Conectar
by Costanza Vicentini, Enrico Ricchizzi, Antonino Russotto, Stefano Bazzolo, Catia Bedosti, Valentina Blengini, Dario Ceccarelli, Elisa Fabbri, Dario Gamba, Anna Maddaleno, Edoardo Rolfini, Margherita Tancredi, Carla Maria Zotti
IntroductionResidents of long-term care facilities (LTCFs) are a population at high risk of developing severe healthcare associated infections (HAIs). In the assessment of HAIs in acute-care hospitals, selection bias can occur due to cases being over-represented: patients developing HAIs usually have longer lengths of stays compared to controls, and therefore have an increased probability of being sampled in PPS, leading to an overestimation of HAI prevalence. Our hypothesis was that in LTCFs, the opposite may occur: residents developing HAIs either may have a greater chance of being transferred to acute-care facilities or of dying, and therefore could be under-represented in PPS, leading to an underestimation of HAI prevalence. Our aim was to test this hypothesis by comparing HAI rates obtained through longitudinal and cross-sectional studies.
MethodsResults from two studies conducted simultaneously in four LTCFs in Italy were compared: a longitudinal study promoted by the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC, HALT4 longitudinal study, H4LS), and a PPS. Prevalence was estimated from the PPS and converted into incidence per year using an adapted version of the Rhame and Sudderth formula proposed by the ECDC. Differences between incidence rates calculated from the PPS results and obtained from H4LS were investigated using the Byar method for rate ratio (RR).
ResultsOn the day of the PPS, HAI prevalence was 1.47% (95% confidence interval, CI 0.38–3.97), whereas the H4LS incidence rate was 3.53 per 1000 patient-days (PDs, 95% CI 2.99–4.08). Conversion of prevalence rates obtained through the PPS into incidence using the ECDC formula resulted in a rate of 0.86 per 1000 PDs (95% CI 0–2.68). Comparing the two rates, a RR of 0.24 (95% CI 0.03–2.03, p 0.1649) was found.
ConclusionsThis study did not find significant differences between HAI incidence estimates obtained from a longitudinal study and through conversion from PPS data. Results of this study support the validity of the ECDC method.
by Adam C. Carle, Isabella Pallotto, Todd C. Edwards, Richard Carpiano, Darragh C. Kerr, Donald L. Chi
IntroductionSome caregivers are hesitant about topical fluoride for their children despite evidence that fluoride prevents caries and is safe. Recent work described a five domain model of caregivers’ topical fluoride hesitancy. We developed the Fluoride Hesitancy Identification Tool (FHIT) item pool based on the model. This study sought to evaluate the FHIT’s psychometric properties in an effort to generate a short, simple to score, reliable, and valid tool that measures caregivers’ topical fluoride hesitancy.
MethodsIn 2021 and 2022, we conducted an observational, cross-sectional study of caregivers, collecting data from two independent caregiver samples (n1 = 523; n2 = 612). The FHIT item pool included 33 items. We used confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) to examine whether the FHIT items measured five separate domains as hypothesized and to reduce the number of items. We then fit item response theory (IRT) models and computed Cronbach’s alpha for each domain. Last, we examined the construct validity of the FHIT and evaluated scoring approaches.
ResultsAfter dropping 8 items, CFA supported a five factor model of topical fluoride hesitancy, with no cross-loadings (RMSEA = 0.079; SRMR = 0.057; CFI = 0.98; TLI = 0.98). We further reduced the items to four per domain (20 items total). Marginal alphas showed that the item sets provided reliability of ≥0.90 at hesitancy levels at and above average. The domains correlated more strongly with each other and topical fluoride refusal than with other questions on the survey.
DiscussionOur results support the FHIT’s ability to reliably and validly measure five domains of topical fluoride hesitancy using the average score of the four items in each domain.
by Kaisa Fritzell, Berith Hedberg, Anke Woudstra, Anna Forsberg, Marika Sventelius, Anders Kottorp, Anna Jervaeus
BackgroundSweden has a long tradition of organized national population-based screening programmes. Participation rates differ between programmes and regions, being relatively high in some groups, but lower in others. To ensure an equity perspective on screening, it is desirable that individuals make an informed decision based on knowledge rather than ignorance, misconceptions, or fear. Decision Aids (DAs) are set to deliver information about different healthcare options and help individuals to visualize the values associated with each available option. DAs are not intended to guide individuals to choose one option over another. The advantage of an individual Decision Aid (iDA) is that individuals gain knowledge about cancer and screening by accessing one webpage with the possibility to communicate with health professionals and thereafter make their decision regarding participation. The objective is therefore to develop, implement and evaluate a digital iDA for individuals invited to cancer screening in Sweden.
MethodsThis study encompasses a process-, implementation-, and outcome evaluation. Multiple methods will be applied including focus group discussions, individual interviews and the usage of the think aloud technique and self-reported questionnaire data. The project is based on The International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) framework and the proposed model development process for DAs. Individuals aged 23–74, including women (the cervical-, breast- and CRC screening module) and men (the CRC screening module), will be included in the developmental process. Efforts will be made to recruit participants with self-reported physical and mental limitations, individuals without a permanent residence and ethnic minorities.
DiscussionTo the best of our knowledge, the present study is the first attempt aimed at developing an iDA for use in the Swedish context. The iDA is intended to facilitate shared decision making about participation in screening. Furthermore, the iDA is expected to increase knowledge and raise awareness about cancer and cancer screening.
Patient or public contributionLay people are involved throughout the whole development and implementation process of the digital DA.
Trial registrationNCT05512260.
by Chiara Marraccini, Lucia Merolle, Davide Schiroli, Agnese Razzoli, Gaia Gavioli, Barbara Iotti, Roberto Baricchi, Marta Ottone, Pamela Mancuso, Paolo Giorgi Rossi
To investigate the association between biochemical and blood parameters collected before the pandemic in a large cohort of Italian blood donors with the risk of infection and severe disease. We also focused on the differences between the pre- and post-Omicron spread in Italy (i.e., pre- and post-January 01, 2022) on the observed associations. We conducted an observational cohort study on 13750 blood donors was conducted using data archived up to 5 years before the pandemic. A t-test or chi-squared test was used to compare differences between groups. Hazard ratios with 95% confidence intervals for SARS-CoV-2 infection and severe disease were estimated using Cox proportional hazards models. Subgroup analyses stratified by sex, age and epidemic phase of first infection (pre- and post-Omicron spread) were examined. We confirmed a protective effect of groups B and O, while groups A and AB had a higher likelihood of infection and severe disease. However, these associations were only significant in the pre-Omicron period. We found an opposite behavior after Omicron spread, with the O phenotype having a higher probability of infection. When stratified by variant, A antigen appeared to protect against Omicron infection, whereas it was associated with an increased risk of infection by earlier variants. We were able to stratify for the SARS CoV-2 dominant variant, which revealed a causal association between blood group and probability of infection, as evidenced by the strong effect modification observed between the pre- and post-Omicron spread. The mechanism by which group A acts on the probability of infection should consider this strong effect modification.
FreshRSS