The prevalence of childhood asthma: interpreting falling rates in the context of shifting measurement and the COVID-19 pandemic.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The estimated prevalence of childhood asthma in the United States, as measured by the National Health Information Survey (NHIS), has decreased by 30% since 2017. This review provides context for observed changes in asthma rates by describing recent shifts in NHIS data collection and analysis, and considers whether the COVID-19 pandemic might impact asthma prevalence in years to come. RECENT FINDINGS: The NHIS underwent a planned redesign in 2019 with updated sampling weights to better match the U.S. population. In early 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in unplanned modifications to NHIS implementation, which may have included fewer children from populations at a heightened risk for asthma. Decreasing prevalence estimates in recent years are likely at least in part due to these survey changes rather than true epidemiologic shift. However, pandemic-related changes to risk factors for childhood asthma (including exposure to rhinovirus infections and allergic sensitization) may also influence prevalence in the future. SUMMARY: Recent changes in estimated rates of childhood asthma in the USA are likely driven by changes to survey methods and implementation, both before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. Additional years of data are needed to determine whether a true shift in disease prevalence is occurring.

National Health Interview Survey, COVID-19, and Online Data Collection Platforms: Adaptations, Tradeoffs, and New Directions.

High-quality data are accurate, relevant, and timely. Large national health surveys have always balanced the implementation of these quality dimensions to meet the needs of diverse users. The COVID-19 pandemic shifted these balances, with both disrupted survey operations and a critical need for relevant and timely health data for decision-making. The National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) responded to these challenges with several operational changes to continue production in 2020. However, data files from the 2020 NHIS were not expected to be publicly available until fall 2021. To fill the gap, the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) turned to 2 online data collection platforms-the Census Bureau's Household Pulse Survey (HPS) and the NCHS Research and Development Survey (RANDS)-to collect COVID-19‒related data more quickly. This article describes the adaptations of NHIS and the use of HPS and RANDS during the pandemic in the context of the recently released Framework for Data Quality from the Federal Committee on Statistical Methodology. (Am J Public Health. 2021;111(12):2167-2175. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2021.306516).

Efficiency and Quality of Data Collection Among Public Mental Health Surveys Conducted During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization has recognized the importance of assessing population-level mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic. During a global crisis such as the COVID-19 pandemic, a timely surveillance method is urgently needed to track the impact on public mental health. OBJECTIVE: This brief systematic review focused on the efficiency and quality of data collection of studies conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: We searched the PubMed database using the following search strings: ((COVID-19) OR (SARS-CoV-2)) AND ((Mental health) OR (psychological) OR (psychiatry)). We screened the titles, abstracts, and texts of the published papers to exclude irrelevant studies. We used the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale to evaluate the quality of each research paper. RESULTS: Our search yielded 37 relevant mental health surveys of the general public that were conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic, as of July 10, 2020. All these public mental health surveys were cross-sectional in design, and the journals efficiently made these articles available online in an average of 18.7 (range 1-64) days from the date they were received. The average duration of recruitment periods was 9.2 (range 2-35) days, and the average sample size was 5137 (range 100-56,679). However, 73% (27/37) of the selected studies had Newcastle-Ottawa Scale scores of <3 points, which suggests that these studies are of very low quality for inclusion in a meta-analysis. CONCLUSIONS: The studies examined in this systematic review used an efficient data collection method, but there was a high risk of bias, in general, among the existing public mental health surveys. Therefore, following recommendations to avoid selection bias, or employing novel methodologies considering both a longitudinal design and high temporal resolution, would help provide a strong basis for the formation of national mental health policies.

Patch Testing During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Recommendations of the AEDV's Spanish Contact Dermatitis and Skin Allergy Research Group (GEIDAC). / Recomendaciones del Grupo Español de Investigación en Dermatitis de Contacto y Alergia Cutánea (GEIDAC) de la AEDV en relación con la realización de pruebas epicutáneas durante la pandemia por SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19).

As the COVID-19 pandemic gradually comes under control, the members of the Spanish Contact Dermatitis and Skin Allergy Research Group (GEIDAC) have drawn up a proposed list of the requirements, limitations, and conditioning factors affecting the resumption of work in contact dermatitis units. The assumption is that the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus2 is still circulating and that occasional or seasonal outbreaks will occur. They recommend that the first step should be to assess how many patch tests each clinic can handle and review the waiting list to prioritize cases according to disease severity and urgency. Digital technologies can, where possible, be used to send and receive the documentation necessary for the patch test (information, instructions, informed consent, etc.). If the necessary infrastructure is available, patients can be offered the option of a remote initial consultation. Likewise, in selected cases, the patch test results can be read in a virtual visit using photographs taken by the patient or a video visit can be scheduled to allow the physician to evaluate the site of application remotely. These measures will reduce the number of face-to-face visits required, but will not affect the time spent on each case, which must be scheduled in the normal manner. All of these recommendations are suggestions and should be adapted to the needs and possibilities of each health centre.