How effective has the Spanish lockdown been to battle COVID-19? A spatial analysis of the coronavirus propagation across provinces

This paper examines the propagation of COVID-19 across the Spanish provinces and assesses the effectiveness of the Spanish lockdown of the population implemented on March 14, 2020 in order to battle this pandemic. To achieve these objectives, a standard spatial econometric model used in economics is adapted to resemble the popular reproduction models employed in the epidemiological literature. In addition, we introduce a counterfactual exercise that allows us to examine the Gross domestic product (GDP) gains of bringing forward the date of the Spanish Lockdown. We find that the number of COVID-19 cases would have been reduced by 70.4% in the absence of spatial propagation between the Spanish provinces. We also determine that the lockdown prevented the propagation of the virus within and between provinces. As such, the Spanish lockdown reduced the number of potential COVID-19 cases by 82.8%. However, the number of coronavirus cases would have been reduced by an additional 11.6% if the lockdown had been brought forward to March 7, 2020. Finally, an earlier lockdown would have saved approximately 26,900,000,000 euros.     

A comparative study of quality of health care services of public and private hospitals in Ghana

Journal of Public Health - The standard of health care service is very important to the development of every nation as indicated in the Millennium Sustainable Development Goals. There are already a...     

Meralgia paraesthetica als Lagerungsschaden

Die Anaesthesiologie - Als Meralgia paraesthetica (MP) bezeichnet man eine zu den neurologischen Engpasssyndromen zählende Schädigung des aus dem Plexus lumbalis entspringenden sensiblen...     

Evidence-based strategies to reduce the incidence of postoperative delirium: a narrative review

Delirium is one of the most commonly occurring postoperative complications in older adults. It occurs due to the vulnerability of cerebral functioning to pathophysiological stressors. Identification of those at increased risk of developing delirium early in the surgical pathway provides an opportunity for modification of predisposing and precipitating risk factors and effective shared decision-making. No single delirium prediction tool is used widely in surgical settings. Multi-component interventions to prevent delirium involve structured risk factor modification supported by geriatrician input; these are clinically efficacious and cost effective. Barriers to the widespread implementation of such complex interventions exist, resulting in an ‘implementation gap’. There is a lack of evidence for pharmacological prophylaxis for the prevention of delirium. Current evidence suggests that avoidance of peri-operative benzodiazepines, careful titration of anaesthetic depth guided by processed electroencephalogram monitoring and treatment of pain are the most effective strategies to minimise the risk of delirium. Addressing postoperative delirium requires a collaborative, whole pathway approach, beginning with the early identification of those patients who are at risk. The research agenda should continue to examine the potential for pharmacological prophylaxis to prevent delirium while also addressing how successful models of delirium prevention can be translated from one setting to another, underpinned by implementation science methodology.     

A systematic review of the methodological quality of economic evaluations in genetic screening and testing for monogenic disorders

PurposeUnderstanding the value of genetic screening and testing for monogenic disorders requires high-quality, methodologically robust economic evaluations. This systematic review sought to assess the methodological quality among such studies and examined opportunities for improvement.MethodsWe searched PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, and Web of Science for economic evaluations of genetic screening/testing (2013-2019). Methodological rigor and adherence to best practices were systematically assessed using the British Medical Journal checklist.ResultsAcross the 47 identified studies, there were substantial variations in modeling approaches, reporting detail, and sophistication. Models ranged from simple decision trees to individual-level microsimulations that compared between 2 and >20 alternative interventions. Many studies failed to report sufficient detail to enable replication or did not justify modeling assumptions, especially for costing methods and utility values. Meta-analyses, systematic reviews, or calibration were rarely used to derive parameter estimates. Nearly all studies conducted some sensitivity analysis, and more sophisticated studies implemented probabilistic sensitivity/uncertainty analysis, threshold analysis, and value of information analysis.ConclusionWe describe a heterogeneous body of work and present recommendations and exemplar studies across the methodological domains of (1) perspective, scope, and parameter selection; (2) use of uncertainty/sensitivity analyses; and (3) reporting transparency for improvement in the economic evaluation of genetic screening/testing.