Closer to or further from the new normal? business approach through social media analysis.

The outbreak of COVID-19 has led to radical change in all social and economic spheres and, even today, the scope of the pandemic cannot be detailed. This unprecedent situation is challenging the global world but particularly for business. The packages of measures internationally imposed as restrictions on commercial activity, isolation and social distancing mean that business should face a transformation in order to survive in each stage of the crisis. For this purpose, a content analysis with an initial dataset with 2,610 tweets of the most representative Spanish entrepreneurial organizations was carried out in key periods of the pandemic. The findings highlight that there are collective concerns with emotional burden in the business sector that encourage action despite confusion and uncertainty. Generalized distrust of policies led business organizations to insist on innovation and adaptation as the best tools to overcome the economic effect of the crisis.

Exploring WHO Communication during the COVID 19 Pandemic through the WHO Website Based on W3C Guidelines: Accessible for All?

Health crisis situations generate greater attention and dependence on reliable and truthful information from citizens, especially from those organisations that represent authority on the subject, such as the World Health Organization (WHO). In times of global pandemics such as COVID-19, the WHO message "health for all" takes on great communicative importance, especially from the point of view of the prevention of the disease and recommendations for action. Therefore, any communication must be understandable and accessible by all types of people, regardless of their technology, language, culture or disability (physical or mental), according to the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), taking on special relevance for public health content. This study analysed whether the WHO is accessible in its digital version for all groups of citizens according to the widely accepted standards in the field of the Internet. The conclusion reached was that not all the information is accessible in accordance with the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.1, which implies that there are groups that are, to some extent, left out, especially affecting the elderly. This study can contribute to the development of proposals and suggest ways in which to improve the accessibility of health content to groups especially vulnerable in this pandemic.

[Evidence based comparative analysis for managing osteoporosis in a primary health care setting]. / Análisis comparativo frente a la evidencia del manejo de la osteoporosis en una comarca de atención primaria.

OBJECTIVE: To find out how physicians are managing osteoporosis in a primary care setting. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. CONTEXT: Primary care setting with a target population of 276,000 inhabitants, grouped into 9 basic health areas, Spain. PARTICIPANTS: Women older than 45 years old on treatments for osteoporosis. INTERVENTIONS: Standardised questionnaire self-filled in by women and compared with clinical records. MAIN MEASUREMENTS: Suitability of the indication of diagnostic tests, proportion of treatments supported by diagnostic tests and according to evidence. RESULTS: The mean age of the sample was 65.3 (9.6) years. Of the women included, 73.2% (n=243) had an indication for densitometry and only 60.2% (n=200) of them had this performed. The results of the densitometries were: 14% (n=28) normal, 31% (n=62) osteopenia and 55% (n=110) osteoporosis. Based on risk factors, in those women with densitometry indication, 39.5% (n=96) did not have it performed. In those women with no risk factors to justify the indication of densitometry (n=89), 59.6% (n=53) did have it performed. The two-year follow densitometry was not carried out on 78.7% (n=261) of women. Statistically significant differences were observed in the percentages of adequacy of the indications of densitometry and in the percentages of adequacy of the treatments in the different medical specialities analyzed (P < .05). Of the women who had densitometry, 42.4% (n=81) were inadequately treated. CONCLUSIONS: The indication of densitometry is clearly improvable and there is a high variability in its adequacy in all the medical specialities studied. To a great extent, the indication of treatments for osteoporosis is not based on densitometry and is against the recommendations of the evidence based studies recently published.

Análisis comparativo frente a la evidencia del manejo de la osteoporosis en una comarca de atención primaria / Evidence based comparative analysis for managing osteoporosis in a primary health care setting

Objetivo. Conocer la adecuación a las guías de práctica clínica del proceso diagnóstico y terapéutico de la osteoporosis en una comarca. Diseño. Estudio transversal. Emplazamiento. Comarca de 276.000 habitantes, agrupada en 9 centros de salud. Participantes. Mujeres mayores de 45 años con prescripción de fármacos para la osteoporosis. Intervenciones. Cuestionario estandarizado rellenado por las pacientes y contrastadocon las historias clínicas. Mediciones principales. Adecuación de la indicación de pruebas diagnósticas, proporción de tratamientos soportados en criterios diagnósticos y ajuste de dichos tratamientos a la evidencia. Resultados. Analizamos a 332 mujeres cuya media de edad fue 65,3 ± 9,6 años. De las mujeres analizadas, el 73,2% (n = 243) tenía indicación de densitometría y sólo el 60,2% (n = 200) la había realizado. El resultado de las densitometrías fue: el 14% (n = 28),normal; el 31% (n = 62), osteopenia, y el 55% (n = 110), osteoporosis. Entre las mujeres con indicación de densitometría, el 39,5% (n = 96) no la había realizado. Entre las mujeres sin factores de riesgo y sin indicación de densitometría (n = 89), el 59,6% (n = 53)la había realizado. Por otro lado, el 78,7% (n = 261) de las mujeres no tenía una densitometría de control. Hubo diferencias estadísticamente significativas (p < 0,05) en la adecuación de las indicaciones de densitometría y de los tratamientos entre las diferentes especialidades. Finalmente,el 42,4% (n = 81) de las mujeres con prueba densitométrica realizada estaban inadecuadamente tratadas. Conclusiones. La indicación de densitometría es claramente mejorable y hay una altavariabilidad en su adecuación en todas las especialidades. La prescripción para la osteoporosis en gran medida no está sustentada en pruebas diagnósticas y se contrapone a los estudios de calidad publicados recientemente (AU)

Objective. To find out how physicians are managing osteoporosis in a primary care setting. Design. Cross-sectional study. Context. Primary care setting with a target population of 276 000 inhabitants, grouped into 9 basic health areas, Spain. Participants. Women older than 45 years old on treatments for osteoporosis. Interventions. Standardised questionnaire self-filled in by women and compared with clinical records. Main measurements. Suitability of the indication of diagnostic tests, proportion of treatments supported by diagnostic tests and according to evidence. Results. The mean age of the sample was 65.3 (9.6) years. Of the women included, 73.2% (n=243) had an indication for densitometry and only 60.2% (n=200) of them had this performed. The results of the densitometries were: 14% (n=28) normal, 31% (n=62) osteopenia and 55% (n=110) osteoporosis. Based on risk factors, in those women with densitometry indication, 39.5% (n=96) did not have it performed. In those women with no risk factors to justify the indication of densitometry (n=89), 59.6% (n=53) did have it performed. The two-year follow densitometry was not carried out on 78.7% (n=261) of women. Statistically significant differences were observed in the percentages of adequacy of the indications of densitometry and in the percentages of adequacy of the treatments in the different medical specialities analyzed (P<.05). Of the women who had densitometry, 42.4% (n=81) were inadequately treated. Conclusions. The indication of densitometryis clearly improvable and there is a high variability in its adequacy in all the medical specialities studied. To a great extent, the indication of treatments for osteoporosisis not based on densitometry and is against the recommendations of the evidence based studies recently published (AU)