Lifting COVID-19 mitigation measures in Spain (May-June 2020).

Introduction: The state of alarm was declared in Spain due to the COVID-19 epidemic on March 14, 2020, and established population confinement measures. The objective is to describe the process of lifting these mitigation measures. Methods: The Plan for the Transition to a New Normality, approved on April 28, contained four sequential phases with progressive increase in socio-economic activities and population mobility. In parallel, a new strategy for early diagnosis, surveillance and control was implemented. A bilateral decision mechanism was established between the Spanish Government and the autonomous communities (AC), guided by a set of qualitative and quantitative indicators capturing the epidemiological situation and core capacities. The territorial units were established ad-hoc and could be from Basic Health Zones to entire AC. Results: The process run from May 4 to June 21, 2020. AC implemented plans for reinforcement of core capacities. Incidence decreased from a median (50% of territories) of 7.4 per 100,000 in 7 days at the beginning to 2.5 at the end. Median PCR testing increased from 53% to 89% of suspected cases and PCR total capacity from 4.5 to 9.8 per 1000 inhabitants weekly; positivity rate decreased from 3.5% to 1.8%. Median proportion of cases with traced contacts increased from 82% to 100%. Conclusion: Systematic data collection, analysis, and interterritorial dialogue allowed adequate process control. The epidemiological situation improved but, mostly, the process entailed a great reinforcement of core response capacities nation-wide, under common criteria. Maintaining and further reinforcing capacities remained crucial for responding to future waves.

Introducción: El 14 de marzo de 2020 España declaró el estado de alarma por la pandemia por COVID-19 incluyendo medidas de confinamiento. El objetivo es describir el proceso de desescalada de estas medidas. Métodos: Un plan de transición hacia una nueva normalidad, del 28 de abril, incluía 4 fases secuenciales incrementando progresivamente las actividades socioeconómicas y la movilidad. Concomitantemente, se implementó una nueva estrategia de diagnóstico precoz, vigilancia y control. Se estableció un mecanismo de decisión bilateral entre Gobierno central y comunidades autónomas (CCAA), guiado por un panel de indicadores cualitativos y cuantitativos de la situación epidemiológica y las capacidades básicas. Las unidades territoriales evaluadas comprendían desde zonas básicas de salud hasta CCAA. Resultados: El proceso se extendió del 4 de mayo al 21 de junio y se asoció a planes de refuerzo de las capacidades en las CCAA. La incidencia disminuyó de una mediana inicial de 7,4 por 100.000 en 7 días a 2,5 al final del proceso. La mediana de pruebas PCR aumentó del 53% al 89% de los casos sospechosos, y la capacidad total de 4,5 a 9,8 pruebas semanales por 1.000 habitantes; la positividad disminuyó del 3,5% al 1,8%. La mediana de casos con contactos trazados aumentó del 82% al 100%. Conclusión: La recogida y análisis sistemático de información y el diálogo interterritorial logaron un adecuado control del proceso. La situación epidemiológica mejoró, pero sobre todo, se aumentaron las capacidades, en todo el país y con criterios comunes, cuyo mantenimiento y refuerzo fue clave en olas sucesivas.

Lifting COVID-19 mitigation measures in Spain (May-June 2020).

INTRODUCTION: The state of alarm was declared in Spain due to the COVID-19 epidemic on March 14, 2020, and established population confinement measures. The objective is to describe the process of lifting these mitigation measures. METHODS: The Plan for the Transition to a New Normality, approved on April 28, contained four sequential phases with progressive increase in socio-economic activities and population mobility. In parallel, a new strategy for early diagnosis, surveillance and control was implemented. A bilateral decision mechanism was established between the Spanish Government and the autonomous communities (AC), guided by a set of qualitative and quantitative indicators capturing the epidemiological situation and core capacities. The territorial units were established ad-hoc and could be from Basic Health Zones to entire AC. RESULTS: The process run from May 4 to June 21, 2020. AC implemented plans for reinforcement of core capacities. Incidence decreased from a median (50% of territories) of 7.4 per 100,000 in 7 days at the beginning to 2.5 at the end. Median PCR testing increased from 53% to 89% of suspected cases and PCR total capacity from 4.5 to 9.8 per 1000 inhabitants weekly; positivity rate decreased from 3.5% to 1.8%. Median proportion of cases with traced contacts increased from 82% to 100%. CONCLUSION: Systematic data collection, analysis, and interterritorial dialogue allowed adequate process control. The epidemiological situation improved but, mostly, the process entailed a great reinforcement of core response capacities nation-wide, under common criteria. Maintaining and further reinforcing capacities remained crucial for responding to future waves.

[Municipalism and community health: transforming through local government. SESPAS Report 2018]. / Municipalismo y salud comunitaria: transformar desde los ayuntamientos. Informe SESPAS 2018.

Municipalities and local government are an essential element to promote public policies that improve people's health, and impact the social determinants of health, through developing approaches which incorporate equity, community engagement and intersectoral partnership at their core. The objective of this article is to analyze the barriers and opportunities that can be encountered within local governments when interventions aimed at improving people's health are developed and implemented. The evolution of the city councils, their competence frameworks and the current socio-political context are described, and three key tools for local action are proposed: intersectorality, community engagement and working in partnership with other administrations. Global strategies such as the implementation of the "community health" and "health in all policies" approach through cross-sectoral networks/partnerships are described, emphasizing the importance of developing formal and informal structures or processes of community engagement and designing local health action plans in cooperation with other administrations, such as regional and national governing bodies. To continue supporting these forms of local governance, we propose adapting the local administrations to the new social realities, with more horizontal and flexible organization models and resource allocation, integrating efficiency and evaluation processes, reclaiming local autonomy, and building local governance through networks and alliances.

Intersectorality and social participation as coping policies for health inequities-worldwide.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the impact that intersectoral policies and social participation, implemented worldwide, have had on the modification of the social determinants for health and on the reduction of social health inequities. METHOD: A scoping review of the literature published in the period 2005-2015 was performed. The literature search was conducted on PubMed and Scielo databases. Two researchers reviewed each document. Data were analysed according to the intersectoral action and social participation variables and according to the theoretical frameworks of the Social Determinants Model of the Commission on Social Determinants of Health (CSDH) and the theoretical constructs of Social Capital (SC) and Life Course (LC). RESULTS: Out of 45 documents likely to be selected for final review, all of them based on title and abstract, 20 documents were eventually picked out and analysed; most them (n = 8) were conducted in all Latin America and Latin America's countries. Twelve documents reported intersectoral action associated with social participation in partnership with different institutions. Regarding theoretical frameworks, most of studies (n = 8) used CSDH and SC. In relation to health outcomes, the studies showed mainly: increased access to health and education, follow-up of pregnant women, increasing in prenatal examinations, reduction in malnutrition/child mortality, reduction in extreme poverty/hunger; reduction in epidemics/tuberculosis, control of alcohol/drug consumption, promotion of health/mental as well as basic sanitation improvements. CONCLUSIONS: Intersectoral and social participation experiences studied yielded positive outcomes regarding health status and quality of life in the communities in which such experiences were implemented.

[Field epidemiology and social epidemiology]. / Epidemiología de campo y epidemiología social.

Comparing field epidemiology and social epidemiology, we pretend to think about the no explicit images and meanings operating in both necessary convergent fields, about the obstacles present in epidemiological practice to fulfil its social function and about the necessity of changing epistemological, methodological and practice grounds, beginning with field epidemiologists teaching programmes. Field epidemiology would tend to act in an absent theoretical frame. On the other hand, social epidemiology would tend to prioritize theoretical developments (thinking and research about social determinants) without correspondent action, because of the limits to change public policies. Other differences are found at intervention level (micro-macrospace), its aim (outbreak control vs. inequalities control) and the way to communicate with society. They are similar in the methodological concern, the predominance of orientation based on positivism and framed through statistic methods, but in process of epistemological opening, the stress experienced between the alternative relationship to a virtual world of data bases or to the real society, their peripherical situation in relation of the political, social, institutional and professional system and the tendency to professional frustration. Finally, we ask ten questions to the field epidemiologists related with their present practice, in order to consider if they are developing social epidemiology, and propose some changes in epidemiologist teaching and practice.

[Pertussis outbreak in a poorly immunized community]. / Brote de tos ferina en una comunidad insuficientemente vacunada.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to describe the clinical, serological and epidemiological findings of a pertussis outbreak in an insufficiently vaccinated gipsy community. PATIENTS AND METHOD: Ten cases (catarrhal illness with cough of 2 weeks duration) were identified through an active search. In four of them, two paired serum samples were obtained and total IgG against Bordetella pertussis and IgG and IgA against pertussis toxin (PT) and filamentous hemagglutinin (FHA) were determined. The diagnostic criteria was seroconversion. A comparative analysis between cases and healthy children younger than 15 years (gipsy community) was carried out and we estimated, by means of a logistical regression analysis, the odds ratio (OR) of several factors. RESULTS: The highest attack rate (50%) was found in the 5 to 9 year-old group; 30% cases had not been vaccinated while 50% had been incorrectly vaccinated. No significant differences for age, gender or the vaccine status were detected. Three cases showed seroconversion for total IgG and two for IgG-PT and IgA-PT. Other possible pathogens were ruled out by serology. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the high vaccine coverage against pertussis in paediatric age in Spain, some susceptible population groups remain, mainly due to an incorrect vaccination. Our serological results firmly support the suspicion of B. pertussis as the etiologic agent of the outbreak.