Effectiveness of a vaccine recovery plan after the COVID-19 pandemic in the Siracusa Local Health Authority, Italy. Results of one year follow-up.

Introduction: The COVID-19 pandemic has strongly impacted on the immunization services around the world, threatening the gains made in the control of vaccine-preventable diseases. Methods: A vaccination recovery plan of missed vaccinations has been put in place in the LHA of Siracusa after the pandemic. We compared 2021 and 2020 vaccination coverage by age group and vaccine type after one year of follow-up of the recovery plan. The Chi-square test was executed on proportions for the years 2021 vs 2020. Results were considered statistically significant at a two-tailed p-value ≤ 0.05. Results: 36-month coverage rates were 92.5% for polio and 93.7% for measles-containing-vaccine, representing -0.3% and -1.8% decreases, respectively, as compared to 2020. By 8 years of age (booster doses), immunisation coverage was 80.7% for polio and 80.1% for measles, representing a -5.7% and -3.7%, respectively, compared to 2020. 36-month coverage was 56.6% for Men B (-5.0% as compared to 2020), 73.2% for Men ACW135Y/C (+1.1% as compared to 2020) and 86.9% for PNC vaccine (-1.7%, as compared to 2020). Regarding HPV vaccination, in 2021, vaccine coverage was 44.2% (-4.4% compared to 2020). Compared to the previous report, the VC difference among the cohorts narrowed for all almost vaccinations, except for the anti-men B and the anti-HPV vaccination, for which we recorded an increase in VC difference, and for men ACW135Y/C, for which a significant increase has been recorded. Conclusions: Despite the efforts to organize and realize an extensive and well-designed vaccination recovery, our data show that even after the 1-year follow-up, globally deficits in coverage for these routine vaccinations persist, although there has been a substantial and significant recovery of missed vaccinations, especially among younger children and for primary cycles.

Childhood immunization coverage during the COVID-19 pandemic in the province of Siracusa, Italy.

Introduction: The COVID-19 pandemic has severely impacted routine immunization activities and a decline in vaccination coverage has been documented around the world. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of the direct and indirect effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on routine childhood vaccination coverage in the Province of Siracusa, Italy. Methods: We compared 2020 and 2019 vaccination coverage by age group and vaccine type. Results were considered statistically significant at a two-tailed p-value ≤ 0.05. Results: Our findings show that vaccination coverage rates for mandatory and recommended vaccinations decreased in 2020 compared with the previous year (range from -1.4% to -7.8%). Anti-rotavirus vaccination increased (+4.8%, as compared to 2019), while the reductions observed for polio vaccination (hexavalent) and human papillomavirus vaccination in males were not statistically significant. The reduction did not hit the population in the same manner, with the greater decreases observed for children aged > 24 months compared to the younger (-5.7% vs -2.2%) and for booster doses compared to the primary vaccinations (-6.4% vs -2.6%). Conclusions: This study found that vaccination coverage of routine childhood immunisations was negatively affected during the COVID-19 pandemic in the Province of Siracusa. It is of huge importance to put in place some catch-up programs to ensure vaccinations at the earliest of individuals who missed immunization during the pandemic.

Validation of the Italian version of the Patient Reported Experience Measures for intermediate care services.

BACKGROUND: Intermediate care (IC) services are a key component of integrated care for elderly people, providing a link between hospital and home through provision of rehabilitation and health and social care. The Patient Reported Experience Measures (PREMs) are designed to measure user experience of care in IC settings. OBJECTIVE: To examine the feasibility and the scaling properties of the Italian version of PREMs questionnaires for use in IC services. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was conducted on consecutive users of 1 home-based and 4 bed-based IC services in Emilia-Romagna (Italy). The main outcome measure was the PREMs questionnaire results. PREMs for each home- and bed-based IC services were translated, back-translated, and adapted through consensus among the members of the advisory board and pilot testing of face validity in 15 patients. A total of 199 questionnaires were returned from users of bed-based services and 185 were returned by mail from users of home-based services. The return rates and responses were examined. Mokken analysis was used to examine the scaling properties of the PREMs. RESULTS: Analysis performed on the bed-based PREMs (N=154) revealed that 13 items measured the same construct and formed a moderate-strength scale (Loevinger H=0.488) with good reliability (Cronbach's alpha =0.843). Analysis of home-based PREMs (N=134 records) revealed that 15 items constituted a strong scale (Loevinger H=0.543) with good reliability (Cronbach's alpha =0.875). CONCLUSION: The Italian versions of the bed- and home-based IC-PREMs questionnaires proved to be valid and reliable tools to assess patients' experience of care. Future plans include monitoring user experience over time in the same facilities and in other Italian IC settings for between-service benchmarking.

[Knowledge, attitudes, and training needs of residents in Preventive Medicine and Hygiene in Italy, in the context of Primary Health Care]. / Ricognizione dei bisogni formativi dei medici specializzandi di Igiene e Medicina Preventiva nell'ambito dell'Assistenza Primaria: risultati di una survey online.

In June 2015, the working group "Primary Health Care" of the Italian Society of Hygiene Representatives of Hygiene and Preventive Medicine Residents, performed an online questionnaire survey among residents of this specialty in Italy, to analyze their training needs regarding primary health care. In total, 730 residents in 32 schools were invited to participate by email, of whom 40.7% (297/730) completed the questionnaire. Most of the respondents were female (66.7%) and 40.1% were enrolled in a school in northern Italy. Almost half of participating residents were enrolled in the second or third year of the five-year program. Over 65% reported interest in deepening their knowledge in each of the proposed thematic areas of primary healthcare. For each area, less than one quarter of respondents (range 5-22%) considered satisfactory the skillsets acquired in that area. Eighty-seven percent reported that the option to do electives in primary health care during the residency was available to them.

Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) for the prevention of tension-type headache in adults.

BACKGROUND: This is an updated version of the Cochrane review published in 2005 on selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitors (SSRIs) for preventing migraine and tension-type headache. The original review has been split in two parts and this review now only regards tension-type headache prevention. Another updated review covers migraine. Tension-type headache is the second most common disorder worldwide and has high social and economic relevance. As serotonin and other neurotransmitters may have a role in pain mechanisms, SSRIs and serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) have been evaluated for the prevention of tension-type headache. OBJECTIVES: To determine the efficacy and tolerability of SSRIs and SNRIs compared to placebo and other active interventions in the prevention of episodic and chronic tension-type headache in adults. SEARCH METHODS: For the original review, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2003, Issue 4), MEDLINE (1966 to January 2004), EMBASE (1994 to May 2003), and Headache Quarterly (1990 to 2003). For this update, we revised the original search strategy to reflect the broader type of intervention (SSRIs and SNRIs). We searched CENTRAL (2014, Issue 10) on the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (1946 to November 2014), EMBASE (1980 to November 2014), and PsycINFO (1987 to November 2014). We also checked the reference lists of retrieved articles and searched trial registries for ongoing trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials comparing SSRIs or SNRIs with any type of control intervention in participants 18 years and older, of either sex, with tension-type headache. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently extracted data (headache frequency, index, intensity, and duration; use of symptomatic/analgesic medication; quality of life; and withdrawals) and assessed the risk of bias of trials. The primary outcome is tension-type headache frequency, measured by the number of headache attacks or the number of days with headache per evaluation period. MAIN RESULTS: The original review included six studies on tension-type headache. We now include eight studies with a total of 412 participants with chronic forms of tension-type headache. These studies evaluated five SSRIs (citalopram, sertraline, fluoxetine, paroxetine, fluvoxamine) and one SNRI (venlafaxine). The two new studies included in this update are placebo controlled trials, one evaluated sertraline and one venlafaxine. Six studies, already included in the previous version of this review, compared SSRIs to other antidepressants (amitriptyline, desipramine, sulpiride, mianserin). Most of the included studies had methodological and/or reporting shortcomings and lacked adequate power. Follow-up ranged between two and four months.Six studies explored the effect of SSRIs or SNRIs on tension-type headache frequency, the primary endpoint. At eight weeks of follow-up, we found no difference when compared to placebo (two studies, N = 127; mean difference (MD) -0.96, 95% confidence interval (CI) -3.95 to 2.03; I(2)= 0%) or amitriptyline (two studies, N = 152; MD 0.76, 95% CI -2.05 to 3.57; I(2)= 44%).When considering secondary outcomes, SSRIs reduce the symptomatic/analgesic medication use for acute headache attacks compared to placebo (two studies, N = 118; MD -1.87, 95% CI -2.09 to -1.65; I(2)= 0%). However, amitriptyline appeared to reduce the intake of analgesic more efficiently than SSRIs (MD 4.98, 95% CI 1.12 to 8.84; I(2)= 0%). The studies supporting these findings were considered at unclear risk of bias. We found no differences compared to placebo or other antidepressants in headache duration and intensity.SSRIs or SNRI were generally more tolerable than tricyclics. However, the two groups did not differ in terms of number of participants who withdrew due to adverse events or for other reasons (four studies, N = 257; odds ratio (OR) 1.04; 95% CI 0.41 to 2.60; I(2)= 25% and OR 1.55, 95% CI 0.71 to 3.38; I(2)= 0%).We did not find any study comparing SSRIs or SNRIs with pharmacological treatments other than antidepressants (e.g. botulinum toxin) or non-drug therapies (e.g. psycho-behavioural treatments, manual therapy, acupuncture). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Since the last version of this review, the new included studies have not added high quality evidence to support the use of SSRIs or venlafaxine (a SNRI) as preventive drugs for tension-type headache. Over two months of treatment, SSRIs or venlafaxine are no more effective than placebo or amitriptyline in reducing headache frequency in patients with chronic tension-type headache. SSRIs seem to be less effective than tricyclic antidepressants in terms of intake of analgesic medications. Tricyclic antidepressants are associated with more adverse events; however, this did not cause a greater number of withdrawals. No reliable information is available at longer follow-up. Our conclusion is that the use of SSRIs and venlafaxine for the prevention of chronic tension-type headache is not supported by evidence.

Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) for the prevention of migraine in adults.

BACKGROUND: This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in 2005 on selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) for preventing migraine and tension-type headache. The original review has been split in two parts and this review now only regards migraine prevention. Another updated review is under development to cover tension-type headache.Migraine is a common disorder. The chronic forms are associated with disability and have a high economic impact. In view of discoveries about the role of serotonin and other neurotransmitters in pain mechanisms, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) have been evaluated for the prevention of migraine. OBJECTIVES: To determine the efficacy and tolerability of SSRIs and SNRIs compared to placebo and other active interventions in the prevention of episodic and chronic migraine in adults. SEARCH METHODS: For the original review, we searched MEDLINE (1966 to January 2004), EMBASE (1994 to May 2003), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2003, Issue 4), and Headache Quarterly (1990 to 2003). For this update, we applied a revised search strategy to reflect the broader type of intervention (SSRIs and SNRIs). We searched CENTRAL (2014, Issue 10), MEDLINE (1946 to November 2014), EMBASE (1980 to November 2014), and PsycINFO (1987 to November 2014). We also checked the reference lists of retrieved articles and searched trial registries for ongoing trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials comparing SSRIs or SNRIs with any type of control intervention in participants 18 years and older of either sex with migraine. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently extracted data (migraine frequency, index, intensity, and duration; use of symptomatic/analgesic medication; days off work; quality of life; mood improvement; cost-effectiveness; and adverse events) and assessed the risk of bias of trials. The primary outcome of this updated review is migraine frequency. MAIN RESULTS: The original review included eight studies on migraine. Overall, we now include 11 studies on five SSRIs and one SNRI with a total of 585 participants. Six studies were placebo-controlled, four compared a SSRI or SNRI to amitriptyline, and one was a head-to-head comparison (escitalopram versus venlafaxine). Most studies had methodological or reporting shortcomings (or both): all studies were at unclear risk of selection and reporting bias. Follow-up rarely extended beyond three months. The lack of adequate power of most of the studies is also a major concern.Few studies explored the effect of SSRIs or SNRIs on migraine frequency, the primary endpoint. Two studies with unclear reporting compared SSRIs and SNRIs to placebo, suggesting a lack of evidence for a difference. Two studies compared SSRIs or SNRIs versus amitriptyline and found no evidence for a difference in terms of migraine frequency (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.04, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.72 to 0.80; I(2) = 72%), or other secondary outcomes such as migraine intensity and duration.SSRIs or SNRIs were generally more tolerable than tricyclics. However, the two groups did not differ in terms of the number of participants who withdrew due to adverse advents or for other reasons (one study, odds ratio (OR) 0.39, 95% CI 0.10 to 1.50 and OR 0.42, 95% CI 0.13 to 1.34).We did not find studies comparing SSRIs or SNRIs with pharmacological treatments other than antidepressants (e.g. antiepileptics and anti-hypertensives). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Since the last version of this review, the new included studies have not added high quality evidence to support the use of SSRIs or venlafaxine as preventive drugs for migraine. There is no evidence to consider SSRIs or venlafaxine as more effective than placebo or amitriptyline in reducing migraine frequency, intensity, and duration over two to three months of treatment. No reliable information is available at longer-term follow-up. Our conclusion is that the use of SSRIs and SNRIs for migraine prophylaxis is not supported by evidence.

Sociodemographic, clinical and organisational factors associated with delayed hospital discharges: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Evidence from studies conducted in Western countries indicates that a significant proportion of hospital beds are occupied by patients who experience a delayed hospital discharge (DHD). However, evidence about this topic is lacking in Italy, and little is known on the patients' and organisational characteristics that influence DHDs. Therefore, we carried out a survey in all the hospitals of a Northern Italian region to analyse the prevalence and the determinants of DHD. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was carried out during an index period of 15 days in 256 operative units in Emilia-Romagna, a Northern Italian region with 4.4 million inhabitants, to identify patients medically fit for discharge but still hospitalised. The characteristics of these patients (n = 510) were compared with all the other patients (n = 5,815) hospitalised in the same operative units during the index period using multilevel logistic regression models. RESULTS: The one-day prevalence of DHD was 8.1%. More than half of DHD patients (52.7%) waited to access long-term/rehabilitation units or residential care homes, 16.7% experienced a delay for family-related reasons, and 14.5% were waiting to be admitted to other rehabilitation services. Among DHD patients hospitalised in long-term/rehabilitation units, 45.3% were waiting to be transferred to residential care homes. Patients' characteristics associated with a higher likelihood of DHD in multilevel logistic regression were older age, provision of intensive care, a diagnosis of dementia, tumours or femoral/shoulder fractures, and a number of comorbidities. Patients hospitalised in long-term/rehabilitation units, as well as in orthopaedics/traumatology units, were significantly more likely to have a DHD compared with patients hospitalised in general surgery units. Moreover, compared with Local Health Authority Hospitals, being hospitalised in Hospital Trusts was associated with a higher likelihood of DHD. CONCLUSIONS: Although the prevalence of DHD in the present study is markedly lower than that reported in the literature, we submit that the DHD problem should be addressed with major organisational innovations, with a special focus on the ageing of the population and epidemiological trends. Organisational changes imply new ways of managing emerging clusters of patients whose needs are not efficiently or effectively met by traditional organisation models and services.

[Residency in hygiene and preventive medicine: present and future]. / Specializzazione in igiene e medicina preventiva: situazione e novità.

INTRODUCTION: The changing needs and expectations of the population and the current financial distress lead the Italian health care system to face a profound challenge that requires also a new evaluation of professionals' training. Specialists in Hygiene and Preventive Medicine (HPM) are called for to develop new knowledge and skills in hygiene, public health, and management, as they fulfill leadership roles within the hospitals. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the current status of Hospital Health Management Boards (HHMB) and the specific know-how they require, in order to develop an adequate post-graduate residency training in HPM. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a literature review on the main and «gray literature¼ databases; then, we conducted three semi-structured interviews with the Chiefs of the HHMB operating in the major hospitals of Bologna (Northern Italy); lastly, we organised a workshop with residents in HPM and health workers of Emilia-Romagna hospitals. RESULTS: Interviews with Hospital Health Managers have highlighted the main issues faced by a modern HHMB. The main questions discussed were: the changing role of the hospital and its relationship with primary care; the increasing competition among professionals with different specialisations within the HHMB; the need to develop multi-professional teams; the necessity to enlarge HPM residency training programmes in order to meet the HHMB needs. CONCLUSION: The evolution of the HHMB reflects the evolution of the Italian health care system. HHMBs should better fit the organization to the context, and the post-graduate schools in HPM should follow this process. In the framework of the current rules and laws it is possible to focus for implementing training programmes that include management, coordination and negotiation skills, and help build an adequate leadership profile.