ABSTRACT
Introduction The global COVID-19-pandemic influences people's health, both directly through infection and indirectly through the protective measures taken by governments. Previous experience with health research after disasters/crises are generally limited to short-lasting, local disasters with direct consequences for those affected. The COVID-19-pandemic has a different nature: influencing everyone and lasting a longer time. A longitudinal, wide-reaching research-approach is needed to study the health effects of COVID-19. Therefore, the Network GOR-COVID-19, a research group consisting of different organizations, started a monitor on the health effects of COVID-19. Methods The monitor consists of three main elements: yearly monitoring, quarterly monitoring and literature reviews. Where possible, existing data structures are used. For the quarterly monitoring, two data sources are used: general practitioners’ [GP] registry data and data gathered from panels. The GP data is used for weekly surveillance, giving insight into the prevalence of health symptoms presented to the GP. The panel data is used to gain insight into current self-reported health and wellbeing of people. For the yearly monitoring, two data sources are used. The first is GP data which gives information about the prevalence, incidence and development of symptoms, complaints and diagnoses. It allows for comparison over time and among different population groups. The second is the corona health monitor questionnaire, an existing questionnaire on health and well-being. Finally, literature reviews are conducted annually to create an overview of international and national research about the effects of the COVID-19-pandemic on health. Discussion Since most of our knowledge about the potential impact of the pandemic stems from research on short-term disasters, limited to specific places, this study is expected to provide valuable new insights.
ABSTRACT
Introduction Like in many other countries, the COVID-19 pandemic and the government restrictions introduced to contain the spread of the virus had major consequences for the health and wellbeing of the population in the Netherlands. To monitor the short and long-term public health impact, a nationally coordinated research program was initiated with the intention to guide decision-making by local and national public health authorities. This contribution presents the process to establish a continuous dialogue with end-users of information to add focus to the monitor, make sense of the findings and formulate policy recommendation and practical guidance, both at the national and regional level. Methods To facilitate the translation and dissemination of research results among policy makers, practitioners and scientists, an ongoing series of dialogue sessions is organized during the monitoring program. Apart from the objective of evidence-informed public health decision-making, the dialectic process seeks to ensure multi-sectoral learning and co-creation and contribute to a broad sense of ownership among stakeholders. National and regional health participants serve as hub coordinators. New stakeholders are invited and will be actively approached wherever considered relevant. Results At the EUPHA conference experiences with organizing the dialogue in app. the first two years of the program will be presented together with preliminary results and a reflection on factors that helped or hindered the implementation and uptake of findings. Discussion Monitoring data collected using robust methods and analyzed in such a way that vulnerability factors are carefully considered, is invaluable for decision-making. However, in order to effectively serve as guidance to public health policy, whether in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic or in non-crisis situations, a constructive, ongoing exchange between end-users of the information needs to be facilitated.
ABSTRACT
Recently England and Netherlands have changed their consent system from Opt In to Opt Out. The reflections shared in this paper give insight and may be helpful for other nation considering likewise. Strong support in England for the change in legislation led to Opt Out being introduced without requiring a vote in parliament in 2019. In Netherlands the bill passed by the smallest possible majority in 2018. Both countries implemented a public campaign to raise awareness. In England registration on the Donor Register is voluntary. Registration was required in Netherlands for all residents 18 years and older. For those not already on the register, letters were sent by the Dutch Government to ask individuals to register. If people did not respond they would be legally registered as having "no objection." After implementation of Opt Out in England 42.3% is registered Opt In, 3.6% Opt Out, and 54.1% has no registration. In contrast in Netherlands the whole population is registered with 45% Opt In, 31% Opt Out and 24% "No Objection." It is too soon to draw conclusions about the impact on the consent rate and number of resulting organ donors. However, the first signs are positive.