RESUMO
BACKGROUND: In recent months, multiple efforts have sought to characterize COVID-19 social distancing policy responses. These efforts have used various coding frameworks, but many have relied on coding methodologies that may not adequately describe the gradient in social distancing policies as states "re-open." METHODS: We developed a COVID-19 social distancing intensity framework that is sufficiently specific and sensitive to capture this gradient. Based on a review of policies from a 12 U.S. state sample, we developed a social distancing intensity framework consisting of 16 domains and intensity scales of 0-5 for each domain. RESULTS: We found that the states with the highest average daily intensity from our sample were Pennsylvania, Washington, Colorado, California, and New Jersey, with Georgia, Florida, Massachusetts, and Texas having the lowest. While some domains (such as restaurants and movie theaters) showed bimodal policy intensity distributions compatible with binary (yes/no) coding, others (such as childcare and religious gatherings) showed broader variability that would be missed without more granular coding. CONCLUSION: This detailed intensity framework reveals the granularity and nuance between social distancing policy responses. Developing standardized approaches for constructing policy taxonomies and coding processes may facilitate more rigorous policy analysis and improve disease modeling efforts.
Assuntos
COVID-19/prevenção & controle , Política de Saúde , Distanciamento Físico , Humanos , Modelos Biológicos , Estados UnidosRESUMO
Population projections are used by a number of local agencies to better prepare for the future resource needs of counties, ensuring that educational, health, housing, and economic demands of individuals are met. Meeting the specific needs of a county's population, such as what resources to provide, where to target resources, and ensure an equitable distribution of those resources, requires population projections which are both demographically detailed, such as by age, race, and ethnicity, and geographically precise, such as at the census tract level. Despite this need, an evaluation of which methods are best suited to produce population projections at this level are lacking. In this study, we evaluate the accuracy of several cohort-based methods for small area population projections by race and ethnicity. We apply these methods to population projections of King County, Washington and assess the validity of projections using past population estimates. We find a clear pattern that demonstrates while simplified methods perform well in near term forecasts, methods which employ smoothing strategies perform better in long-term forecasting scenarios. Furthermore, we demonstrate that model's incorporating multiple stages of smoothing can provide detailed insights into the projected population size of King county and the places and groups which will most contribute to this growth. Detailed projections, such as those provided by multi-stage smoothing methods, enable city planners and policy makers a detailed view of the future structure of their county's population and provide for them a resource to better meet the needs of future populations.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Older people living with HIV (PLWH) are at increased risks of co-morbidities and polypharmacy. However, little is known about factors affecting their needs and concerns about medicines. This systematic review aims to describe these and to identify interventions to improve medicine optimisation outcomes in older PLWH. METHODS AND DATA SOURCES: Multiple databases and grey literature were searched from inception to February 2022 including MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycInfo, PsychArticles, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and the Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials, Abstracts in Social Gerontology, and Academic Search Complete. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Studies reporting interventions/issues affecting older PLWH (sample populations with mean/median age ≥ 50 years; any aspect of medicine optimisation, or concerns). Quality assessments were completed by means of critical appraisal checklists for each study design. Title and abstract screening was led by one reviewer and a sample reviewed independently by two reviewers. Full-paper reviews were completed by one author and a 20% sample was reviewed independently by two reviewers. SYNTHESIS: Data were extracted by three independent reviewers using standardised data extraction forms and synthesised according to outcomes or interventions reported. Data were summarised to include key themes, outcomes or concerns, and summary of intervention. RESULTS: Seventy-nine (n = 79) studies met the eligibility criteria, most of which originated from the USA (n = 36). A few studies originated from Australia (n = 5), Canada (n = 5), Spain (n = 9), and the UK (n = 5). Ten studies originated from Sub-Saharan Africa (Kenya n = 1, South Africa n = 6, Tanzania n = 1, Uganda n = 1, Zimbabwe n = 1). The rest of the studies were from China (n = 1), France (n = 1), Germany (n = 1), Italy (n = 1), the Netherlands (n = 1), Pakistan (n = 1), Switzerland (n = 1), Saudi Arabia (n = 1) and Ukraine (n = 1). Publication dates ranged from 2002 to 2022. Sample sizes ranged from 10 to 15,602 across studies. The factors affecting older PLWH's experience of and issues with medicines were co-morbidities, health-related quality of life, polypharmacy, drug interactions, adverse drug reactions, adherence, medicine burden, treatment burden, stigma, social support, and patient-healthcare provider relationships. Nine interventions were identified to target older persons, five aimed at improving medication adherence, two to reduce drug interactions, and two for medicine self-management initiatives. CONCLUSION: Further in-depth research is needed to understand older PLWH's experiences of medicines and their priority issues. Adherence-focused interventions are predominant, but there is a scarcity of interventions aimed at improving medicine experiences for this population. Multi-faceted interventions are needed to achieve medicine optimisation outcomes for PLWH. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study is registered with PROSPERO registration number: CRD42020188448.