Dataset Information

Unmet needs, health policies, and actions during the COVID-19 pandemic: a report from six European countries

ABSTRACT: Key summary points Aim To assess the impact on the older population of policies to decrease the overall impact of the COVID-19 pandemic in Europe. Findings Ageism has occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic. Message Analysis of the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on the older population will help us to develop fairer and more inclusive policies in the future. Purpose The United Nations (UN) has published a Policy Brief on the impact of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) that identifies policies and responses to protect older adults. Our objective was to summarize actions, health policies and clinical guidelines adopted by six European countries (Belgium, France, Italy, Poland, Spain and United Kingdom) during the pandemic, and to assess the impact of national policies on reducing adverse effects of the COVID-19 pandemic in older populations. Methods Reports by geriatricians on the measures and actions undertaken by governmental institutions in each country between March and July 2020, as well as the role of primary care during the pandemic, covered three areas: (a) general health strategies related to the pandemic; (b) impact of COVID-19 on health inequity; and (c) initiatives and challenges for the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond. Results In the six countries, COVID-19 mortality in nursing homes ranged from 26 to 66%. Although all countries endorsed the World Health Organization general recommendations, the reports identified the lack of harmonized European guidelines and policies for nursing homes, with competencies transferred to national (or regional) governments. All countries restricted visits in nursing homes, but no specific action plans were provided. The role of primary care was limited by the centralization of the crisis in hospital settings. Conclusions The older population has been greatly affected by COVID-19 and by the policies initiated to control its spread. The right to health and dignity are transgenerational; chronological age should not be the sole criterion in policy decisions.

SUBMITTER: Miralles O

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7557304 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundTwo antifibrotic drugs, pirfenidone and nintedanib, are approved by the European Medicines Agency and the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF). In this analysis, treatment patterns of European patients with IPF were investigated to understand antifibrotic prescribing and identify unmet needs in IPF treatment practice.MethodsBetween February and March 2016, respiratory physicians from France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the UK participated in an online questionnaire designed to collect information on IPF treatment patterns in patients under their care. Patients were categorized as treated (received approved antifibrotics) or untreated (did not receive approved antifibrotics, but may have received other unapproved therapies). Classification of IPF diagnosis (confirmed/suspected) and severity ('mild'/'moderate'/'severe') for each patient was based on the individual physician's report. Patients' perspectives were not recorded in this study.ResultsIn total, 290 physicians responded to the questionnaire. Overall, 54% of patients with IPF did not receive treatment with an approved antifibrotic. More patients had a confirmed IPF diagnosis in the treated (84%) versus the untreated (51%) population. Of patients with a confirmed diagnosis, 40% did not receive treatment. The treated population was younger than the untreated population (67 vs 70 years, respectively; p ≤ 0.01), with more frequent multidisciplinary team evaluation (83% vs 57%, respectively; p ≤ 0.01). A higher proportion of untreated patients had forced vital capacity > 80% at diagnosis versus treated patients. Of patients with 'mild' IPF, 71% did not receive an approved antifibrotic versus 41% and 60% of patients with 'moderate' and 'severe' IPF, respectively.ConclusionsDespite the availability of antifibrotic therapies, many European patients with confirmed IPF do not receive approved antifibrotic treatment. Importantly, there appears to be a reluctance to treat patients with 'mild' or 'stable' disease, and instead adopt a 'watch and wait' approach. More education is required to address diagnostic uncertainty, poor understanding of IPF and its treatments, and issues of treatment access. There is a need to increase physician awareness of the benefits associated with antifibrotic treatment across the spectrum of IPF severity.

Project description:BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic severely affected everyday life and working conditions for most Europeans, particularly health care professionals (HCPs). Over the past 3 years, various policies have been implemented in various European countries. Studies have reported on the worsening of mental health, work-related stress, and helpful coping strategies. However, having a closer look is still necessary to gain more information on the psychosocial stressors and unmet needs of HCPs as well as nonmedical staff.ObjectiveThis study aimed to obtain quantitative information on job-related stressors of physicians and nurses and the coping strategies of HCPs and nonmedical staff at 2 periods of the COVID-19 pandemic. By further analyzing qualitative comments, we wanted to gain more information on the psychosocial stressors and unmet needs of HCPs as well as nonmedical staff on different levels of experience.MethodsA cross-sectional survey was conducted at 2 time points during the COVID-19 pandemic in several European countries. The first study period (T1) lasted between April 1 and June 20, 2020, and the second study period (T2) lasted between November 25, 2021, and February 28, 2022. On a quantitative level, we used a questionnaire on stressors for physicians and nurses and a questionnaire on coping strategies for HCPs and nonmedical staff. Quantitative data were descriptively analyzed for mean values and differences in stressors and coping strategies. Qualitative data of free-text boxes of HCPs and nonmedical staff were analyzed via thematic analysis to explore the experiences of the individuals.ResultsT1 comprised 609 participants, and T2 comprised 1398 participants. Overall, 296 participants made 438 qualitative comments. The uncertainty about when the pandemic would be controlled (T1: mean 2.28, SD 0.85; T2: mean 2.08, SD 0.90) and the fear of infecting the family (T1: mean 2.26, SD 0.98; T2: mean 2.02, SD 1.02) were the most severe stressors identified by physicians and nurses in both periods. Overall, the use of protective measures (T1: mean 2.66, SD 0.60; T2: mean 2.66, SD 0.60) and acquiring information about COVID-19 (T1: mean 2.29, SD 0.82; T2: mean 1.99, SD 0.89) were identified as the most common coping strategies for the entire study population. Using thematic analysis, we identified 8 themes of personal experiences on the micro, meso, and macro levels. Measures, working conditions, feelings and emotions, and social climate were frequently mentioned topics of the participants. In T1, feelings of isolation and uncertainty were prominent. In T2, feelings of exhaustion were expressed and vaccination was frequently discussed. Moreover, unmet psychosocial needs were identified.ConclusionsThere is a need for improvement in pandemic preparedness. Targeted vocational education measures and setting up of web-based mental health support could be useful to bridge gaps in psychosocial support needs in future crises.

Dataset Information

Unmet needs, health policies, and actions during the COVID-19 pandemic: a report from six European countries

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets