[Evidence syntheses in public health: An overview]. / Evidenzsynthesen in Public Health: ein Überblick.

BACKGROUND: Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, there has been a high demand for rapid evidence syntheses to answer urgent public health questions. This article provides an overview of different types of reviews for public health questions and a synthesis of existing recommendations for the preparation of reviews. The aim is to support the planning of one's own review and the critical evaluation of published reviews. METHODS: The basis of this summary is an extensive search for guidelines and recommendations for different review types. Furthermore, internal journal clubs were held to determine knowledge needs and to critically discuss the various review types. For results dissemination, fact sheets were developed for the individual review types including the most important information, prerequisites and work steps, as well as a decision tree for identifying the appropriate review type for the respective question. RESULTS: Of the review types identified, Systematic, Rapid, Scoping, Umbrella, and Narrative Reviews were considered in more detail because they are particularly relevant to public health issues. Together with scoping and umbrella reviews, systematic reviews have the highest resource requirements due to the demands for extensive, systematic evidence synthesis and reproducibility. Rapid methods can accelerate the review process, for example by a very narrowly formulated question, a limited literature search, or the execution of certain steps by one instead of two persons. DISCUSSION: Systematic Reviews may be considered as the gold standard, but they were developed primarily for clinical questions relating to interventions. Instead, this article was focused on review types that consider the diversity of questions as well as the predominant use of quantitative methods in the field of public health. The fact sheets developed and the decision tree should enable low-threshold access to reviews while linking the perspectives of research and resource planning. They complement existing guidelines and recommendations. CONCLUSION: To answer the diverse spectrum of public health questions, various types of reviews with various requirements and approaches are available. Given this diversity, a systematic introduction can be helpful for researchers planning or assessing a review.

Nationally representative results on SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence and testing in Germany at the end of 2020.

Pre-vaccine SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence data from Germany are scarce outside hotspots, and socioeconomic disparities remained largely unexplored. The nationwide representative RKI-SOEP study (15,122 participants, 18-99 years, 54% women) investigated seroprevalence and testing in a supplementary wave of the Socio-Economic-Panel conducted predominantly in October-November 2020. Self-collected oral-nasal swabs were PCR-positive in 0.4% and Euroimmun anti-SARS-CoV-2-S1-IgG ELISA from dry-capillary-blood antibody-positive in 1.3% (95% CI 0.9-1.7%, population-weighted, corrected for sensitivity = 0.811, specificity = 0.997). Seroprevalence was 1.7% (95% CI 1.2-2.3%) when additionally correcting for antibody decay. Overall infection prevalence including self-reports was 2.1%. We estimate 45% (95% CI 21-60%) undetected cases and lower detection in socioeconomically deprived districts. Prior SARS-CoV-2 testing was reported by 18% from the lower educational group vs. 25% and 26% from the medium and high educational group (p < 0.001, global test over three categories). Symptom-triggered test frequency was similar across educational groups. Routine testing was more common in low-educated adults, whereas travel-related testing and testing after contact with infected persons was more common in highly educated groups. This countrywide very low pre-vaccine seroprevalence in Germany at the end of 2020 can serve to evaluate the containment strategy. Our findings on social disparities indicate improvement potential in pandemic planning for people in socially disadvantaged circumstances.

Abortions in Germany - Current data from the statistics on terminations of pregnancy.

Unwanted pregnancies and abortions are experiences shared by many women. In light of the fact that some general framework conditions are currently changing in Germany, and that the Corona pandemic represents a particular challenge for the care of women with unwanted pregnancies, current data from the statistics on terminations of pregnancy of the Federal Statistical Office are outlined. Compared to Europe, Germany has a low proportion of induced abortions. In 2021, 94,596 abortions were reported. The number of abortions as well as the abortion rate and the abortion ratio have decreased since 2001. 95.8% of abortions took place according to the so-called counselling provision. In more than half of the abortions (52.1%) vacuum aspiration was used, in 11.4% curettage, 32.3% were medical abortions using mifepristone. There are large regional differences in the method used.

Abortions in Germany – Current data from the statistics on terminations of pregnancy

Unwanted pregnancies and abortions are experiences shared by many women. In light of the fact that some general framework conditions are currently changing in Germany, and that the Corona pandemic represents a particular challenge for the care of women with unwanted pregnancies, current data from the statistics on terminations of pregnancy of the Federal Statistical Office are outlined. Compared to Europe, Germany has a low proportion of induced abortions. In 2021, 94,596 abortions were reported. The number of abortions as well as the abortion rate and the abortion ratio have decreased since 2001. 95.8% of abortions took place according to the so-called counselling provision. In more than half of the abortions (52.1%) vacuum aspiration was used, in 11.4% curettage, 32.3% were medical abortions using mifepristone. There are large regional differences in the method used.

Non-utilisation of health care services during the COVID-19 pandemic: Results of the CoMoLo study.

Based on data from the CORONA-MONITORING lokal (CoMoLo) study conducted in four municipalities particularly affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, this article investigates the non-utilisation of health care services in the population aged 18 years and older (n=9,002) in relation to the period after the introduction of the containment measures in March 2020. The results show that about one third of the respondents (35.5%) gave up at least one of the surveyed health care services. The most frequent cancellations were dental (15.2%) and specialist check-ups (11.8%), followed by postponement of physiotherapy, ergotherapy or speech therapy (6.1%), cancellation of general practitioner (GP) check-ups (5.8%), postponement of psychotherapy (2.0%), postponement of planned hospital treatment (1.8%) and not going to an emergency room (0.7%). Almost 10% of the respondents reported not visiting a physician despite health complaints. Compared to respondents without such a waiver, these respondents were more often female and younger than 35 years, less often rated their health as very good or good, more often had a diagnosis of depression and more often used telemedical contacts as an alternative to visiting the practice during the pandemic. Further analyses of trends in utilisation behaviour and changes in health status over the course of the COVID-19 pandemic are important.

Corrigendum: Developments in the health situation in Germany during the initial stage of the COVID-19 pandemic for selected indicators of GEDA 2019/2020-EHIS.

[This corrects the article on p. 3-20 in vol. 5.].

Developments in the health situation in Germany during the initial stage of the COVID-19 pandemic for selected indicators of GEDA 2019/2020-EHIS.

SARS-CoV-2, the novel coronavirus, has posed major challenges in Germany in 2020. It is unclear whether the pandemic and containment measures will have an impact on the health of the population beyond the point of infection. The German Health Update (GEDA 2019/2020-EHIS) is a nationwide survey of the population aged 15 years and older (n=23,001) that was conducted between April 2019 and September 2020. The focus of the analysis was on indicators for which pandemic-related changes could be expected. Based on regression models, adjusted proportions and mean values were estimated as trends over time. Any differences in the values found for the time period of containment measures in spring 2020 and the reference period 2019 were statistically tested. Since the implementation of containment measures, both body weight and body mass index (BMI) have increased. The utilisation of general and specialist medical services decreased temporarily. The number of tobacco smokers during the observation period also decreased, yet without revealing a clear link to the pandemic situation. No differences were found in the general population for depressive symptoms and household assistance received and provided. During the period of containment measures, changes to the health situation beyond the occurrence of infections can be observed. However, a more differentiated explanation of these findings will require further analyses.

German and international studies on SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence.

Since the beginning of the year 2020, the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus has spread globally at a tremendous pace. Studies on the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in the population help estimate the number of people that have already been infected. They also allow an estimate of the number of undetected infections i.e. infections that do not appear in data on officially reported cases. The interpretation of study results needs to consider bias from selective sampling and the diagnostic test properties. To promote networking and co-operation between scientists, the Robert Koch Institute has compiled an overview of the seroepidemiological studies conducted in Germany on its website, which is regularly updated. The RKI conducts searches, for example of press releases, study registry entries or preprint server publications, and contacts the lead investigators of these studies. Of the 40 studies contacted so far, 24 have already provided information (as of 25.06.2020). We can differentiate between studies of the general population, of selected population groups such as healthcare workers, or of ongoing cohorts. This article provides an overview of such studies from Germany, but also of selected international studies. A special focus is set on studies of children and adolescents, which are now of particular interest due to the planned reopening of childcare facilities and schools.

[Seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 among children and adolescents in Germany-an overview]. / SARS-CoV-2-Seroprävalenz bei Kindern und Jugendlichen in Deutschland ­ ein Überblick.

BACKGROUND: SARS-CoV­2 serologic studies complement and expand findings from confirmed COVID-19 cases through identification of undetected cases. OBJECTIVES: This article summarizes previous results on SARS-CoV­2 prevalence from seroepidemiological studies in Germany focusing on children and adolescents and complements the already existing overview on seroprevalence in adults from general population samples and especially blood donors in Germany. METHODS: The results are based on an ongoing systematic search in study registries, in literature databases, of preprint publications, and of media reports of seroepidemiological studies in Germany and their results. RESULTS: As of 17 September 2021, we are aware of 16 German seroepidemiological studies focusing on children and adolescents. Results are available for nine of these studies. For almost all settings studied, SARS-CoV­2 seroprevalence was well below 1% for preschool and elementary school children in the first COVID-19 wave and below 2% for adolescents. As the pandemic progressed, higher seroprevalences of up to 8% were found in elementary school children. DISCUSSION: Results of SARS-CoV­2 antibody studies in children and adolescents in Germany are scarce so far and are based on non-representative samples at local or regional level. In future studies, it is necessary on the one hand to estimate which proportion of children and adolescents has already either had an infection or has been vaccinated. On the other hand, it is important to investigate physical and mental health impairments that occur after an infection.