SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19): What Do We Know About Children? A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Few pediatric cases of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have been reported and we know little about the epidemiology in children, although more is known about other coronaviruses. We aimed to understand the infection rate, clinical presentation, clinical outcomes, and transmission dynamics for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), in order to inform clinical and public health measures. METHODS: We undertook a rapid systematic review and narrative synthesis of all literature relating to SARS-CoV-2 in pediatric populations. The search terms also included SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV. We searched 3 databases and the COVID-19 resource centers of 11 major journals and publishers. English abstracts of Chinese-language papers were included. Data were extracted and narrative syntheses conducted. RESULTS: Twenty-four studies relating to COVID-19 were included in the review. Children appear to be less affected by COVID-19 than adults by observed rate of cases in large epidemiological studies. Limited data on attack rate indicate that children are just as susceptible to infection. Data on clinical outcomes are scarce but include several reports of asymptomatic infection and a milder course of disease in young children, although radiological abnormalities are noted. Severe cases are not reported in detail and there are few data relating to transmission. CONCLUSIONS: Children appear to have a low observed case rate of COVID-19 but may have rates similar to adults of infection with SARS-CoV-2. This discrepancy may be because children are asymptomatic or too mildly infected to draw medical attention and be tested and counted in observed cases of COVID-19.

Premature mortality attributable to socioeconomic inequality in England between 2003 and 2018: an observational study.

BACKGROUND: Low socioeconomic position is consistently associated with increased risk of premature death. The aim of this study is to measure the aggregate scale of inequality in premature mortality for the whole population of England. METHODS: We used mortality records from the UK Office for National Statistics to study all 2 465 285 premature deaths (defined as those before age 75 years) in England between Jan 1, 2003, and Dec 31, 2018. Socioeconomic position was defined using deciles of the Index of Multiple Deprivation: a measure of neighbourhood income, employment, education levels, crime, health, availability of services, and local environment. We calculated the number of expected deaths by applying mortality in the least deprived decile to other deciles, within the strata of age, sex, and time. The mortality attributable to socioeconomic inequality was defined as the difference between the observed and expected deaths. We also used life table modelling to estimate years-of-life lost attributable to socioeconomic inequality. FINDINGS: 35·6% (95% CI 35·3-35·9) of premature deaths were attributable to socioeconomic inequality, equating to 877 082 deaths, or one every 10 min. The biggest contributors were ischaemic heart disease (152 171 excess deaths), respiratory cancers (111 083) and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (83 593). The most unequal causes of death were tuberculosis, opioid use, HIV, psychoactive drugs use, viral hepatitis, and obesity, each with more than two-thirds attributable to inequality. Inequality was greater among men and peaked in early childhood and at age 40-49 years. The proportion of deaths attributable to inequality increased during the study period, particularly for women, because mortality rates among the most deprived women (excluding cardiovascular diseases) plateaued, and for some diseases increased. A mean of 14·4 months of life before age 75 years are lost due to socioeconomic inequality. INTERPRETATION: One in three premature deaths are attributable to socioeconomic inequality, making this our most important public health challenge. Interventions that address upstream determinants of health should be prioritised. FUNDING: National Institute of Health Research; Wellcome Trust.

Going upstream - an umbrella review of the macroeconomic determinants of health and health inequalities.

BACKGROUND: The social determinants of health have been widely recognised yet there remains a lack of clarity regarding what constitute the macro-economic determinants of health and what can be done to address them. An umbrella review of systematic reviews was conducted to identify the evidence for the health and health inequalities impact of population level macroeconomic factors, strategies, policies and interventions. METHODS: Nine databases were searched for systematic reviews meeting the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) criteria using a novel conceptual framework. Studies were assessed for quality using a standardised instrument and a narrative overview of the findings is presented. RESULTS: The review found a large (n = 62) but low quality systematic review-level evidence base. The results indicated that action to promote employment and improve working conditions can help improve health and reduce gender-based health inequalities. Evidence suggests that market regulation of tobacco, alcohol and food is likely to be effective at improving health and reducing inequalities in health including strong taxation, or restriction of advertising and availability. Privatisation of utilities and alcohol sectors, income inequality, and economic crises are likely to increase health inequalities. Left of centre governments and welfare state generosity may have a positive health impact, but evidence on specific welfare interventions is mixed. Trade and trade policies were found to have a mixed effect. There were no systematic reviews of the health impact of monetary policy or of large economic institutions such as central banks and regulatory organisations. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study provide a simple yet comprehensive framework to support policy-makers and practitioners in addressing the macroeconomic determinants of health. Further research is needed in low and middle income countries and further reviews are needed to summarise evidence in key gaps identified by this review. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Protocol for umbrella review prospectively registered with PROSPERO CRD42017068357.

Health and social care costs at the end of life: a matched analysis of linked patient records in East London.

BACKGROUND: care in the final year of life accounts for 10% of inpatient hospital costs in UK. However, there has been little analysis of costs in other care settings. We investigated the publicly funded costs associated with the end of life across different health and social care settings. METHOD: we performed cross-sectional analysis of linked electronic health records of residents aged over 50 in a locality in East London, UK, between 2011 and 2017. Those who died during the study period were matched to survivors on age group, sex, deprivation, number of long-term conditions and time period. Mean costs were calculated by care setting, age and months to death. RESULTS: across 8,720 matched patients, the final year of life was associated with £7,450 (95% confidence interval £7,086-£7,842, P < 0.001) of additional health and care costs, 57% of which related to unplanned hospital care. Whilst costs increased sharply over the final few months of life in emergency and inpatient hospital care, in non-acute settings costs were less concentrated in this period. Patients who died at older ages had higher social care costs and lower healthcare costs than younger patients in their final year of life. CONCLUSIONS: the large proportion of costs relating to unplanned hospital care suggests that end-of-life planning could direct care towards more appropriate settings and lead to system efficiencies. Death at older ages results in an increasing proportion of care costs relating to social care than to healthcare, which has implications for an ageing society.

Code sets for respiratory symptoms in electronic health records research: a systematic review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are common respiratory conditions, which result in significant morbidity worldwide. These conditions are associated with a range of non-specific symptoms, which in themselves are a target for health research. Such research is increasingly being conducted using electronic health records (EHRs), but computable phenotype definitions, in the form of code sets or code lists, are required to extract structured data from these large routine databases in a systematic and reproducible way. The aim of this protocol is to specify a systematic review to identify code sets for respiratory symptoms in EHRs research. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: MEDLINE and Embase databases will be searched using terms relating to EHRs, respiratory symptoms and use of code sets. The search will cover all English-language studies in these databases between January 1990 and December 2017. Two reviewers will independently screen identified studies for inclusion, and key data will be extracted into a uniform table, facilitating cross-comparison of codes used. Disagreements between the reviewers will be adjudicated by a third reviewer. This protocol has been produced in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocol guidelines. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: As a review of previously published studies, no ethical approval is required. The results of this review will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal for publication and can be used in future research into respiratory symptoms that uses electronic healthcare databases. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42018100830.

Who is more likely to use doctor-rating websites, and why? A cross-sectional study in London.

OBJECTIVES: To explore the extent to which doctor-rating websites are known and used among a sample of respondents from London. To understand the main predictors of what makes people willing to use doctor-rating websites. DESIGN: A cross-sectional study. SETTING: The Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham, London, England. PARTICIPANTS: 200 individuals from the borough. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The likelihood of being aware of doctor-rating websites and the intention to use doctor-rating websites. RESULTS: The use and awareness of doctor-rating websites are still quite limited. White British subjects, as well as respondents with higher income are less likely to use doctor-rating websites. Aspects of the doctor-patient relationship also play a key role in explaining intention to use the websites. The doctor has both a 'complementary' and 'substitute' role with respect to Internet information. CONCLUSIONS: Online rating websites can play a major role in supporting patients' informed decisions on which healthcare providers to seek advice from, thus potentially fostering patients' choice in healthcare. Subjects who seek and provide feedback on doctor-ranking websites, though, are unlikely to be representative of the overall patients' pool. In particular, they tend to over-represent opinions from non-White British, medium-low-income patients who are not satisfied with their choice of the healthcare treatments and the level of information provided by their GP. Accounting for differences in the users' characteristics is important when interpreting results from doctor-rating sites.