Burden of infectious disease studies in Europe and the United Kingdom: a review of methodological design choices.

This systematic literature review aimed to provide an overview of the characteristics and methods used in studies applying the disability-adjusted life years (DALY) concept for infectious diseases within European Union (EU)/European Economic Area (EEA)/European Free Trade Association (EFTA) countries and the United Kingdom. Electronic databases and grey literature were searched for articles reporting the assessment of DALY and its components. We considered studies in which researchers performed DALY calculations using primary epidemiological data input sources. We screened 3053 studies of which 2948 were excluded and 105 studies met our inclusion criteria. Of these studies, 22 were multi-country and 83 were single-country studies, of which 46 were from the Netherlands. Food- and water-borne diseases were the most frequently studied infectious diseases. Between 2015 and 2022, the number of burden of infectious disease studies was 1.6 times higher compared to that published between 2000 and 2014. Almost all studies (97%) estimated DALYs based on the incidence- and pathogen-based approach and without social weighting functions; however, there was less methodological consensus with regards to the disability weights and life tables that were applied. The number of burden of infectious disease studies undertaken across Europe has increased over time. Development and use of guidelines will promote performing burden of infectious disease studies and facilitate comparability of the results.

Willingness to share contacts in case of COVID-19 positivity-predictors of collaboration resistance in a nation-wide Italian survey.

BACKGROUND: The unwillingness to share contacts is one of the least explored aspects of the COVID-19 pandemic. Here we report the factors associated with resistance to collaborate on contact tracing, based on the results of a nation-wide survey conducted in Italy in January-March 2021. METHODS AND FINDINGS: The repeated cross-sectional on-line survey was conducted among 7,513 respondents (mean age 45.7, 50.4% women) selected to represent the Italian adult population 18-70 years old. Two groups were defined based on the direct question response expressing (1) unwillingness or (2) willingness to share the names of individuals with whom respondents had contact. We selected 70% of participants (training data set) to produce several multivariable binomial generalized linear models and estimated the proportion of variation explained by the model by McFadden R2, and the model's discriminatory ability by the index of concordance. Then, we have validated the regression models using the remaining 30% of respondents (testing data set), and identified the best performing model by removing the variables based on their impact on the Akaike information criterion and then evaluating the model predictive accuracy. We also performed a sensitivity analysis using principal component analysis. Overall, 5.5% of the respondents indicated that in case of positive SARS-CoV-2 test they would not share contacts. Of note, this percentage varied from 0.8% to 46.5% depending on the answers to other survey questions. From the 139 questions included in the multivariable analysis, the initial model proposed 20 independent factors that were reduced to the 6 factors with only modest changes in the model performance. The 6-variables model demonstrated good performance in the training (c-index 0.85 and McFadden R2 criteria 0.25) and in the testing data set (93.3% accuracy, AUC 0.78, sensitivity 30.4% and specificity 97.4%). The most influential factors related to unwillingness to share contacts were the lack of intention to perform the test in case of contact with a COVID-19 positive individual (OR 5.60, 95% CI 4.14 to 7.58, in a fully adjusted multivariable analysis), disagreement that the government should be allowed to force people into self-isolation (OR 1.79, 95% CI 1.12 to 2.84), disagreement with the national vaccination schedule (OR 2.63, 95% CI 1.86 to 3.69), not following to the preventive anti-COVID measures (OR 3.23, 95% CI 1.85 to 5.59), the absence of people in the immediate social environment who have been infected with COVID-19 (1.66, 95% CI 1.24 to 2.21), as well as difficulties in finding or understanding the information about the infection or related recommendations. A limitation of this study is the under-representation of persons not participating in internet-based surveys and some vulnerable groups like homeless people, persons with disabilities or migrants. CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis revealed several groups that expressed unwillingness to collaborate on contact tracing. The identified patterns may play a principal role not only in the COVID-19 epidemic but also be important for possible future public health threats, and appropriate interventions for their correction should be developed and ready for the implementation.

Willingness to share contacts in case of COVID-19 positivity–predictors of collaboration resistance in a nation-wide Italian survey

Background The unwillingness to share contacts is one of the least explored aspects of the COVID-19 pandemic. Here we report the factors associated with resistance to collaborate on contact tracing, based on the results of a nation-wide survey conducted in Italy in January-March 2021. Methods and findings The repeated cross-sectional on-line survey was conducted among 7,513 respondents (mean age 45.7, 50.4% women) selected to represent the Italian adult population 18–70 years old. Two groups were defined based on the direct question response expressing (1) unwillingness or (2) willingness to share the names of individuals with whom respondents had contact. We selected 70% of participants (training data set) to produce several multivariable binomial generalized linear models and estimated the proportion of variation explained by the model by McFadden R2, and the model’s discriminatory ability by the index of concordance. Then, we have validated the regression models using the remaining 30% of respondents (testing data set), and identified the best performing model by removing the variables based on their impact on the Akaike information criterion and then evaluating the model predictive accuracy. We also performed a sensitivity analysis using principal component analysis. Overall, 5.5% of the respondents indicated that in case of positive SARS-CoV-2 test they would not share contacts. Of note, this percentage varied from 0.8% to 46.5% depending on the answers to other survey questions. From the 139 questions included in the multivariable analysis, the initial model proposed 20 independent factors that were reduced to the 6 factors with only modest changes in the model performance. The 6-variables model demonstrated good performance in the training (c-index 0.85 and McFadden R2 criteria 0.25) and in the testing data set (93.3% accuracy, AUC 0.78, sensitivity 30.4% and specificity 97.4%). The most influential factors related to unwillingness to share contacts were the lack of intention to perform the test in case of contact with a COVID-19 positive individual (OR 5.60, 95% CI 4.14 to 7.58, in a fully adjusted multivariable analysis), disagreement that the government should be allowed to force people into self-isolation (OR 1.79, 95% CI 1.12 to 2.84), disagreement with the national vaccination schedule (OR 2.63, 95% CI 1.86 to 3.69), not following to the preventive anti-COVID measures (OR 3.23, 95% CI 1.85 to 5.59), the absence of people in the immediate social environment who have been infected with COVID-19 (1.66, 95% CI 1.24 to 2.21), as well as difficulties in finding or understanding the information about the infection or related recommendations. A limitation of this study is the under-representation of persons not participating in internet-based surveys and some vulnerable groups like homeless people, persons with disabilities or migrants. Conclusions Our analysis revealed several groups that expressed unwillingness to collaborate on contact tracing. The identified patterns may play a principal role not only in the COVID-19 epidemic but also be important for possible future public health threats, and appropriate interventions for their correction should be developed and ready for the implementation.

Fighting the unbearable lightness of neglecting kidney health: the decade of the kidney.

A brief comprehensive overview is provided of the elements constituting the burden of kidney disease [chronic kidney disease (CKD) and acute kidney injury]. This publication can be used for advocacy, emphasizing the importance and urgency of reducing this heavy and rapidly growing burden. Kidney diseases contribute to significant physical limitations, loss of quality of life, emotional and cognitive disorders, social isolation and premature death. CKD affects close to 100 million Europeans, with 300 million being at risk, and is projected to become the fifth cause of worldwide death by 2040. Kidney disease also imposes financial burdens, given the costs of accessing healthcare and inability to work. The extrapolated annual cost of all CKD is at least as high as that for cancer or diabetes. In addition, dialysis treatment of kidney diseases imposes environmental burdens by necessitating high energy and water consumption and producing plastic waste. Acute kidney injury is associated with further increases in global morbidity, mortality and economic burden. Yet investment in research for treatment of kidney disease lags behind that of other diseases. This publication is a call for European investment in research for kidney health. The innovations generated should mirror the successful European Union actions against cancer over the last 30 years. It is also a plea to nephrology professionals, patients and their families, caregivers and kidney health advocacy organizations to draw, during the Decade of the Kidney (2020-30), the attention of authorities to realize changes in understanding, research and treatment of kidney disease.