Dataset Information

Physically distant but socially close? Changes in non-physical intergenerational contacts at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic among older people in France, Italy and Spain.

ABSTRACT: Physical distancing is intended to mitigate the spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. However, the impact of a decrease in face-to-face contacts on non-physical social contacts of older people remains unclear. In particular, we focus on intergenerational contacts that are especially relevant for older people's mental health. Our analyses rely on an online quota sampling survey conducted in France, Italy and Spain during April 14-24, 2020. We considered the subsample of individuals aged 50 + (N = 4207). We calculated post-stratification weights based on official statistics and used logistic regressions to analyze how changes in intergenerational contacts differed by socioeconomic factors and to what extent non-physical contacts (via phone, social media, etc.) have compensated the reduction in face-to-face contacts. Finally, the change in digital devices' use has been explored as a consequence of both decreased physical intergenerational contacts (PIC) and increased non-physical intergenerational contacts (NPIC). We found that about 50% of older people have increased their NPIC during the first lockdown. Younger individuals, those with medium level of education, and those economically better off displayed higher probabilities of increased NPIC as compared to their counterparts. NPIC increased especially for individuals whose face-to-face contacts decreased, particularly so if this happened with respect to contacts with children. A large share of older people has increased their use of video calls and instant messages, while only some increased the use of social media. These findings are relevant to understand how intergenerational contacts changed during the pandemic and may be central to better plan future outbreak responses.

Supplementary information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10433-021-00621-x.

SUBMITTER: Arpino B

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8074698 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:This data article contains information on the distribution of household incomes in the five most populous European countries as surveyed in 2012, with data released in 2014 and published here aggregated and so further anonymized in 2015. The underlying source data is the already anonymized EU Statistics on Income and Living Conditions (EUSILC) Microdata. The data include the annual household income required in each country to fall within the best-off 1% in that country, median and mean incomes, average (mean) incomes of the best off 1%, 0.1% and estimates for the 0.01%, 0.001% and so on for the UK, and of the 90% and worse-off 10%, the best-off 10% and best-off 1% of households for all countries. Average income from the state is also calculated by these income categories and the number of people working in finance and receiving over €1,000,000 a year in income is reported from other sources (the European Banking Authority). Finally income distribution data is provided from the USA and the rest of Europe in order to allow comparisons to be made. The data revealed the gross household (simple unweighted) median incomes in 2012 to have been (in order from best-off country by median to worse-off): France €39,000, Germany: €33,400, UK: €36,300, Italy €33,400 and Spain €27,000. However the medians, once households are weighted to reflect the nation populations do differ although they are in the same order: France €36,000, Germany: €33,400, UK: €31,300, Italy €31,000 and Spain €23,700. Thus weighting to increase representativeness of the medians reduces each by €3000, €0, €5000, €3300 and €3300 respectively. In short, the middle (weighted median) French household is €4700 a year better off than the middle UK family, and that is before housing costs are considered. This Data in Brief article accompanies Dorling, D. (2015) Income Inequality in the UK: Comparisons with five large Western European countries and the USA [1].

Project description:IntroductionRandomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the gold standard when comparing treatment effectiveness, and Health Technology Assessment (HTA) agencies state a clear preference for such direct comparisons. When these are not available, an indirect treatment comparison (ITC) is an alternative option. The objective of this study was to assess the acceptance of ITC methods by HTA agencies across England, France, Germany, Italy, and Spain, using oncology cases for a homogeneous sample of HTA evaluations.MethodsThe study was conducted on the PrismAccess database in May 2021 to retrieve HTA evaluation reports for oncology treatments for solid tumors, in which an ITC was presented. The analysis was restricted to HTA evaluation reports published between April 2018 and April 2021 in England, France, Germany, Italy, and Spain. Identified HTA evaluation reports were screened and reviewed by two independent reviewers. For each ITC presented, the methodology and its acceptance by the HTA agency were analyzed.ResultsFive hundred and forty-three HTA evaluation reports were identified, of which 120 (22%) presented an ITC. This proportion was the highest in England (51%) and lowest in France (6%). The overall acceptance rate of ITC methods was 30%, with the highest in England (47%) and lowest in France (0%). Network meta-analysis (NMA; 23%) was the most commonly used ITC technique, with a 39% acceptance rate overall, followed by Bucher ITC (19%; 43% acceptance rate) and matching-adjusted indirect comparison (13%; 33% acceptance rate). The most common criticisms of the ITC methods from HTA agencies related to data limitations (heterogeneity and lack of data; 48% and 43%, respectively) and the statistical methods used (41%).ConclusionsThe generally low acceptance rate of ITC methods by HTA agencies in oncology suggests that, whilst in the absence of a direct comparison ITCs may provide relevant evidence, this evidence is not widely considered sufficient for the purpose of HTA evaluations. The perception of ITC methods for the purpose of HTA evaluations varies substantially between countries. There is a need for further clarity on the properties of ITC techniques and the assessment of their results as ITC methods continue to evolve quickly and further techniques may become available in the future.

Dataset Information

Physically distant but socially close? Changes in non-physical intergenerational contacts at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic among older people in France, Italy and Spain.

Supplementary information

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets