A Framework for Studying EU Health Policy through a Political Determinants of Health Lens: The Case of the European Health Union.

CONTEXT: The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted how the European Union (EU) impacts national health systems and people's health. In November 2020, the European Commission launched the European Health Union (EHU) to better coordinate and maximise EU Member States' abilities to deal with cross-border health threats. This paper scrutinises the early institutionalisation of the EHU and its implications for EU health policy as a political determinant of health (PDoH). METHODS: The study explores how EU health policy may be appreciated from a PDoH perspective. It draws from EU documents and existing research to analyse the early-stage institutionalisation of the EHU. The study complements this policy output-focused perspective with an outcome-based exploratory assessment of EU health policy as a PDoH focusing on three examples: joint vaccine procurement, health investments under the Recovery and Resilience Facility and the development of a European Health Data Space. FINDINGS: The study shows that the policy change triggered by the EHU and the potential impact on citizens' health are not necessarily congruent: modest change can have a potentially strong impact on health outcomes and vice versa. CONCLUSIONS: The study argues that the PDoH perspective provides a useful and complementary approach to policy output-based perspectives, allowing for a more comprehensive assessment of the EU's role in health.

Application of causal inference methods in individual-participant data meta-analyses in medicine: addressing data handling and reporting gaps with new proposed reporting guidelines.

Observational data provide invaluable real-world information in medicine, but certain methodological considerations are required to derive causal estimates. In this systematic review, we evaluated the methodology and reporting quality of individual-level patient data meta-analyses (IPD-MAs) conducted with non-randomized exposures, published in 2009, 2014, and 2019 that sought to estimate a causal relationship in medicine. We screened over 16,000 titles and abstracts, reviewed 45 full-text articles out of the 167 deemed potentially eligible, and included 29 into the analysis. Unfortunately, we found that causal methodologies were rarely implemented, and reporting was generally poor across studies. Specifically, only three of the 29 articles used quasi-experimental methods, and no study used G-methods to adjust for time-varying confounding. To address these issues, we propose stronger collaborations between physicians and methodologists to ensure that causal methodologies are properly implemented in IPD-MAs. In addition, we put forward a suggested checklist of reporting guidelines for IPD-MAs that utilize causal methods. This checklist could improve reporting thereby potentially enhancing the quality and trustworthiness of IPD-MAs, which can be considered one of the most valuable sources of evidence for health policy.

Application of Causal Inference Methods to Pooled Longitudinal Non- Randomized Studies: A Methodological Systematic Review.

Observational data provide invaluable real-world information in medicine, but certain methodological considerations are required to derive causal estimates. In this systematic review, we evaluated the methodology and reporting quality of individual-level patient data meta-analyses (IPD-MAs) published in 2009, 2014, and 2019 that sought to estimate a causal relationship in medicine. We screened over 16,000 titles and abstracts, reviewed 45 full-text articles out of the 167 deemed potentially eligible, and included 29 into the analysis. Unfortunately, we found that causal methodologies were rarely implemented, and reporting was generally poor across studies. Specifically, only three of the 29 articles used quasi-experimental methods, and no study used G-methods to adjust for time-varying confounding. To address these issues, we propose stronger collaborations between physicians and methodologists to ensure that causal methodologies are properly implemented in IPD-MAs. In addition, we put forward a suggested checklist of reporting guidelines for IPD-MAs that utilize causal methods. This checklist could improve reporting thereby potentially enhancing the quality and trustworthiness of IPD-MAs, which can be considered one of the most valuable sources of evidence for health policy.

How did the COVID-19 pandemic affect inpatient care for children in Germany? An exploratory analysis based on national hospital discharge data.

BACKGROUND: The delivery of health services around the world faced considerable disruptions during the COVID-19 pandemic. While this has been discussed for a number of conditions in the adult population, related patterns have been studied less for children. In light of the detrimental effects of the pandemic, particularly for children and young people under the age of 18, it is pivotal to explore this issue further. METHODS: Based on complete national hospital discharge data available via the German National Institute for the Reimbursement of Hospitals (InEK) data browser, we compare the top 30 diagnoses for which children were hospitalised in 2019, 2020, 2021 and 2022. We analyse the development of monthly admissions between January 2019 and December 2022 for three tracers of variable time-sensitivity: acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (ALL), appendicitis/appendectomy and tonsillectomy/adenoidectomy. RESULTS: Compared to 2019, total admissions were approximately 20% lower in 2020 and 2021, and 13% lower in 2022. The composition of the most frequent principal diagnoses remained similar across years, although changes in rank were observed. Decreases were observed in 2020 for respiratory and gastrointestinal infections, with cases increasing again in 2021. The number of ALL admissions showed an upward trend and a periodicity prima vista unrelated to pandemic factors. Appendicitis admissions decreased by about 9% in 2020 and a further 8% in 2021 and 4% in 2022, while tonsillectomies/adenoidectomies decreased by more than 40% in 2020 and a further 32% in 2021 before increasing in 2022; for these tracers, monthly changes are in line with pandemic waves. CONCLUSIONS: Hospital care for critical and urgent conditions among patients under the age of 18 was largely upheld in Germany during the COVID-19 pandemic, potentially at the expense of elective treatments. There is an alignment between observed variations in hospitalisations and pandemic mitigation measures, possibly also reflecting changes in demand. This study highlights the need for comprehensive, intersectoral data that would be necessary to better understand changing demand, unmet need/foregone care and shifts from inpatient to outpatient care, as well as their link to patient outcomes and health care efficiency.

Longitudinal evidence on treatment discontinuation, adherence, and loss of hypertension control in four middle-income countries.

Managing hypertension is a highly dynamic process, yet current evidence on hypertension control in middle-income countries (MICs) is largely based on cross-sectional data. Using multiple waves of population-based cohort data from four MICs (China, Indonesia, Mexico, and South Africa), we undertook a longitudinal investigation into how individuals with hypertension move through care over time. We classified adults aged 40 years and over (N = 8527) into care stages at both baseline and follow-up waves and estimated the probability of transitioning between stages using Poisson regression models. Over a 5- to 9-year follow-up period, only around 30% of undiagnosed individuals became diagnosed [Mexico, 27% (95% confidence interval: 23%, 31%); China, 30% (26%, 33%); Indonesia, 30% (28%, 32%); and South Africa, 36% (31%, 41%)], and one in four untreated individuals became treated [Indonesia, 11% (10%, 12%); Mexico, 24% (20%, 28%); China, 26% (23%, 29%); and South Africa, 33% (29%, 38%)]. The probability of reaching blood pressure (BP) control was lower [Indonesia, 2% (1%, 2%); China, 9% (7%, 11%); Mexico, 12% (9%, 14%); and South Africa, 24% (20%, 28%)] regardless of treatment status. A substantial proportion of individuals discontinued treatment [Indonesia, 70% (67%, 73%); China, 36% (32%, 40%); Mexico, 34% (29%, 39%); and South Africa, 20% (15%, 25%)], and most individuals lost BP control by follow-up [Indonesia, 92% (89%, 96%); Mexico, 77% (71%, 83%); China, 76% (69%, 83%); and South Africa 45% (36%, 54%)]. Our results highlight that policies solely aimed at improving diagnosis or initiating treatment may not lead to long-term hypertension control improvements in MICs.

The First 110,593 COVID-19 Patients Hospitalised in Lombardy: A Regionwide Analysis of Case Characteristics, Risk Factors and Clinical Outcomes.

Objectives: To describe the monthly distribution of COVID-19 hospitalisations, deaths and case-fatality rates (CFR) in Lombardy (Italy) throughout 2020. Methods: We analysed de-identified hospitalisation data comprising all COVID-19-related admissions from 1 February 2020 to 31 December 2020. The overall survival (OS) from time of first hospitalisation was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. We estimated monthly CFRs and performed Cox regression models to measure the effects of potential predictors on OS. Results: Hospitalisation and death peaks occurred in March and November 2020. Patients aged ≥70 years had an up to 180 times higher risk of dying compared to younger patients [70-80: HR 58.10 (39.14-86.22); 80-90: 106.68 (71.01-160.27); ≥90: 180.96 (118.80-275.64)]. Risk of death was higher in patients with one or more comorbidities [1: HR 1.27 (95% CI 1.20-1.35); 2: 1.44 (1.33-1.55); ≥3: 1.73 (1.58-1.90)] and in those with specific conditions (hypertension, diabetes). Conclusion: Our data sheds light on the Italian pandemic scenario, uncovering mechanisms and gaps at regional health system level and, on a larger scale, adding to the body of knowledge needed to inform effective health service planning, delivery, and preparedness in times of crisis.

Current trends in the application of causal inference methods to pooled longitudinal non-randomised data: a protocol for a methodological systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Causal methods have been adopted and adapted across health disciplines, particularly for the analysis of single studies. However, the sample sizes necessary to best inform decision-making are often not attainable with single studies, making pooled individual-level data analysis invaluable for public health efforts. Researchers commonly implement causal methods prevailing in their home disciplines, and how these are selected, evaluated, implemented and reported may vary widely. To our knowledge, no article has yet evaluated trends in the implementation and reporting of causal methods in studies leveraging individual-level data pooled from several studies. We undertake this review to uncover patterns in the implementation and reporting of causal methods used across disciplines in research focused on health outcomes. We will investigate variations in methods to infer causality used across disciplines, time and geography and identify gaps in reporting of methods to inform the development of reporting standards and the conversation required to effect change. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will search four databases (EBSCO, Embase, PubMed, Web of Science) using a search strategy developed with librarians from three universities (Heidelberg University, Harvard University, and University of California, San Francisco). The search strategy includes terms such as 'pool*', 'harmoniz*', 'cohort*', 'observational', variations on 'individual-level data'. Four reviewers will independently screen articles using Covidence and extract data from included articles. The extracted data will be analysed descriptively in tables and graphically to reveal the pattern in methods implementation and reporting. This protocol has been registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020143148). ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: No ethical approval was required as only publicly available data were used. The results will be submitted as a manuscript to a peer-reviewed journal, disseminated in conferences if relevant, and published as part of doctoral dissertations in Global Health at the Heidelberg University Hospital.

COVID-19 and Recreational Skiing: Results of a Rapid Systematic Review and Possible Preventive Measures.

COVID-19 is a novel infectious disease which has rapidly spread around the globe, disrupting several aspects of public life over the past year. After numerous infection clusters emerged among travelers hosted in ski resorts in early 2020, several European countries closed ski areas. These measures were mostly upheld throughout the 2020 and 2021 winter season, generating significant economic loss for mountain communities. The aim of this rapid systematic review was to explore the association between recreational skiing and the spread of COVID-19. This review was conducted according to the WHO practical guidelines on rapid reviews and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. PubMed, Scopus, MedRxiv and Promed-mail were screened to identify relevant scientific and grey literature published since the emergence of COVID-19. Among the 11 articles included, seven focused on cases recorded during the first epidemic wave, when COVID-19 containment measures were not yet mandatory. Most infection clusters could be directly linked to public gatherings which took place without the enforcement of restrictions. There is currently no evidence to suggest an association between COVID-19 spread and recreational skiing. It may be reasonable to consider the reopening of ski areas in compliance with strict rules and preventive measures.