Correction: Evaluating the health and health economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on delayed cancer care in Belgium: A Markov model study protocol.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0288777.].

Sociodemographic and socioeconomic disparities in COVID-19 vaccine uptake in Belgium: a nationwide record linkage study.

BACKGROUND: Recent studies have identified important social inequalities in SARS-CoV-2 infections and related COVID-19 outcomes in the Belgian population. The aim of our study was to investigate the sociodemographic and socioeconomic characteristics associated with the uptake of COVID-19 vaccine in Belgium. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of the uptake of a first COVID-19 vaccine dose among 5 342 110 adults (≥18 years) in Belgium on 31 August 2021. We integrated data from four national data sources: the Belgian vaccine register (vaccination status), COVID-19 Healthdata (laboratory test results), DEMOBEL (sociodemographic/socioeconomic data) and the Common Base Register for HealthCare Actors (individuals licensed to practice a healthcare profession in Belgium). We used multivariable logistic regression analysis for identifying characteristics associated with not having obtained a first COVID-19 vaccine dose in Belgium and for each of its three regions (Flanders, Brussels and Wallonia). RESULTS: During the study period, 10% (536 716/5 342 110) of the Belgian adult population included in our study sample was not vaccinated with a first COVID-19 vaccine dose. A lower COVID-19 vaccine uptake was found among young individuals, men, migrants, single parents, one-person households and disadvantaged socioeconomic groups (with lower levels of income and education, unemployed). Overall, the sociodemographic and socioeconomic disparities were comparable for all regions. CONCLUSIONS: The identification of sociodemographic and socioeconomic disparities in COVID-19 vaccination uptake is critical to develop strategies guaranteeing a more equitable vaccination coverage of the Belgian adult population.

Evaluating the health and health economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on delayed cancer care in Belgium: A Markov model study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Cancer causes a substantial burden to our society, both from a health and an economic perspective. To improve cancer patient outcomes and lower society expenses, early diagnosis and timely treatment are essential. The recent COVID-19 crisis has disrupted the care trajectory of cancer patients, which may affect their prognosis in a potentially negative way. The purpose of this paper is to present a flexible decision-analytic Markov model methodology allowing the evaluation of the impact of delayed cancer care caused by the COVID-19 pandemic in Belgium which can be used by researchers to respond to diverse research questions in a variety of disruptive events, contexts and settings. METHODS: A decision-analytic Markov model was developed for 4 selected cancer types (i.e. breast, colorectal, lung, and head and neck), comparing the estimated costs and quality-adjusted life year losses between the pre-COVID-19 situation and the COVID-19 pandemic in Belgium. Input parameters were derived from published studies (transition probabilities, utilities and indirect costs) and administrative databases (epidemiological data and direct medical costs). One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses are proposed to consider uncertainty in the input parameters and to assess the robustness of the model's results. Scenario analyses are suggested to evaluate methodological and structural assumptions. DISCUSSION: The results that such decision-analytic Markov model can provide are of interest to decision makers because they help them to effectively allocate resources to improve the health outcomes of cancer patients and to reduce the costs of care for both patients and healthcare systems. Our study provides insights into methodological aspects of conducting a health economic evaluation of cancer care and COVID-19 including insights on cancer type selection, the elaboration of a Markov model, data inputs and analysis.

The direct disease burden of COVID-19 in Belgium in 2020 and 2021.

BACKGROUND: Burden of disease estimates have become important population health metrics over the past decade to measure losses in health. In Belgium, the disease burden caused by COVID-19 has not yet been estimated, although COVID-19 has emerged as one of the most important diseases. Therefore, the current study aims to estimate the direct COVID-19 burden in Belgium, observed despite policy interventions, during 2020 and 2021, and compare it to the burden from other causes. METHODS: Disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) are the sum of Years Lived with Disability (YLDs) and Years of Life Lost (YLLs) due to disease. DALYs allow comparing the burden of disease between countries, diseases, and over time. We used the European Burden of Disease Network consensus disease model for COVID-19 to estimate DALYs related to COVID-19. Estimates of person-years for (a) acute non-fatal disease states were calculated from a compartmental model, using Belgian seroprevalence, social contact, hospital, and intensive care admission data, (b) deaths were sourced from the national COVID-19 mortality surveillance, and (c) chronic post-acute disease states were derived from a Belgian cohort study. RESULTS: In 2020, the total number of COVID-19 related DALYs was estimated at 253,577 [252,541 - 254,739], which is higher than in 2021, when it was 139,281 [136,704 - 142,306]. The observed COVID-19 burden was largely borne by the elderly, and over 90% of the burden was attributable to premature mortality (i.e., YLLs). In younger people, morbidity (i.e., YLD) contributed relatively more to the DALYs, especially in 2021, when vaccination was rolled out. Morbidity was mainly attributable to long-lasting post-acute symptoms. CONCLUSION: COVID-19 had a substantial impact on population health in Belgium, especially in 2020, when COVID-19 would have been the main cause of disease burden if all other causes had maintained their 2019 level.

Certainty of the Global Burden of Disease 2019 Modelled Prevalence Estimates for Musculoskeletal Conditions: A Meta-Epidemiological Study.

Objectives: To describe and assess the risk of bias of the primary input studies that underpinned the Global Burden of Disease Study (GBD) 2019 modelled prevalence estimates of low back pain (LBP), neck pain (NP), and knee osteoarthritis (OA), from Australia, Brazil, Canada, Spain, and Switzerland. To evaluate the certainty of the GBD modelled prevalence evidence. Methods: Primary studies were identified using the GBD Data Input Sources Tool and their risk of bias was assessed using a validated tool. We rated the certainty of modelled prevalence estimates based on the GRADE Guidelines 30-the GRADE approach for modelled evidence. Results: Seventy-two primary studies (LBP: 67, NP: 2, knee OA: 3) underpinned the GBD estimates. Most studies had limited representativeness of their study populations, used suboptimal case definitions and applied assessment instruments with unknown psychometric properties. The certainty of modelled prevalence estimates was low, mainly due to risk of bias and indirectness. Conclusion: Beyond the risk of bias of primary input studies for LBP, NP, and knee OA in GBD 2019, the certainty of country-specific modelled prevalence estimates still have room for improvement.

Social inequalities and long-term health impact of COVID-19 in Belgium: protocol of the HELICON population data linkage.

INTRODUCTION: Data linkage systems have proven to be a powerful tool in support of combating and managing the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the interoperability and the reuse of different data sources may pose a number of technical, administrative and data security challenges. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This protocol aims to provide a case study for linking highly sensitive individual-level information. We describe the data linkages between health surveillance records and administrative data sources necessary to investigate social health inequalities and the long-term health impact of COVID-19 in Belgium. Data at the national institute for public health, Statistics Belgium and InterMutualistic Agency are used to develop a representative case-cohort study of 1.2 million randomly selected Belgians and 4.5 million Belgians with a confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis (PCR or antigen test), of which 108 211 are COVID-19 hospitalised patients (PCR or antigen test). Yearly updates are scheduled over a period of 4 years. The data set covers inpandemic and postpandemic health information between July 2020 and January 2026, as well as sociodemographic characteristics, socioeconomic indicators, healthcare use and related costs. Two main research questions will be addressed. First, can we identify socioeconomic and sociodemographic risk factors in COVID-19 testing, infection, hospitalisations and mortality? Second, what is the medium-term and long-term health impact of COVID-19 infections and hospitalisations? More specific objectives are (2a) To compare healthcare expenditure during and after a COVID-19 infection or hospitalisation; (2b) To investigate long-term health complications or premature mortality after a COVID-19 infection or hospitalisation; and (2c) To validate the administrative COVID-19 reimbursement nomenclature. The analysis plan includes the calculation of absolute and relative risks using survival analysis methods. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study involves human participants and was approved by Ghent University hospital ethics committee: reference B.U.N. 1432020000371 and the Belgian Information Security Committee: reference Beraadslaging nr. 22/014 van 11 January 2022, available via https://www.ehealth.fgov.be/ehealthplatform/file/view/AX54CWc4Fbc33iE1rY5a?filename=22-014-n034-HELICON-project.pdf. Dissemination activities include peer-reviewed publications, a webinar series and a project website.The pseudonymised data are derived from administrative and health sources. Acquiring informed consent would require extra information on the subjects. The research team is prohibited from gaining additional knowledge on the study subjects by the Belgian Information Security Committee's interpretation of the Belgian privacy framework.

The health and economic burden of musculoskeletal disorders in Belgium from 2013 to 2018.

INTRODUCTION: Low back pain (LBP), neck pain (NKP), osteoarthritis (OST) and rheumatoid arthritis (RHE) are among the musculoskeletal (MSK) disorders causing the greatest disability in terms of Years Lived with Disability. The current study aims to analyze the health and economic impact of these MSK disorders in Belgium, providing a summary of morbidity and mortality outcomes from 2013 to 2018, as well as direct and indirect costs from 2013 to 2017. METHODS: The health burden of LBP, NKP, OST and RHE in Belgium from 2013 to 2018 was summarized in terms of prevalence and disability-adjusted life years (DALY) using data from the Belgian health interview surveys (BHIS), the INTEGO database (Belgian registration network for general practitioners) and the Global Burden of Diseases study 2019. The economic burden included estimates of direct medical costs and indirect costs, measured by cost of work absenteeism. For this purpose, data of the respondents to the BHIS-2013 were linked with the national health insurance data (intermutualistic agency [IMA] database) 2013-2017. RESULTS: In 2018, 2.5 million Belgians were affected by at least one MSK disorder. OST represented the disorder with the highest number of cases for both men and women, followed by LBP. In the same year, MSK disorders contributed to a total of 180,746 DALYs for female and 116,063 DALYs for men. LBP appeared to be the largest contributor to the health burden of MSK. Having at least one MSK disorder costed on average 3 billion € in medical expenses and 2 billion € in indirect costs per year, with LBP being the most costly. CONCLUSION: MSK disorders represent a major health and economic burden in Belgium. As their burden will probably continue to increase in the future, acting on the risk factors associated to these disorders is crucial to mitigate both the health and economic burden.

Burden of Disease of COVID-19: Strengthening the Collaboration for National Studies.

Objectives: Quantifying the combined impact of morbidity and mortality is a key enabler to assessing the impact of COVID-19 across countries and within countries relative to other diseases, regions, or demographics. Differences in methods, data sources, and definitions of mortality due to COVID-19 may hamper comparisons. We describe efforts to support countries in estimating the national-level burden of COVID-19 using disability-adjusted life years. Methods: The European Burden of Disease Network developed a consensus methodology, as well as a range of capacity-building activities to support burden of COVID-19 studies. These activities have supported 11 national studies so far, with study periods between January 2020 and December 2021. Results: National studies dealt with various data gaps and different assumptions were made to face knowledge gaps. Still, they delivered broadly comparable results that allow for interpretation of consistencies, as well as differences in the quantified direct health impact of the pandemic. Discussion: Harmonized efforts and methodologies have allowed for comparable estimates and communication of results. Future studies should evaluate the impact of interventions, and unravel the indirect health impact of the COVID-19 crisis.

The non-fatal burden of cancer in Belgium, 2004-2019: a nationwide registry-based study.

BACKGROUND: The importance of assessing and monitoring the health status of a population has grown in the last decades. Consistent and high quality data on the morbidity and mortality impact of a disease represent the key element for this assessment. Being increasingly used in global and national burden of diseases (BoD) studies, the Disability-Adjusted Life Year (DALY) is an indicator that combines healthy life years lost due to living with disease (Years Lived with Disability; YLD) and due to dying prematurely (Years of Life Lost; YLL). As a step towards a comprehensive national burden of disease study, this study aims to estimate the non-fatal burden of cancer in Belgium using national data. METHODS: We estimated the Belgian cancer burden from 2004 to 2019 in terms of YLD, using national population-based cancer registry data and international disease models. We developed a microsimulation model to translate incidence- into prevalence-based estimates, and used expert elicitation to integrate the long-term impact of increased disability due to surgical treatment. RESULTS: The age-standardized non-fatal burden of cancer increased from 2004 to 2019 by 6 and 3% respectively for incidence- and prevalence-based YLDs. In 2019, in Belgium, breast cancer had the highest morbidity impact among women, followed by colorectal and non-melanoma skin cancer. Among men, prostate cancer had the highest morbidity impact, followed by colorectal and non-melanoma skin cancer. Between 2004 and 2019, non-melanoma skin cancer significantly increased for both sexes in terms of age-standardized incidence-based YLD per 100,000, from 49 to 111 for men and from 15 to 44 for women. Important decreases were seen for colorectal cancer for both sexes in terms of age-standardized incidence-based YLD per 100,000, from 105 to 84 for men and from 66 to 58 for women. CONCLUSIONS: Breast and prostate cancers represent the greatest proportion of cancer morbidity, while for both sexes the morbidity burden of skin cancer has shown an important increase from 2004 onwards. Integrating the current study in the Belgian national burden of disease study will allow monitoring of the burden of cancer over time, highlighting new trends and assessing the impact of public health policies.

Reliability and discriminative validity of a screening tool for the assessment of neuromuscular control and movement control in patients with neck pain and healthy individuals.

BACKGROUND: To evaluate the reliability and discriminative validity of a proposed adapted tool for the assessment of movement control in patients with and without neck pain. METHOD: A cross-sectional study at a University hospital center involving 25 pain-free healthy controls and 25 patients suffering from neck pain. Participants were assessed by two raters for inter-rater reliability and 1 week afterwards by a same rater for intra-rater reliability. The assessment involved a test for the axioscapular (adapted scapular holding test; SHT) and craniocervical (adapted craniocervical flexion test; CCFT) region for which intra-class correlation coefficients (ICCs) were computed to define the reliability. Discriminative validity to distinguish patients from controls was assessed by cross-validated computation of sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratios, overall accuracy, and area under the curve. RESULTS: The proposed tool was able to reliably assess sensorimotor impairment in participants at the craniocervical region (ICCintra = [0.52-0.82]; ICCinter = [0.60-0.85]), left axioscapular region (ICCintra = [0.43-0.77]; ICCinter = 0.71-0.90), and right axioscapular region (ICCintra = [0.47-0.79]; ICCinter = [0.42-0.77]). Furthermore, the tool yielded a sensitivity of 0.86, a specificity of 0.57, and accuracy of 0.71 (based on cross-validation). CONCLUSION: The proposed tool is able to reliably evaluate patients based on their sensorimotor performance in the craniocervical and axioscapular region.Implications for rehabilitationNeck pain is related to sensorimotor impairment including neuromuscular differences and atypical sensormimotor control strategies.Clinicians should not avoid the challenging task of screening for sensorimotor impairment in patients reporting neck pain.The proposed tool supplemented with other tools might guide clinicians in the evaluation of sensorimotor impairment.

Performance of five rapid serological tests in mild-diseased subjects using finger prick blood for exposure assessment to SARS-CoV-2.

OBJECTIVES: Assess the performance of five SARS-CoV-2 rapid serological tests (RST) using finger prick (FP) blood on-site to evaluate their usability for exposure assessment in population-based seroprevalence studies. STUDY DESIGN: Since cross-reactivity with common cold human coronaviruses occurs, serological testing includes a risk of false-positive results. Therefore, the selected cohort for RST-validation was based on combined immunoassay (presence of specific antibodies) and RT-qPCR (presence of SARS-CoV-2) data. RST-performance for FP blood and serum was assessed by performing each RST in two groups, namely SARSCoV- 2 positive (n=108) and negative healthcare workers (n=89). Differences in accuracy and positive and negative predictive values (PPV, NPV) were calculated for a range (1-50%) of SARS-CoV-2 prevalence estimates. RESULTS: The OrientGene showed overall acceptable performance, with sensitivities of 94.4% and 100%, and specificities of 96.6% and 94.4%, using FP blood and serum, respectively. Although three RST reach optimal specificities (100%), the OrientGene clearly outperforms in sensitivity. At a SARS-CoV-2 prevalence rate of 40%, this RST outperforms the other tests in NPV (96.3%) and reaches comparable PPV (94.9%). Although the specificity of the Covid-Presto is excellent when using FP blood or serum (100% and 97.8%, respectively), its sensitivity decreases when using FP blood (76.9%) compared to serum (98.1%). CONCLUSIONS: Performances of the evaluated RST differ largely. Only one out of five RST (OrientGene) had acceptable sensitivity and specificity using FP blood. Therefore, the latter could be used for seroprevalence studies in a high-prevalence situation. The OrientGene, which measures anti-RBD antibodies, can be valuable after vaccination as well.