide-ranging typology, is well documented and coherent with the concept allostatic overload (the long-term impact of stress on human physiology) and the notion embodiment (the conversion of sociocultural and environmental influences into physiological characteristics). Less is known about the medical relevance of subtle distress or unease. The study aim was to prospectively explore the associations between existential unease (coined as a meta-term for the included items) and multimorbidity. Setting: Our data are derived from an unselected Norwegian population, the Nord-Trøndelag Health Study, phases 2 (1995–1997) and 3 (2006–2008), with a mean of 11 years follow-up. Participants: The analysis includes 20 365 individuals aged 20–59 years who participated in both phases and was classified without multimorbidity (with 0–1 disease) at baseline. Methods: From HUNT2, we selected 11 items indicating ‘unease’ in the realms of self-esteem, well-being, sense of coherence and social relationships. Poisson regressions were used to generate relative risk (RR) of developing multimorbidity, according to the respondents' ease/unease profile. Results: A total of 6277 (30.8%) participants developed multimorbidity. They were older, more likely to be women, smokers and with lower education. 10 of the 11 ‘unease’ items were significantly related to the development of multimorbidity. The items ‘poor self-rated health’ and ‘feeling dissatisfied with life’ exhibited the highest RR, 1.55 and 1.44, respectively (95% CI 1.44 to 1.66 and 1.21 to 1.71). The prevalence of multimorbidity increased with the number of ‘unease’ factors, from 26.7% for no factor to 49.2% for 6 or more. Conclusions: In this prospective study, ‘existential unease’ was associated with the development of multimorbidity in a dose–response manner. The finding indicates that existential unease increases people's vulnerability to disease, concordant with current literature regarding increased allostatic load

Self Reported Childhood Difficulties, Adult Multimorbidity and Allostatic Load. A Cross-Sectional Analysis of the Norwegian HUNT Study

Background: Multimorbidity receives increasing scientific attention. So does the detrimental health impact of adverse childhood experiences (ACE). Aetiological pathways from ACE to complex disease burdens are under investigation. In this context, the concept of allostatic overload is relevant, denoting the link between chronic detrimental stress, widespread biological perturbations and disease development. This study aimed to explore associations between self-reported childhood quality, biological perturbations and multimorbidity in adulthood. Materials and Methods: We included 37 612 participants, 30–69 years, from the Nord-Trøndelag Health Study, HUNT3 (2006–8). Twenty one chronic diseases, twelve biological parameters associated with allostatic load and four behavioural factors were analysed. Participants were categorised according to the self-reported quality of their childhood, as reflected in one question, alternatives ranging from ‘very good’ to ‘very difficult’. The association between childhood quality, behavioural patterns, allostatic load and multimorbidity was compared between groups. Results: Overall, 85.4% of participants reported a ‘good’ or ‘very good’ childhood; 10.6% average, 3.3% ‘difficult’ and 0.8% ‘very difficult’. Childhood difficulties were reported more often among women, smokers, individuals with sleep problems, less physical activity and lower education. In total, 44.8% of participants with a very good childhood had multimorbidity compared to 77.1% of those with a very difficult childhood (Odds ratio: 5.08; 95% CI: 3.63– 7.11). Prevalences of individual diseases also differed significantly according to childhood quality; all but two (cancer and hypertension) showed a significantly higher prevalence (p<0.05) as childhood was categorised as more difficult. Eight of the 12 allostatic parameters differed significantly between childhood groups

Self Reported Childhood Difficulties, Adult Multimorbidity and Allostatic Load. A Cross-Sectional Analysis of the Norwegian HUNT Study

Background: Multimorbidity receives increasing scientific attention. So does the detrimental health impact of adverse childhood experiences (ACE). Aetiological pathways from ACE to complex disease burdens are under investigation. In this context, the concept of allostatic overload is relevant, denoting the link between chronic detrimental stress, widespread biological perturbations and disease development. This study aimed to explore associations between self-reported childhood quality, biological perturbations and multimorbidity in adulthood. Materials and Methods: We included 37 612 participants, 30–69 years, from the Nord-Trøndelag Health Study, HUNT3 (2006–8). Twenty one chronic diseases, twelve biological parameters associated with allostatic load and four behavioural factors were analysed. Participants were categorised according to the self-reported quality of their childhood, as reflected in one question, alternatives ranging from ‘very good’ to ‘very difficult’. The association between childhood quality, behavioural patterns, allostatic load and multimorbidity was compared between groups. Results: Overall, 85.4%of participants reported a ‘good’ or ‘very good’ childhood; 10.6% average, 3.3% ‘difficult’ and 0.8% ‘very difficult’. Childhood difficulties were reported more often among women, smokers, individuals with sleep problems, less physical activity and lower education. In total, 44.8%of participants with a very good childhood had multimorbidity compared to 77.1%of those with a very difficult childhood (Odds ratio: 5.08; 95% CI: 3.63– 7.11). Prevalences of individual diseases also differed significantly according to childhood quality; all but two (cancer and hypertension) showed a significantly higher prevalence (p<0.05) as childhood was categorised as more difficult. Eight of the 12 allostatic parameters differed significantly between childhood groups. Conclusions: We found a general, graded association between self-reported childhood difficulties on the one hand and multimorbidity, individual disease burden and biological perturbations on the other. The finding is in accordance with previous research which conceptualises allostatic overload as an important route by which childhood adversities become biologically embodied