Measuring the impact of influenza vaccination in the Netherlands using retrospective observational primary care, hospitalisation and mortality data.

We aimed to estimate the impact of influenza vaccination in the Netherlands using general practitioner medical records for 2011-2020. We found that vaccinees had higher consultation rates for influenza-like-illness, acute respiratory infections, and pneumonia, as well as antibiotic use, hospitalisations, and several control diagnoses (i.e. illnesses for which there was no a priori expectation that influenza vaccination would play a protective effect). We found similar rates for respiratory mortality and lower all-cause mortality in the vaccinees versus non-vaccinees, mainly driven by the 75+ age group. These results expand, but are fairly consistent with those of previous investigations, and highlight the difficulty of using registry data to assess the impact of vaccination, because of underlying differences between vaccinees and non-vaccinees. Whether these biases also play a role for hospitalisations and mortality remains unclear. Our findings support the implementation of randomized studies to assess the impact of influenza vaccination.

Data analysis plan of the OECD PaRIS survey: leveraging a multi-level approach to analyse data collected from people living with chronic conditions and their primary care practices in 20 countries.

OBJECTIVE: In view of the increasing number of people with (multiple) chronic conditions, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) initiated the International Survey of People Living with Chronic Conditions (PaRIS survey), which aims to provide insight in patient-reported outcomes and experiences of chronic care provided by primary care practices to support policy development. The objective of this research note is to describe the structure of the data, collected in the PaRIS survey and how the data will be analysed in a multilevel approach for cross-country comparison. ANALYSIS PLAN: The data structure of the PaRIS survey represents three levels: countries/health systems, primary care practices and patients. Multilevel analysis is used because of its accuracy in estimating country-level outcomes, its flexibility in modelling relationships, and its opportunities in connecting to relevant policy questions. Country-level outcomes will be estimated to facilitate cross-country comparison and (future) within-country comparison over time. Characteristics of patients that potentially explain variation in patient-reported outcomes and experiences can be linked to primary care practice and country/health system characteristics. This makes it possible to address policy-relevant questions relating, e.g., to the impact of chronic care management on patients with a specific chronic condition.

Personal protective equipment for healthcare workers during COVID-19: Developing and applying a questionnaire and assessing associations between infection rates and shortages across 19 countries.

This study aimed to assess the preparedness of European countries regarding personal protective equipment (PPE) for health and care workers (HCWs), the COVID-19 infection rates of HCWs compared to the general working age population, and the association between these. We developed a PPE-preparedness scale based on responses to a questionnaire from experts in the Health Systems and Policy Monitor network, with a response rate of 19 out of 31 countries. COVID-19 infection data were retrieved form the European center for Disease Prevention and Control. Shortages of PPE were found in most countries, in particular in home care and long-term care. HCW infection rates, compared to the general population, varied strongly between countries, influenced by different testing regimes. We found no relationships between HCW infection rates, PPE preparedness and shortages of PPE. Improved surveillance in the population as well as for HCWS are needed to be able to better assess these relationships.

International cross-cultural development and field testing of the primary care practice questionnaire for the PaRIS survey (PaRIS-PCPQ).

BACKGROUND: The PaRIS survey, an initiative of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), aims to assess health systems performance in delivering primary care by measuring the care experiences and outcomes of people over 45 who used primary care services in the past six months. In addition, linked data from primary care practices are collected to analyse how the organisation of primary care practices and their care processes impact care experiences and outcomes. This article describes the development and validation of the primary care practice questionnaire for the PaRIS survey, the PaRIS-PCPQ. METHOD: The PaRIS-PCPQ was developed based on domains of primary care practice and professional characteristics included in the PaRIS conceptual framework. Questionnaire development was conducted in four phases: (1) a multi-step consensus-based development of the source questionnaire, (2) translation of the English source questionnaire into 17 languages, (3) cross-national cognitive testing with primary care professionals in participating countries, and (4) cross-national field-testing. RESULTS: 70 items were selected from 7 existing questionnaires on primary care characteristics, of which 49 were included in a first draft. Feedback from stakeholders resulted in a modified 34-item version (practice profile, care coordination, chronic care management, patient follow-up, and respondent characteristics) designed to be completed online by medical or non-medical staff working in a primary care practice. Cognitive testing led to changes in the source questionnaire as well as to country specific localisations. The resulting 32-item questionnaire was piloted in an online survey and field test. Data from 540 primary care practices from 17 countries were collected and analysed. Final revision resulted in a 34-item questionnaire. CONCLUSIONS: The cross-national development of a primary care practice questionnaire is challenging due to the differences in care delivery systems. Rigorous translation and cognitive testing as well as stakeholder engagement helped to overcome most challenges. The PaRIS-PCPQ will be used to assess how key characteristics of primary care practices relate to the care experiences and outcomes of people living with chronic conditions. As such, policymakers and care providers will be informed about the performance of primary care from the patient's perspective.

Cross-national analysis of the prevalence of prolonged grief disorder.

BACKGROUND: Prolonged grief disorder (PGD) is now included as a diagnosis in international classification systems. Most research on PGD is based on Western populations, but first data from non-Western countries have recently become available. Little is still known about country-related effects on PGD's prevalence. OBJECTIVE: Determining possible causes of variations in the prevalence of PGD as defined by DSM-5-TR and ICD-11 within and between countries. METHODS: We retrieved data from 24 prevalence studies, the World Bank and the 2022 World Risk Report. Negative binomial regressions were used to explore methodological, loss-related and country context characteristics as predictors of PGD. The average rate of PGD was calculated using random effects models. RESULTS: The included studies comprised 34 samples from 16 countries (20,347 participants). Non-probability sampling and older mean age of the sample as well as lower country vulnerability were associated with higher PGD rates. The average PGD prevalence was 13 % (95 % CI [11, 22]), varying from 5 % (95 % CI [3, 11]) in probability to 16 % (95 % CI [13, 25]) in non-probability samples. LIMITATIONS: Samples from Europe and North America were overrepresented. For about half of the countries, data were available from only one sample. CONCLUSIONS: While confirming the importance of studies' methodological quality, the results show that PGD is of public health relevance around the world, but especially common in less vulnerabled countries with better access to daily necessities and healthcare services, highlighting sociocultural impacts on grief processing. Further investigations of cross-national differences are needed.

Case-mix adjustments for patient reported experience and outcome measures in primary care: an empirical approach to identify patient characteristics as case-mix adjusters based on a secondary analysis of an international survey among patients and their general practitioners in 34 countries.

BACKGROUND: Case-mix adjustment of patient reported experiences (PREMs) and outcomes (PROMs) of care are meant to enable fair comparison between units (e.g. care providers or countries) and to show where improvement is possible. It is important to distinguish between fair comparison and improvement potential, as case-mix adjustment may mask improvement potential. Case-mix adjustment takes into account the effect of patient characteristics that are related to the PREMs and PROMs studied, but are outside the sphere of influence of the units being compared. We developed an approach to assess which patient characteristics would qualify as case-mix adjusters, using data from an international primary care study. RESULTS: We used multilevel analysis, with patients nested in general practices nested in countries. Case-mix adjustment is indicated under the following conditions: there is a main effect of the potential case-mix adjuster on the PREM/PROM; this effect does not vary between units; and the distribution of the potential case-mix adjuster differs between units. Random slope models were used to assess whether the impact of a potential case-mix adjuster varied between units. To assess whether a slope variance is big enough to decide that case-mix adjustment is not indicated, we compared the variances in the categories of a potential case-mix adjuster. Significance of the slope variance is not enough, because small variances may be significantly different from zero when numbers are large. We therefore need an additional criterion to consider a slope variance as important. Borrowing from the idea of a minimum clinically important difference (MCID) we proposed a difference between the variances of 0.25*variance (equivalent to a medium effect size). We applied this approach to data from the QUALICOPC (Quality and costs of primary care in Europe) study. CONCLUSIONS: Our approach provides guidance to decide whether or not patient characteristics should be considered as case-mix adjusters. The criterion of a difference between variances of 0.25*variance works well for continuous PREMs and PROMs, but seems to be too strict for binary PREMs and PROMs. Without additional information, it is not possible to decide whether important slope variation is the result of either differences in performance between general practices or countries, or cultural differences.

Risk of pneumonia in the vicinity of goat farms: a comparative assessment of temporal variation based on longitudinal health data.

BACKGROUND: Although the association between living in the vicinity of a goat farm and the occurrence of pneumonia is well-documented, it is unclear whether the higher risk of pneumonia in livestock dense areas is season-specific or not. This study explored the temporal variation of the association between exposure to goat farms and the occurrence of pneumonia. METHODS: A large population-based study was conducted in the Netherlands, based on electronic health records from 49 general practices, collected for a period of six consecutive years (2014-2019). Monthly incidence rates of pneumonia in a livestock dense area were compared with those of a control group (areas with low livestock density) both per individual year and cumulatively for the entire six-year period. Using individual estimates of livestock exposure, it was also examined whether incidence of pneumonia differed per month if someone lived within a certain radius from a goat farm, compared to residents who lived further away. RESULTS: Pneumonia was consistently more common in the livestock dense area throughout the year, compared to the control area. Analyses on the association between the individual livestock exposure estimates and monthly pneumonia incidence for the whole six-year period, yielded a generally higher risk for pneumonia among people living within 500 m from a goat farm, compared to those living further away. Significant associations were observed for March (IRR 1.68, 95% CI 1.02-2.78), August (IRR 2.67, 95% CI 1.45-4.90) and September (IRR 2.52, 95% CI 1.47-4.32). CONCLUSIONS: The increased occurrence of pneumonia in the vicinity of goat farms is not season-specific. Instead, pneumonia is more common in livestock dense areas throughout the year, including summer months.

Burden of Respiratory Syncytial Virus in the European Union: estimation of RSV-associated hospitalizations in children under 5 years.

BACKGROUND: No overall estimate of respiratory syncytial virus (RSV)-associated hospitalizations in children aged under 5 years has been published for the European Union (EU). We aimed to estimate the RSV hospitalization burden in children aged under 5 years in EU countries and Norway, by age group. METHODS: We collated national RSV-associated hospitalization estimates calculated using linear regression models via the RESCEU project for Denmark, England, Finland, Norway, the Netherlands, and Scotland, 2006-2018. Additional estimates were obtained from a systematic review. Using multiple imputation and nearest neighbor matching methods, we estimated overall RSV-associated hospitalizations and rates in the EU. RESULTS: Additional estimates for 2 countries (France and Spain) were found in the literature. In the EU, an average of 245 244 (95% confidence interval [CI], 224 688-265 799) yearly hospital admissions with a respiratory infection per year were associated with RSV in children aged under 5 years, with most cases occurring among children aged under 1 year (75%). Infants aged under 2 months represented the most affected group (71.6 per 1000 children; 95% CI, 66.6-76.6). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings will help support decisions regarding prevention efforts and represent an important benchmark to understand changes in the RSV burden following the introduction of RSV immunization programs in Europe.

Estimation of the Number of Respiratory Syncytial Virus-Associated Hospitalizations in Adults in the European Union.

BACKGROUND: Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) is a major cause of lower respiratory tract infections in adults that can result in hospitalizations. Estimating RSV-associated hospitalization is critical for planning RSV-related healthcare across Europe. METHODS: We gathered RSV-associated hospitalization estimates from the RSV Consortium in Europe (RESCEU) for adults in Denmark, England, Finland, Norway, Netherlands, and Scotland from 2006 to 2017. We extrapolated these estimates to 28 European Union (EU) countries using nearest-neighbor matching, multiple imputations, and 2 sets of 10 indicators. RESULTS: On average, 158 229 (95% confidence interval [CI], 140 865-175 592) RSV-associated hospitalizations occur annually among adults in the EU (≥18 years); 92% of these hospitalizations occur in adults ≥65 years. Among 75-84 years, the annual average is estimated at 74 519 (95% CI, 69 923-79 115) at a rate of 2.24 (95% CI, 2.10-2.38) per 1000. Among ≥85 years, the annual average is estimated at 37 904 (95% CI, 32 444-43 363) at a rate of 2.99 (95% CI, 2.56-3.42). CONCLUSIONS: Our estimates of RSV-associated hospitalizations in adults are the first analysis integrating available data to provide the disease burden across the EU. Importantly, for a condition considered in the past to be primarily a disease of young children, the average annual hospitalization estimate in adults was lower but of a similar magnitude to the estimate in young children (0-4 years): 158 229 (95% CI, 140 865-175 592) versus 245 244 (95% CI, 224 688-265 799).

The Organization of Outreach Work for Vulnerable Patients in General Practice during COVID-19: Results from the Cross-Sectional PRICOV-19 Study in 38 Countries.

The COVID-19 pandemic disproportionately affected vulnerable populations' access to health care. By proactively reaching out to them, general practices attempted to prevent the underutilization of their services. This paper examined the association between practice and country characteristics and the organization of outreach work in general practices during COVID-19. Linear mixed model analyses with practices nested in countries were performed on the data of 4982 practices from 38 countries. A 4-item scale on outreach work was constructed as the outcome variable with a reliability of 0.77 and 0.97 at the practice and country level. The results showed that many practices set up outreach work, including extracting at least one list of patients with chronic conditions from their electronic medical record (30.1%); and performing telephone outreach to patients with chronic conditions (62.8%), a psychological vulnerability (35.6%), or possible situation of domestic violence or a child-rearing situation (17.2%). Outreach work was positively related to the availability of an administrative assistant or practice manager (p < 0.05) or paramedical support staff (p < 0.01). Other practice and country characteristics were not significantly associated with undertaking outreach work. Policy and financial interventions supporting general practices to organize outreach work should focus on the range of personnel available to support such practice activities.

Global and national influenza-associated hospitalisation rates: Estimates for 40 countries and administrative regions.

Background: WHO estimates that seasonal influenza epidemics result in three to five million cases of severe illness (hospitalisations) every year. We aimed to improve the understanding of influenza-associated hospitalisation estimates at a national and global level. Methods: We performed a systematic literature review of English- and Chinese-language studies published between 1995 and 2020 estimating influenza-associated hospitalisation. We included a total of 127 studies (seven in Chinese) in the meta-analysis and analyzed their data using a logit-logistic regression model to understand the influence of five study factors and produce national and global estimates by age groups. The five study factors assessed were: 1) the method used to calculate the influenza-associated hospitalisation estimates (rate- or time series regression-based), 2) the outcome measure (divided into three envelopes: narrow, medium, or wide), 3) whether every case was laboratory-confirmed or not, 4) whether the estimates were national or sub-national, 5) whether the rates were based on a single year or multiple years. Results: The overall pooled influenza-associated hospitalisation rate was 40.5 (95% confidence interval (CI) = 24.3-67.4) per 100 000 persons, with rates varying substantially by age: 224.0 (95% CI = 118.8-420.0) in children aged 0-4 years and 96.8 (95% CI = 57.0-164.3) in the elderly aged >65 years. The overall pooled hospitalisation rates varied by calculation method; for all ages, the rates were significantly higher when they were based on rate-based methods or calculated on a single season and significantly lower when cases were laboratory-confirmed. The national hospitalisation rates (all ages) varied considerably, ranging from 11.7 (95% CI = 3.8-36.3) per 100 000 in New Zealand to 122.1 (95% CI = 41.5-358.4) per 100 000 in India (all age estimates). Conclusions: Using the pooled global influenza-associated hospitalisation rate, we estimate that seasonal influenza epidemics result in 3.2 million cases of severe illness (hospitalisations) per annum. More extensive analyses are required to assess the influence of other factors on the estimates (e.g. vaccination and dominant virus (sub)types) and efforts to harmonize the methods should be encouraged. Our study highlights the high rates of influenza-associated hospitalisations in children aged 0-4 years and the elderly aged 65+ years.

Has the COVID-19 Pandemic Led to Changes in the Tasks of the Primary Care Workforce? An International Survey among General Practices in 38 Countries (PRICOV-19).

The COVID-19 pandemic has had a large and varying impact on primary care. This paper studies changes in the tasks of general practitioners (GPs) and associated staff during the COVID-19 pandemic. Data from the PRICOV-19 study of 5093 GPs in 38 countries were used. We constructed a scale for task changes and performed multilevel analyses. The scale was reliable at both GP and country level. Clustering of task changes at country level was considerable (25%). During the pandemic, staff members were more involved in giving information and recommendations to patients contacting the practice by phone, and they were more involved in triage. GPs took on additional responsibilities and were more involved in reaching out to patients. Problems due to staff absence, when dealt with internally, were related to more task changes. Task changes were larger in practices employing a wider range of professional groups. Whilst GPs were happy with the task changes in practices with more changes, they also felt the need for further training. A higher-than-average proportion of elderly people and people with a chronic condition in the practice were related to task changes. The number of infections in a country during the first wave of the pandemic was related to task changes. Other characteristics at country level were not associated with task changes. Future research on the sustainability of task changes after the pandemic is needed.

Task shifting from general practitioners to practice assistants and nurses in primary care: a cross-sectional survey in 34 countries.

AIM: To describe variation in task shifting from GPs to practice assistants/nurses in 34 countries and to explain differences by analysing associations with characteristics of the GPs and their practices and features of the health care systems. BACKGROUND: Redistribution of tasks and responsibilities in primary care are driven by changes in demand, such as the growing number of patients with chronic conditions, and workforce developments, including staff shortage. The need to manage an expanding range of services has led to adaptations in the skill-mix of primary care teams. These developments are hampered by barriers between professional domains. METHODS: Data were collected between 2011 and 2013 through a cross-sectional survey among approximately 7,200 general practitioners (GPs) in 34 countries. Task shifting is measured through a composite score of GPs' self-reported shifting of tasks. Independent variables at GP and practice level are as follows: innovativeness; part-time working; availability of staff; location and population of the practice. Country-level independent variables are as follows: demand for and supply of care, nurse prescribing, and professionalisation of practice assistants/nurses. Multilevel analysis is used to account for clustering of GPs in countries. FINDINGS: Countries vary in the degree of task shifting. Regarding GP and practice characteristics, use of electronic health records and availability of support staff in the practice are positively associated with task shifting and GPs' working hours negatively, in line with our hypotheses. Age of the GPs is, contrary to our hypothesis, positively related to task shifting. These variables explain 11% of the variance at GP level. Two country variables are related to task shifting: a lower percentage of practices without support staff in a country and nurse prescribing rights coincide with more task shifting. The percentage of practices without support staff has the strongest relationship, explaining 73% of the country variation.

Migrant GPs and patients: a cross-sectional study of practice characteristics, patient experiences and migration concordance.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate practice type and location of native and immigrant general practitioners (GPs); effects of migration status concordance between GPs and patients on experiences of patients in key areas of primary care quality and discrimination. DESIGN AND SETTING: Secondary analysis of GP and patient survey data from QUALICOPC (Quality and Costs of Primary Care), a cross-sectional study of GPs and their patients in 34 countries, performed between 2011 and 2013. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: We explored practice type and location of native and immigrant GPs and the experiences of native patients and patients with a migration background of communication, continuity, comprehensiveness, accessibility, and discrimination, using multilevel analysis. Concordance was modelled as a cross-level interaction between migration status of GPs and patients. RESULTS: Percentages of immigrant GPs varied widely. In Europe, this was highest in England and Luxemburg (40% of GPs born abroad) and lowest in Bulgaria and Romania (1%). The practice population of immigrant GPs more often included an above average proportion of people from ethnic minorities. There were no differences in main effects of patient experiences following a visit to an immigrant or native GP, in four core areas of primary care or in discrimination. However, people from first-generation migrant background more often experienced discrimination, in particular when visiting a native GP. CONCLUSION: Patient experiences did not vary with GPs' migration status. Although experience of discrimination was uncommon, first-generation migrant patients experienced more discrimination. Primary care should provide non-discriminatory care, through GP awareness of unconscious bias and training to address this. Key messagesThere were large differences in percentage of migrant GPs between countries.Migrant GPs' practices had an above average proportion of people from ethnic minorities.In general, patients' experienced discrimination from GPs and practice staff was low, but first-generation migrant patients more often experienced discrimination.First-generation migrant patients more often experienced discrimination when they visited a native GP.

Estimates of mortality associated with seasonal influenza for the European Union from the GLaMOR project.

BACKGROUND: The European Centres for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) estimates that seasonal influenzacauses 4-50 million symptomatic infections in the EU/EEA each year and 15,000-70,000 European citizens die of causes associated with influenza. We used modelling methods to estimate influenza-associated mortality for the European Union by age group and country. METHODS: We compiled influenza-associated respiratory mortality estimates for 31 countries around the world (11 countries in the EU) during 2002-2011 (excluding the 2009 pandemic). From these we extrapolated the influenza mortality burden for all 193 countries of the world, including the 28 countries of the EU, using a multiple imputation approach. To study the effect of vaccination programs, we obtained data from the EU-funded VENICE project regarding the percentage of persons over 65 who were vaccinated in each country; the data ranged from 2% to 82% between the 21 countries which provided estimates for the 2006/07 reference season. RESULTS: We estimated that an average of 27,600 (range 16,200-39,000) respiratory deaths were associated with seasonal influenza in the 28 EU countries per winter; 88% were among people 65 years and older, and the rates of mortality in this age group were roughly 35 times higher compared with those < 65 years. Estimates varied considerably across the EU; for example, rates in the elderly ranged from 21.6 (12.5-35.1) per 100,000 in Portugal to 36.5 (16.4-62.5) in Luxembourg, a difference of nearly 70%. We were unable to find a negative correlation between vaccination coverage rates and influenza-associated mortality estimates in the elderly. CONCLUSION: Our EU estimate of influenza-associated respiratory mortality is broadly consistent with the ECDC estimate. More research is needed to explain the observed variation in mortality across the EU, and on possible bias that could explain the unexpected lack of mortality benefits associated with European elderly influenza vaccination programs.

[Positive assessment of care has changed little during the COVID-19 pandemic, but there is still room for improvement]. / Positieve beoordeling van de zorg weinig veranderd tijdens de coronapandemie, maar nog altijd ruimte voor verbetering.

Introduction: Measuring patient experiences provides important insight into the quality of Dutch healthcare. The current research shows how quality of care has changed over the years and how it correlates with changes in healthcare and health during the COVID-19-pandemic. Method: Patient experiences were collected using satisfaction ratings and the quality indicator PREM Chronic Care, among a representative group of people with a chronic disease. Trend analyses with repeated measurements (2016-2020) were performed and differences between subgroups were tested with Mann-Whitney U tests. Results: Quality of care ratings are mainly positive, also during the COVID-19-pandemic in autumn of 2020. In that year, people are the least satisfied with the coordination between healthcare providers and with preventive healthcare of their illness (64% and 67% is satisfied respectively). Trend analyses show that satisfaction with preventive healthcare has declined and satisfaction with shared decision-making has fluctuated over the years. People who experience consequences for their health(care) during the COVID-19-pandemic, are less satisfied with different aspects of healthcare quality than those who experience no consequences. Conclusion: It seems important to pay attention to patient experiences about healthcare processes, with emphasis on additional information for prevention, support for changes in health and treatment during the COVID-19-pandemic, and good coordination between healthcare providers.

Task shifting from general practitioners to practice assistants and nurses in primary care: a cross-sectional survey in 34 countries.

AIM: To describe variation in task shifting from general practitioners (GPs) to practice assistants/nurses in 34 countries, and to explain differences by analysing associations with characteristics of the GPs, their practices and features of the health care systems. BACKGROUND: Redistribution of tasks and responsibilities in primary care are driven by changes in demand for care, such as the growing number of patients with chronic conditions, and workforce developments, including staff shortage. The need to manage an expanding range of services has led to adaptations in the skill mix of primary care teams. However, these developments are hampered by barriers between professional domains, which can be rigid as a result of strict regulation, traditional attitudes and lack of trust. METHODS: Data were collected between 2011 and 2013 through a cross-sectional survey among approximately 7200 GPs in 34 countries. The dependent variable 'task shifting' is measured through a composite score of GPs' self-reported shifting of tasks. Independent variables at GP and practice level are: innovativeness; part-time working; availability of staff; location and population of the practice. Country-level independent variables are: institutional development of primary care; demand for and supply of care; nurse prescribing as an indicator for professional boundaries; professionalisation of practice assistants/nurses (indicated by professional training, professional associations and journals). Multilevel analysis is used to account for the clustering of GPs in countries. FINDINGS: Countries vary in the degree of task shifting by GPs. Regarding GP and practice characteristics, use of electronic health record applications (as an indicator for innovativeness) and age of the GPs are significantly related to task shifting. These variables explain only little variance at the level of GPs. Two country variables are positively related to task shifting: nurse prescribing and professionalisation of primary care nursing. Professionalisation has the strongest relationship, explaining 21% of the country variation.