Factors Associated With COVID-19 Non-Vaccination in Switzerland: A Nationwide Study.

Objectives: We compared socio-demographic characteristics, health-related variables, vaccination-related beliefs and attitudes, vaccination acceptance, and personality traits of individuals who vaccinated against COVID-19 and who did not vaccinate by December 2021. Methods: This cross-sectional study used data of 10,642 adult participants from the Corona Immunitas eCohort, an age-stratified random sample of the population of several cantons in Switzerland. We used multivariable logistic regression models to explore associations of vaccination status with socio-demographic, health, and behavioral factors. Results: Non-vaccinated individuals represented 12.4% of the sample. Compared to vaccinated individuals, non-vaccinated individuals were more likely to be younger, healthier, employed, have lower income, not worried about their health, have previously tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection, express lower vaccination acceptance, and/or report higher conscientiousness. Among non-vaccinated individuals, 19.9% and 21.3% had low confidence in the safety and effectiveness of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine, respectively. However, 29.1% and 26.7% of individuals with concerns about vaccine effectiveness and side effects at baseline, respectively vaccinated during the study period. Conclusion: In addition to known socio-demographic and health-related factors, non-vaccination was associated with concerns regarding vaccine safety and effectiveness.

Effectiveness of crisis resolution home treatment for the management of acute psychiatric crises in Southern Switzerland: a natural experiment based on geography.

BACKGROUND: Crisis Resolution Home Treatment (CRHT) is an alternative to inpatient treatment for acute psychiatric crises management. However, evidence on CRHT effectiveness is still limited. In the Canton of Ticino (Southern Switzerland), in 2016 the regional public psychiatric hospital replaced one acute ward with a CRHT. The current study was designed within this evaluation setting to assess the effectiveness of CRHT compared to standard inpatient treatment. METHODS: CRHT was offered to patients aged 18 to 65 with an acute psychiatric crisis that would have required hospitalization. We used a natural experiment based on geography, where intervention and control groups were formed according to the place of residence. Primary endpoints were reduction of psychiatric symptoms at discharge measured using the Health of the Nation Outcome Scales, treatment duration in days, and rate and length of readmissions during a two-year follow-up period after discharge. Safety during the treatment period was measured with the number of serious adverse events (suicide/suicide attempts, major self-harm episodes, acute alcohol/drug intoxications, aggressions to caregivers or family members). We used linear, log-linear and logistic regression models with propensity scores for the main analysis. RESULTS: We enrolled 321 patients; 67 were excluded because the treatment period was too short and 17 because they were transferred before the end of the treatment. Two hundred thirty-seven patients were available for data analysis, 93 in the intervention group and 144 in the control group. No serious adverse event was observed during the treatment period in both groups. Reduction of psychiatric symptoms at discharge (p-value = 0.359), readmission rates (p-value = 0.563) and length of readmissions (p-value = 0.770) during the two-year follow-up period did not differ significantly between the two groups. Treatment duration was significantly higher in the treatment group (+ 29.6% on average, p-value = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: CRHT was comparable to standard hospitalization in terms of psychiatric symptoms reduction, readmission rates and length of readmissions, but it was also characterized by a longer first treatment period. However, observational evidence following the study indicated that CRHT duration constantly lowered over time since its introduction in 2016 and became comparable to hospitalization, showing therefore to be an effective alternative also in terms of treatment length. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN38472626 (17/11/2020, retrospectively registered).

Lived experiences of older adults during the first COVID-19 lockdown: A qualitative study.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Public health measures used to mitigate the COVID-19 epidemic may have unintended, detrimental consequences particularly on older adults, whose voices and perspectives are often silent or silenced. The aim of this study was to explore the lived experiences of individuals aged 64 or older during the first COVID-19 lockdown. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative study in a convenience sample of 19 older adults (aged 64+) living at home in the Italian-speaking region of Switzerland during the first COVID-19 lockdown, between April and May 2020. Participants varied in terms of gender, education, age, nationality, and socio-economic status. We conducted semi-structured phone interviews to elicit emotions, expectations and hopes in relation to the present situation, and the post-pandemic world. We inquired about opinions on the enforced public health measures, including those specifically targeting older adults, and on the societal portrayal of older adults. FINDINGS: We found that the epidemic and the public health response to it had both generated a variety of resentments and a high degree of ambivalence at the individual, micro-, meso- and macro-social levels. We also found that labelling older adults as an at-risk sub-population inevitably contributed to public and self-stigmatization. DISCUSSION: We conducted an in-depth qualitative investigation of lived experiences of older adults during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in one of the most gravely hit region in Europe. Our findings on the complexity of unintended, detrimental consequences of outbreak responses on older adults have relevant implications for local adaptions of public health measures, and suggest that public health authorities should engage vulnerable sub-populations and promote bi-directional communication to inform and support communities.

[Learning self-management for pain. Potentials and limits of an Internet website for low back pain]. / Apprendre a gérer la douleur. Potentialités et limites d'un site internet pour le mal de dos.

This paper examines the role of an interactive website--named Oneself--on patients' chronic low back pain self-management in the Italian part of Switzerland. As part of a qualitative evaluation, we conducted semi-structured interviews with a purposive sample of 18 Oneself users. Results confirm that the Internet may promote attitudes and behaviors of self-management of chronic low back pain. However, it seems that individuals take advantage of this means differently, based on their profile (age, familiarization with the web) and stage of advancement in the self-management process. We conclude that information and support provided online should be tailored according to these different criteria.

Internet information and medical consultations: experiences from patients' and physicians' perspectives.

OBJECTIVE: Many patients use the Internet to obtain health-related information. It is assumed that health-related Internet information (HRII) will change the consultation practice of physicians. This article explores the strategies, benefits and difficulties from the patients' and physicians' perspective. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted independently with 32 patients and 20 physicians. Data collection, processing and analysis followed the core principles of Grounded Theory. RESULTS: Patients experienced difficulties in the interpretation of the personal relevance and the meaning of HRII. Therefore they relied on their physicians' interpretation and contextualisation of this information. Discussing patients' concerns and answering patients' questions were important elements of successful consultations with Internet-informed patients to achieve clarity, orientation and certainty. Discussing HRII with patients was appreciated by most of the physicians but misleading interpretations by patients and contrary views compared to physicians caused conflicts during consultations. CONCLUSION: HRII is a valuable source of knowledge for an increasing number of patients. Patients use the consultation to increase their understanding of health and illness. Determinants such as a patient-centred consultation and timely resources are decisive for a successful, empowering consultation with Internet-informed patients. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: If HRII is routinely integrated in the anamnestic interview as a new source of knowledge, the Internet can be used as a link between physicians' expertise and patient knowledge. The critical appraisal of HRII during the consultation is becoming a new field of work for physicians.