Mental health and discrimination among migrants from Africa: An Italian cross-sectional study

This study aimed to assess depression, anxiety, posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and discrimination in African migrants and investigate determinants. A cross‐sectional study was conducted in Italy (July 2019–February 2020). Inclusion criteria: being a citizen of an African country or having parents who are citizens of an African country. Questionnaires included tests for depression, anxiety, PTSD, discrimination. Multivariable regressions were performed. Participants were 293. The prevalence of depression, anxiety, and PTSD was: 12.1%, 12.1%, and 24.4%. Only 7.2% declared not to be discriminated. Among significantly associated factors, waiting for/being in possession of temporary permits and discrimination were associated with all mental outcomes. Being (or having parents from) Sub‐Saharan Africa increased the likelihood of discrimination. A relevant prevalence of mental illnesses was reported. Particularly, Sub‐Saharan Africans potentially offer a unique point of view. Migrants' mental health should be a priority for national and international programs of health monitoring

Multicomponent intervention provided by GPs to reduce cardiovascular risk factors: evaluation in an Italian large sample

AbstractBackgroundThe cardiovascular risk increases in a multiplicative way when patients present more risk factors simultaneously. Moreover, the General Practitioners (GPs) play a crucial role in risk factors prevention and reduction. This work aimed to evaluate a multicomponent intervention in the Primary Care Department in an Italian Local Health Unit.MethodsA pre-post study was conducted in Northern Italy (2018). Patients were eligible if: aged between 30 and 60 years, not chronic patients, not affected by hypertension or hypercholesterolaemia. The GPs assessed body mass index, hypertension, abdominal obesity, low-density lipoprotein (LDL) values, glycaemic values, smoking and exercise habit (T0). A counselling by GPs to at-risk patients and a multicomponent health education intervention were performed. Reassessment occurred after at least 3 months (T1). Main analyses were chi-squared tests for gender differences, McNemar or marginal homogeneity tests for changes in paired data (P < 0.05 as significant).ResultsParticipants were 5828 at T0 (54.0% females) and 4953 at T1 (53.4% females). At T0, 99.1% presented at least one risk factor. Significant changes in paired data were reported for each risk factor. The greatest improvement frequencies occurred in glycaemia values (51.0%) and hypertension (45.6%), the lowest in abdominal obesity (3.7%). Some differences were recorded between genders, e.g. females reported higher improvement frequencies in hypertension (P = 0.001) and abdominal obesity (P < 0.001), whereas males in physical activity (P = 0.011) and LDL values (P = 0.032).ConclusionThe results showed significant changes for each risk factor, both for men and women. GPs and multicomponent educational interventions could play a key role in reducing cardiovascular risk factors

Resources for assessing parents’ vaccine hesitancy: a systematic review of the literature

Vaccine hesitancy (VH) is a complex and country-specific issue, responsible for the decreasing vaccination rate and subsequent spread of vaccine-preventable diseases. In literature, several questionnaires were developed to assess VH. The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the published questionnaires assessing parental VH. The search was conducted in PubMed/Medline, Web of Science and The Cochrane Library, in December 2017, following the PRISMA guidelines. The search strategy included 4 types of keywords: parents, vaccine hesitancy/acceptance, immunization and survey. Only English and Italian original papers were included. 17 reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts. Only the included articles were downloaded in full and, after a second screening, data were extracted and recorded in an ad hoc spreadsheet. A total of 5,139 articles were retrieved, after duplicates elimination 3,508 papers were screened. After a screening selection, 334 studies were included in the analysis. Most studies were cross-sectional (92.8%), followed by case-control (4.8%) and cohort studies (2.4%). The population interviewed was mainly parents, without any further details (73.1%); mothers were the only parent surveyed in approximately 20% of the studies, while only 1 study involved selectively the fathers. The sample size ranged from 7 to 59,897. Only 38% of the included studies reported both the number and type of items used. Regarding the type, more than half consisted of closed questions, followed by Likert scales, while open-ended questions were used in 14.8% of the surveys. Frequently, the survey was conducted using a self-reported questionnaire or interview. The questionnaires were mostly administered on paper, while online forms were used in 20.1% of the cases. However, 80.2% of the questionnaires were not attached to the paper. HPV vaccine was the most frequently investigated (39.2%), followed by influenza (13.5%) and measles (10.8%). While 22.4% of the articles referred to paediatrics vaccinations in general. Data about the immunization behaviours were reported in 294 studies: the subjects involved showed a behaviour defined as “acceptance” in 129 studies (38.6%), as “hesitancy/scepticism/doubt” in 145 studies (43.1%) and as “refusal” in 22 studies (6.6%). This information was not reported in 12% of the studies. VH is still a public health challenge, as confirmed by the high number of studies and questionnaires retrieved. This study offers a deeper perspec- tive on the available questionnaires, helping to identify the best one in terms of aim and study setting.     &nbsp

A Knowledge, Attitude, and Perception Study on Flu and COVID-19 Vaccination during the COVID-19 Pandemic: Multicentric Italian Survey Insights

In January 2020, Chinese health authorities identified a novel coronavirus strain never before isolated in humans. It quickly spread across the world, and was eventually declared a pandemic, leading to about 310 million confirmed cases and to 5,497,113 deaths (data as of 11 January 2022). Influenza viruses affect millions of people during cold seasons, with high impacts, in terms of mortality and morbidity. Patients with comorbidities are at a higher risk of acquiring severe problems due to COVID-19 and the flu-infections that could impact their underlying clinical conditions. In the present study, knowledge, attitudes, and opinions of the general population regarding COVID-19 and influenza immunization were evaluated. A multicenter, web-based, cross-sectional study was conducted between 10 February and 12 July 2020, during the first wave of SARS-CoV-2 infections among the general population in Italy. A sample of 4116 questionnaires was collected at the end of the study period. Overall, 17.5% of respondents stated that it was unlikely that they would accept a future COVID-19 vaccine (n = 720). Reasons behind vaccine refusal/indecision were mainly a lack of trust in the vaccine (41.1%), the fear of side effects (23.4%), or a lack of perception of susceptibility to the disease (17.1%). More than 50% (53.8%; n = 2214) of the sample participants were willing to receive flu vaccinations in the forthcoming vaccination campaign, but only 28.2% of cases had received it at least once in the previous five seasons. A higher knowledge score about SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 and at least one flu vaccination during previous influenza seasons were significantly associated with the intention to be vaccinated against COVID-19 and influenza. The continuous study of factors, determining vaccination acceptance and hesitancy, is fundamental in the current context, in regard to improve vaccination confidence and adherence rates against vaccine preventable diseases

Evolving trends in the management of acute appendicitis during COVID-19 waves. The ACIE appy II study

Background: In 2020, ACIE Appy study showed that COVID-19 pandemic heavily affected the management of patients with acute appendicitis (AA) worldwide, with an increased rate of non-operative management (NOM) strategies and a trend toward open surgery due to concern of virus transmission by laparoscopy and controversial recommendations on this issue. The aim of this study was to survey again the same group of surgeons to assess if any difference in management attitudes of AA had occurred in the later stages of the outbreak. Methods: From August 15 to September 30, 2021, an online questionnaire was sent to all 709 participants of the ACIE Appy study. The questionnaire included questions on personal protective equipment (PPE), local policies and screening for SARS-CoV-2 infection, NOM, surgical approach and disease presentations in 2021. The results were compared with the results from the previous study. Results: A total of 476 answers were collected (response rate 67.1%). Screening policies were significatively improved with most patients screened regardless of symptoms (89.5% vs. 37.4%) with PCR and antigenic test as the preferred test (74.1% vs. 26.3%). More patients tested positive before surgery and commercial systems were the preferred ones to filter smoke plumes during laparoscopy. Laparoscopic appendicectomy was the first option in the treatment of AA, with a declined use of NOM. Conclusion: Management of AA has improved in the last waves of pandemic. Increased evidence regarding SARS-COV-2 infection along with a timely healthcare systems response has been translated into tailored attitudes and a better care for patients with AA worldwide

How future surgery will benefit from SARS-COV-2-related measures: a SPIGC survey conveying the perspective of Italian surgeons

COVID-19 negatively affected surgical activity, but the potential benefits resulting from adopted measures remain unclear. The aim of this study was to evaluate the change in surgical activity and potential benefit from COVID-19 measures in perspective of Italian surgeons on behalf of SPIGC. A nationwide online survey on surgical practice before, during, and after COVID-19 pandemic was conducted in March-April 2022 (NCT:05323851). Effects of COVID-19 hospital-related measures on surgical patients' management and personal professional development across surgical specialties were explored. Data on demographics, pre-operative/peri-operative/post-operative management, and professional development were collected. Outcomes were matched with the corresponding volume. Four hundred and seventy-three respondents were included in final analysis across 14 surgical specialties. Since SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, application of telematic consultations (4.1% vs. 21.6%; p < 0.0001) and diagnostic evaluations (16.4% vs. 42.2%; p < 0.0001) increased. Elective surgical activities significantly reduced and surgeons opted more frequently for conservative management with a possible indication for elective (26.3% vs. 35.7%; p < 0.0001) or urgent (20.4% vs. 38.5%; p < 0.0001) surgery. All new COVID-related measures are perceived to be maintained in the future. Surgeons' personal education online increased from 12.6% (pre-COVID) to 86.6% (post-COVID; p < 0.0001). Online educational activities are considered a beneficial effect from COVID pandemic (56.4%). COVID-19 had a great impact on surgical specialties, with significant reduction of operation volume. However, some forced changes turned out to be benefits. Isolation measures pushed the use of telemedicine and telemetric devices for outpatient practice and favored communication for educational purposes and surgeon-patient/family communication. From the Italian surgeons' perspective, COVID-related measures will continue to influence future surgical clinical practice

Reply to “HPV vaccine requirements, opt-outs and providers’ support: key studies missing from a recent systematic review”

The peer-review process represents a crucial step in improving the quality of published research. Nevertheless, after it, there could be room for further improvements. In this case, concerns about the sensitivity and sensibility of the search strategy used in a recently published review were raised. With this letter we address the issues raised, being aware, as stated in the paper that “The results of the review could serve as a starting point for further studies analyzing these aspects”. In light of this, the present paper could be the opportunity to start cooperation to better assess the parents’ attitudes towards HPV vaccine requirements