Dataset Information

A comparison of COVID-19 epidemiological indicators in Sweden, Norway, Denmark, and Finland.

ABSTRACT: Aims: To compare the early impact of COVID-19 infections and mortality from February to July 2020 across the Nordic nations of Sweden, Norway, Denmark, and Finland through available public data sources and conduct a descriptive analysis of the potential factors that drove different epidemiological outcomes, with a focus on Sweden's response. Methods: COVID-19 cases, deaths, tests, case age distribution, and the difference between 2020 all-cause mortality and the average mortality of the previous 5 years were compared across nations. Patterns in cell phone mobility data, testing strategies, and seniors' care home deaths were also compared. Data for each nation were based on publicly available sources as of July 31, 2020. Results: Compared with its Nordic peers, Sweden had a higher incidence rate across all ages, a higher COVID-19-related death rate only partially explained by population demographics, a higher death rate in seniors' care, and higher all-cause mortality. Sweden had approximately half as much mobility change as its Nordic neighbours until April and followed similar rates as its neighbours from April to July. Denmark led its Nordic peers in testing rates, while Sweden had the highest cumulative test-positivity rate continuously from mid-March. Conclusions: COVID-19 pushed Sweden's health system to its capacity, exposed systemic weaknesses in the seniors' care system, and revealed challenges with implementing effective contact tracing and testing strategies while experiencing a high case burden. Looser government restrictions at the beginning of the outbreak are likely to have played a role in the impact of COVID-19 in Sweden. In an effort to improve epidemic control, Sweden has increased testing rates, implemented more restrictive prevention measures, and increased their intensive care unit bed capacity.

SUBMITTER: Yarmol-Matusiak EA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7797349 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A comparison of COVID-19 epidemiological indicators in Sweden, Norway, Denmark, and Finland.

Yarmol-Matusiak Erica A EA Cipriano Lauren E LE Stranges Saverio S

Scandinavian journal of public health 20210107 1

<i>Aims:</i> To compare the early impact of COVID-19 infections and mortality from February to July 2020 across the Nordic nations of Sweden, Norway, Denmark, and Finland through available public data sources and conduct a descriptive analysis of the potential factors that drove different epidemiological outcomes, with a focus on Sweden's response. <i>Methods:</i> COVID-19 cases, deaths, tests, case age distribution, and the difference between 2020 all-cause mortality and the average mortality o ...[more]

PMID: 33413051

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAlthough the persistence of physical symptoms after SARS-CoV-2 infection is a major public health concern, evidence from large observational studies beyond one year post diagnosis remain scarce. We aimed to assess the prevalence of physical symptoms in relation to acute illness severity up to more than 2-years after diagnosis of COVID-19.MethodsThis multinational study included 64,880 adult participants from Iceland, Sweden, Denmark, and Norway with self-reported data on COVID-19 and physical symptoms from April 2020 to August 2022. We compared the prevalence of 15 physical symptoms, measured by the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-15), among individuals with or without a confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis, by acute illness severity, and by time since diagnosis. We additionally assessed the change in symptoms in a subset of Swedish adults with repeated measures, before and after COVID-19 diagnosis.FindingsDuring up to 27 months of follow-up, 34.5% participants (22,382/64,880) were diagnosed with COVID-19. Individuals who were diagnosed with COVID-19, compared to those not diagnosed, had an overall 37% higher prevalence of severe physical symptom burden (PHQ-15 score ≥15, adjusted prevalence ratio [PR] 1.37 [95% confidence interval [CI] 1.23-1.52]). The prevalence was associated with acute COVID-19 severity: individuals bedridden for seven days or longer presented with the highest prevalence (PR 2.25 [1.85-2.74]), while individuals never bedridden presented with similar prevalence as individuals not diagnosed with COVID-19 (PR 0.92 [0.68-1.24]). The prevalence was statistically significantly elevated among individuals diagnosed with COVID-19 for eight of the fifteen measured symptoms: shortness of breath, chest pain, dizziness, heart racing, headaches, low energy/fatigue, trouble sleeping, and back pain. The analysis of repeated measurements rendered similar results as the main analysis.InterpretationThese data suggest an elevated prevalence of some, but not all, physical symptoms during up to more than 2 years after diagnosis of COVID-19, particularly among individuals suffering a severe acute illness, highlighting the importance of continued monitoring and alleviation of these targeted core symptoms.FundingThis work was mainly supported by grants from NordForsk (COVIDMENT, grant number 105668 and 138929) and Horizon 2020 (CoMorMent, 847776). See Acknowledgements for further details on funding.

Project description:ObjectivesTo compare the application of indications, demographics, surgical and haemostatic techniques in tonsil surgery in three countries.DesignNon-randomised, prospective, observational cohort.SettingAll patients registered in the National Tonsil Surgery Quality Registers in Sweden, Norway and West Jutland, Denmark.ParticipantsData were retrieved from 2017 to 2019; registered surgeries: Sweden: 20 833; Norway: 10 294 and West Jutland, Denmark: 505.ResultsTonsil surgery for obstruction was twice as common in Sweden (62.2%) compared with Norway (31%) and Denmark (27.7%). Recurrent tonsillitis was registered twice as frequently in Norway (35.7%) and Denmark (39%) compared with Sweden (16.7%). Chronic tonsillitis was registered more frequently in Norway (29.8%) than in Sweden (13.8%) and Denmark (12.7%). Day surgery (>76%) was comparable. The higher frequency of obstruction in Sweden affected age and gender distributions: Sweden (7 years, 50.4% boys), Norway (17 y, 42.1%) and Denmark (19 y, 38.4%). For obstructive disorders, tonsillotomy with adenoidectomy was used in a majority of Swedish children (72%), whereas tonsillectomy with or without adenoidectomy dominated in Norway (53.5%) and Denmark (57.9%). Cold steel was the technique of choice for tonsillectomy in all three countries. For tonsillotomy, hot dissection techniques dominated in all countries. Disparities were observed with regard to haemostatic techniques. Bipolar diathermy was commonly used in all countries. Monopolar diathermy was practically only used in Sweden. Infiltration with epinephrine in the tonsillar bed was registered in Sweden and Norway but not at all in Denmark. Combined cold surgical and cold haemostatic techniques were more commonly used in Sweden (22.7%) than in Norway (10.4%) and Denmark (6.2%).ConclusionsThis study demonstrates disparities among the Nordic countries in tonsil surgery in terms of indications plus surgical and haemostatic techniques. Increased coverage and further monitoring of outcomes is needed to identify best practices and ideal guidelines for improved care.

Project description:BackgroundNational responses to the COVID-19 pandemic depend on national preparedness systems that must be understood as components of global public health emergency preparedness systems, governed and coordinated through the World Health Organization's 2005 International Health Regulations. The pandemic has raised the question of why countries belonging to similar public health regimes, coordinated through the same global system, responded differently to the same threat. Comparing the responses of Denmark, Sweden and Norway, countries with similar public health regimes, the paper investigates to what degree national differences in COVID-19 policy response reflect significant differences in the policy preferences of national expert groups.ResultsWe employ a structured case comparison of Denmark, Norway, and Sweden to analyze their' politico-administrative pandemic preparedness systems and policy responses during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. We use the results of an interdisciplinary expert survey completed in 2020 to analyze expert perceptions in two ways. First, we analyze expert perceptions of COVID-19 responses while controlling for national COVID-19 trajectories and experts' characteristics. Second, we analyze the distribution and effect of dominant global expert-held ideas across countries, showing the importance of dominant ideas for experts' perceptions and preferences for COVID-19 response.ConclusionThe study finds no evidence indicating that COVID-19 policy variation between the most similar cases of Denmark, Norway, and Sweden are the result of differences in the policy preferences of national expert groups. Instead, our study highlights the importance of other factors than cross-national expert dissensus for explaining variation in pandemic response such as the politico-administrative organization of pandemic preparedness systems. Further, we find that expert support for dominant ideas such as a 'focused protection strategy' is associated with consistent policy preferences across locational, disciplinary, and geographic affiliations. Recognition of the latter should be a part of future discussions about how global ideas of pandemic preparedness are diffused transnationally and embedded in national politico-administrative systems.

Dataset Information

A comparison of COVID-19 epidemiological indicators in Sweden, Norway, Denmark, and Finland.

Publications

A comparison of COVID-19 epidemiological indicators in Sweden, Norway, Denmark, and Finland.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets