The effect of differently modulated communications on the covid-19 pandemic in the young population.

BACKGROUND: Media communication during the covid-19 pandemic has been relevant for the population to receive information about the ongoing number of cases, deaths, and social restriction measures. Notably, the effects of the communication methods on young adults during the covid-19 pandemic have not been studied. Therefore the present study aimed to investigate the influence of communication modality about covid-19 on the perception of risk and judgment among young adults. METHODS: A double-blind cross-sectional study was designed. Three hundred four subjects (age range19-25 years old) saw a 4-minute video concerning data communication on the covid-19 pandemic and compiled an online questionnaire about their perceptions. Two videos were randomized, one presenting the covid-19 data negatively (HARD video) while the other showed a positive ongoing resolution of the pandemic (SOFT video). Association tests and nominal logistic regression were used to evaluate differences in responses among the two groups. RESULTS: The two videos lead to different reactions. Participants showed higher disagreement concerning the video content in the "SOFT" group compared to the "HARD" group. The responses of the "SOFT" group were more to be optimistic (OR=2.87, 95% CI 1.311-6.27) than those who had seen the "HARD" video. The sense of helplessness was lower in the "SOFT" compared "HARD" group (OR=3.02, 95% CI 1.311-6.96). The perception of fear was higher for the "HARD" group (OR=2.91, 95% CI 1.21-7-02). DISCUSSION: The modality of data presentation influenced the perception and feelings about the covid-19 pandemic. Likely, pre-existing perception of a pessimistic perspective was present in both groups; thus, the video did not lead to any change in the behavior. CONCLUSIONS: The phobic or counter-phobic reactions shown in the study participants highlighted the importance of the reliability of the information received and how previous feelings may influence the perception of the information.

Predicted strain coverage of a meningococcal multicomponent vaccine (4CMenB) in Europe: a qualitative and quantitative assessment.

BACKGROUND: A novel multicomponent vaccine against meningococcal capsular group B (MenB) disease contains four major components: factor-H-binding protein, neisserial heparin binding antigen, neisserial adhesin A, and outer-membrane vesicles derived from the strain NZ98/254. Because the public health effect of the vaccine, 4CMenB (Novartis Vaccines and Diagnostics, Siena, Italy), is unclear, we assessed the predicted strain coverage in Europe. METHODS: We assessed invasive MenB strains isolated mainly in the most recent full epidemiological year in England and Wales, France, Germany, Italy, and Norway. Meningococcal antigen typing system (MATS) results were linked to multilocus sequence typing and antigen sequence data. To investigate whether generalisation of coverage applied to the rest of Europe, we also assessed isolates from the Czech Republic and Spain. FINDINGS: 1052 strains collected from July, 2007, to June, 2008, were assessed from England and Wales, France, Germany, Italy, and Norway. All MenB strains contained at least one gene encoding a major antigen in the vaccine. MATS predicted that 78% of all MenB strains would be killed by postvaccination sera (95% CI 63-90, range of point estimates 73-87% in individual country panels). Half of all strains and 64% of covered strains could be targeted by bactericidal antibodies against more than one vaccine antigen. Results for the 108 isolates from the Czech Republic and 300 from Spain were consistent with those for the other countries. INTERPRETATION: MATS analysis showed that a multicomponent vaccine could protect against a substantial proportion of invasive MenB strains isolated in Europe. Monitoring of antigen expression, however, will be needed in the future. FUNDING: Novartis Vaccines and Diagnostics.

Validation aspects of the health of the nation outcome scales.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of the current study was the psychometric evaluation of the Health of the Nation Outcome Scales (HoNOS), an instrument developed to meet the necessity of a clinically acceptable outcome scale for routine use in mental illness services. METHODS: The study participants included 2,162 outpatients and residential inpatients (rated on the HoNOS on three occasions during the year 2000) with a range of mental illnesses in different diagnostic groups from ten Mental Health Departments, located in the area of Milan (Italy). Principal Component Analysis, Confirmatory Factor Analysis, Discriminant Analysis and Partial Credit Rasch Model were used to assess two sources of validity: the internal structure and the relationships with other variables. RESULTS: The results of the 12-item HoNOS demonstrate a significant departure from uni-dimensionality, confirmed by the Rasch analysis (which identified three misfitting items). However, HoNOS scores demonstrate stability and precision of item difficulties over time. Discriminant analysis showed that HoNOS scores have an acceptable level of discriminatory power in predicting the severity of patients' conditions (as represented by setting). CONCLUSIONS: It was concluded that the Italian version of the HoNOS does not measure a single, underlying construct of mental health status. The internal structure validity analysis recommends a note of caution to use a summary index of the HoNOS scores, given the presence of multidimensionality and misfit. Nonetheless, the finding that the instrument is more multidimensional than unidimensional does not preclude the use of the HoNOS as a clinically valid tool for routine outcome assessment. In fact, item scores have demonstrated sufficient reliability (over diagnostic groups and care settings) and high precision in time, indicating that HoNOS items can be utilized as valid measurement instruments in longitudinal analyses.