Cause-Specific Excess Mortality During the COVID-19 Pandemic (2020-2021) in 12 Countries of the C-MOR Consortium.

BACKGROUND: This study investigated cause-specific mortality rates in 12 countries during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 and 2021. METHODS: We collected weekly cause-specific mortality data from respiratory disease, pneumonia, cardiovascular disease (CVD) and cancer from national vital statistic databases. We calculated excess mortality for respiratory disease (excluding COVID-19 codes), pneumonia, and CVD in 2020 and 2021 by comparing observed weekly against expected mortality based on historical data (2015-2019), accounting for seasonal trends. We used multilevel regression models to investigate the association between country-level pandemic-related variables and cause-specific mortality. RESULTS: Significant reductions in cumulative mortality from respiratory disease and pneumonia were observed in 2020 and/or 2021, except for Georgia, Northern Ireland, Kazakhstan, and Ukraine, which exhibited excess mortality for one or both causes. Australia, Austria, Cyprus, Georgia, and Northern Ireland experienced excess cumulative CVD mortality in 2020 and/or 2021. Australia, Austria, Brazil, Cyprus, Georgia, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Slovenia, experienced increased crude cumulative cancer mortality during 2020 and/or 2021 compared to previous years. Among pandemic-related variables, reported COVID-19 incidence was negatively associated with increased cancer mortality, excess respiratory, (2020) and pneumonia (2021) mortality, and positively associated with respiratory and CVD mortality (2021). Stringency of control measures were negatively associated with excess respiratory disease, CVD, and increased cancer mortality (2021). CONCLUSIONS: This study provides evidence of substantial excess mortality from CVD, and notable reductions in respiratory disease and pneumonia in both years across most countries investigated. Our study also highlights the beneficial impact of stringent control measures in mitigating excess mortality from most causes in 2021.

Advancing the scientific study of prehospital mass casualty response through a Translational Science process: the T1 scoping literature review stage.

PURPOSE: The European Union Horizon 2020 research and innovation funding program awarded the NIGHTINGALE grant to develop a toolkit to support first responders engaged in prehospital (PH) mass casualty incident (MCI) response. To reach the projects' objectives, the NIGHTINGALE consortium used a Translational Science (TS) process. The present work is the first TS stage (T1) aimed to extract data relevant for the subsequent modified Delphi study (T2) statements. METHODS: The authors were divided into three work groups (WGs) MCI Triage, PH Life Support and Damage Control (PHLSDC), and PH Processes (PHP). Each WG conducted simultaneous literature searches following the PRISMA extension for scoping reviews. Relevant data were extracted from the included articles and indexed using pre-identified PH MCI response themes and subthemes. RESULTS: The initial search yielded 925 total references to be considered for title and abstract review (MCI Triage 311, PHLSDC 329, PHP 285), then 483 articles for full reference review (MCI Triage 111, PHLSDC 216, PHP 156), and finally 152 articles for the database extraction process (MCI Triage 27, PHLSDC 37, PHP 88). Most frequent subthemes and novel concepts have been identified as a basis for the elaboration of draft statements for the T2 modified Delphi study. CONCLUSION: The three simultaneous scoping reviews allowed the extraction of relevant PH MCI subthemes and novel concepts that will enable the NIGHTINGALE consortium to create scientifically anchored statements in the T2 modified Delphi study.

A Socio-Health Approach to Improve Local Disaster Resilience and Contain Secondary Crises: A Case Study in an Agricultural Community Exposed to Bushfires in Australia.

Recent large-scale disasters have exposed the interconnected nature of modern societies, exacerbating the risk of cascading impacts. Examining elements of community health status, such as social determinants of health, their perceived health status, and how they relate to disaster resilience, can illuminate alternative actions for cost-effective disaster prevention and management. Moreover, agricultural communities are essential to food security and provide a working example of the importance of mitigation in escalation of crises. To that aim, this research examines perceptions of the relationship between disaster resilience and determinants of health, including health status. Participants also reported their views on perceived vulnerable groups in their community and proposed design characteristics of more effective community disaster plans.Here investigated are these elements in a small agricultural community of Western Australia previously exposed to bushfires. A questionnaire was used based on health elements from the Social Determinants of Health described by the World Health Organization (WHO) and compared this with quantitative data describing the community health status. A mixed methods approach combining qualitative (semi-structured interview) and quantitative (closed questions using a Likert scale) tools was undertaken with a small group of community members.It was found that community connection and social capital were perceived to provide knowledge and support that enhanced individual disaster risk awareness and preparedness and improved an individual's disaster resilience. Stress and social exclusion within a community were perceived to decrease an individual's resilience to disaster. Disaster resilience was reported to be a function of good physical and mental health. To achieve effective disaster planning, community partnership in the development, education, and testing of plans and robust communication were described as essential traits in community emergency plans.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on total, sex- and age-specific all-cause mortality in 20 countries worldwide during 2020: results from the C-MOR project.

BACKGROUND: To understand the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on mortality, this study investigates overall, sex- and age-specific excess all-cause mortality in 20 countries, during 2020. METHODS: Total, sex- and age-specific weekly all-cause mortality for 2015-2020 was collected from national vital statistics databases. Excess mortality for 2020 was calculated by comparing weekly 2020 observed mortality against expected mortality, estimated from historical data (2015-2019) accounting for seasonality, long- and short-term trends. Crude and age-standardized rates were analysed for total and sex-specific mortality. RESULTS: Austria, Brazil, Cyprus, England and Wales, France, Georgia, Israel, Italy, Northern Ireland, Peru, Scotland, Slovenia, Sweden, and the USA displayed substantial excess age-standardized mortality of varying duration during 2020, while Australia, Denmark, Estonia, Mauritius, Norway, and Ukraine did not. In sex-specific analyses, excess mortality was higher in males than females, except for Slovenia (higher in females) and Cyprus (similar in both sexes). Lastly, for most countries substantial excess mortality was only detectable (Austria, Cyprus, Israel, and Slovenia) or was higher (Brazil, England and Wales, France, Georgia, Italy, Northern Ireland, Sweden, Peru and the USA) in the oldest age group investigated. Peru demonstrated substantial excess mortality even in the <45 age group. CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights that excess all-cause mortality during 2020 is context dependent, with specific countries, sex- and age-groups being most affected. As the pandemic continues, tracking excess mortality is important to accurately estimate the true toll of COVID-19, while at the same time investigating the effects of changing contexts, different variants, testing, quarantine, and vaccination strategies.

Premature mortality attributable to COVID-19: potential years of life lost in 17 countries around the world, January-August 2020.

BACKGROUND: Understanding the impact of the burden of COVID-19 is key to successfully navigating the COVID-19 pandemic. As part of a larger investigation on COVID-19 mortality impact, this study aims to estimate the Potential Years of Life Lost (PYLL) in 17 countries and territories across the world (Australia, Brazil, Cape Verde, Colombia, Cyprus, France, Georgia, Israel, Kazakhstan, Peru, Norway, England & Wales, Scotland, Slovenia, Sweden, Ukraine, and the United States [USA]). METHODS: Age- and sex-specific COVID-19 death numbers from primary national sources were collected by an international research consortium. The study period was established based on the availability of data from the inception of the pandemic to the end of August 2020. The PYLL for each country were computed using 80 years as the maximum life expectancy. RESULTS: As of August 2020, 442,677 (range: 18-185,083) deaths attributed to COVID-19 were recorded in 17 countries which translated to 4,210,654 (range: 112-1,554,225) PYLL. The average PYLL per death was 8.7 years, with substantial variation ranging from 2.7 years in Australia to 19.3 PYLL in Ukraine. North and South American countries as well as England & Wales, Scotland and Sweden experienced the highest PYLL per 100,000 population; whereas Australia, Slovenia and Georgia experienced the lowest. Overall, males experienced higher PYLL rate and higher PYLL per death than females. In most countries, most of the PYLL were observed for people aged over 60 or 65 years, irrespective of sex. Yet, Brazil, Cape Verde, Colombia, Israel, Peru, Scotland, Ukraine, and the USA concentrated most PYLL in younger age groups. CONCLUSIONS: Our results highlight the role of PYLL as a tool to understand the impact of COVID-19 on demographic groups within and across countries, guiding preventive measures to protect these groups under the ongoing pandemic. Continuous monitoring of PYLL is therefore needed to better understand the burden of COVID-19 in terms of premature mortality.

Improving Disaster Data Systems to Inform Disaster Risk Reduction and Resilience Building in Australia: A Comparison of Databases.

OBJECTIVE: Disaster impact databases are important resources for informing research, policy, and decision making. Therefore, understanding the underpinning methodology of data collection used by the databases, how they differ, and quality indicators of the data recorded is essential in ensuring that their use as reference points is valid. METHODS: The Australian Disaster Resilience Knowledge Hub (AIDRKH) is an open-source platform supported by government to inform disaster management practice. A comparative descriptive review of the Disaster Mapper (hosted at AIDRKH) and the international Emergency Events Database (EM-DAT) was undertaken to identify differences in how Australian disasters are captured and measured. RESULTS: The results show substantial variation in identification and classification of disasters across hazard impacts and hazard types and a lack of data structure for the systematic reporting of contextual and impact variables. CONCLUSIONS: These differences may have implications for reporting, academic analysis, and thus knowledge management informing disaster prevention and response policy or plans. Consistency in reporting methods based on international classification standards is recommended to improve the validity and usefulness of this Australian database.

Health Impacts of Volcanic Activity in Oceania.

Volcanoes cause a wide range of hazardous phenomena. Close to volcanic vents, hazards can be highly dangerous and destructive and include pyroclastic flows and surges, ballistic projectiles, lava flows, lahars, thick ashfalls, and gas and aerosol emissions. Direct health impacts include trauma, burns, and exacerbation of respiratory diseases. Far-reaching volcanic hazards include volcanic ashfalls, gas and aerosol dispersion, and lahars. Within Oceania, the island arc countries of Papua New Guinea (PNG), the Solomon Islands, Vanuatu, Tonga, and New Zealand are the most at-risk from volcanic activity. Since 1500ad, approximately 10,000 lives have been lost due to volcanic activity across Oceania, with 39 lives lost since 2000. While volcano monitoring and surveillance save lives, residual risks remain from small, sudden, unheralded eruptions, such as the December 9, 2019 eruption of Whakaari/White Island volcano, New Zealand which has a death toll of 21 at the time of writing. Widespread volcanic ashfalls can affect the habitability of downwind communities by contaminating water supplies, damaging crops and buildings, and degrading indoor and outdoor air quality, as well as disrupting transport and communication networks and access to health services. While the fatality rate due to volcanic eruptions may be low, far greater numbers of people may be affected by volcanic activity with approximately 100,000 people in PNG and Vanuatu displaced since 2000. It is challenging to manage health impacts for displaced people, particularly in low-income countries where events such as eruptions occur against a background of low, variable vaccination rates, high prevalence of infectious diseases, poor sanitation infrastructure, and poor nutritional status. As a case study, the 2017-2018 eruption of Ambae volcano, Vanuatu caused no casualties but triggered two separate mandatory off-island evacuations of the entire population of approximately 11,700 people. On the neighboring island of Santo, a health disaster response was coordinated by local government and provided acute care when evacuees arrived. Involving primary care clinicians in this setting enhanced local capacity for health care provision and allowed for an improved understanding of the impact of displacement on evacuee communities.

A T2 Translational Science Modified Delphi Study: Spinal Motion Restriction in a Resource-Scarce Environment.

INTRODUCTION: Emerging evidence is guiding changes in prehospital management of potential spinal injuries. The majority of settings related to current recommendations are in resource-rich environments (RREs), whereas there is a lack of guidance on the provision of spinal motion restriction (SMR) in resource-scarce environments (RSEs), such as: mass-casualty incidents (MCIs); low-middle income countries; complex humanitarian emergencies; conflict zones; and prolonged transport times. The application of Translational Science (TS) in the Disaster Medicine (DM) context was used to develop this study, leading to statements that can be used in the creation of evidence-based clinical guidelines (CGs). OBJECTIVE: What is appropriate SMR in RSEs? METHODS: The first round of this modified Delphi (mD) study was a structured focus group conducted at the World Association for Disaster and Emergency Medicine (WADEM) Congress in Brisbane Australia on May 9, 2019. The result of the focus group discussion of open-ended questions produced ten statements that were added to ten statements derived from Fischer (2018) to create the second mD round questionnaire.Academic researchers and educators, operational first responders, or first receivers of patients with suspected spinal injuries were identified to be mD experts. Experts rated their agreement with each statement on a seven-point linear numeric scale. Consensus amongst experts was defined as a standard deviation ≤1.0. Statements that were in agreement reaching consensus were included in the final report; those that were not in agreement but reached consensus were removed from further consideration. Those not reaching consensus advanced to the third mD round.For subsequent rounds, experts were shown the mean response and their own response for each of the remaining statements and asked to reconsider their rating. As above, those that did not reach consensus advanced to the next round until consensus was reached for each statement. RESULTS: Twenty-two experts agreed to participate with 19 completing the second mD round and 16 completing the third mD round. Eleven statements reached consensus. Nine statements did not reach consensus. CONCLUSIONS: Experts reached consensus offering 11 statements to be incorporated into the creation of SMR CGs in RSEs. The nine statements that did not reach consensus can be further studied and potentially modified to determine if these can be considered in SMR CGs in RSEs.

Spinal Immobilization in Disasters: A Systematic Review.

In response to the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation (ILCOR; Niel, Belgium) release of an updated recommendation related to out-of-hospital spinal immobilization (SI) practice in 2015, a systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist of English-language studies published from January 2000 through July 2019 on the use of SI in resource-scarce environments (RSEs). Studies meeting the following criteria were included in the analysis: peer-reviewed statistical studies or reports detailing management of potential traumatic spinal injury in RSE, civilian, and military environments; as well as consensus clinical guidelines, academic center, or professional association protocols or policy statements detailing management of potential traumatic spinal injury in RSE, civilian, and military environments; statistical analysis; and subsequent management of spinal injuries after mass-casualty incidents, in complex humanitarian events or conflict zones, low-to middle-income countries, or prolonged transport times published by government and non-government organizations. Studies excluded from consideration were those not related to a patient with a potential traumatic spinal injury after a mass-casualty incident, in complex humanitarian event or conflict zones, in low-to middle-income countries, or with prolonged transport times.There were one thousand twenty-nine (1029) studies initially identified. After removal of duplicates, nine hundred-nineteen (919) were screened with eight hundred sixty-three (863) excluded. The remaining fifty-six (56) received further review with fourteen (14) selected studies achieving inclusion. The reviewed articles comprised six (6) types of studies and represented research from institutions in seven (7) different countries (Israel, United States, Haiti, Wales, Pakistan, China, and Iran). Thirteen (13) references were case reports/narrative reviews, policy statements, retrospective observational studies, narrative literature reviews, scoping reviews, and one systematic review. The majority of literature describing spinal cord injury was predominantly associated with earthquakes and blast-related disasters. There were no SI evidence-based clinical guidelines (EBG) in RSE. Information was obtained that could be used to formulate statements in a modified Delphi study to present to experts to obtain consensus SI EBG in RSE.

Current and Emerging Disaster Risks Perceptions in Oceania: Key Stakeholders Recommendations for Disaster Management and Resilience Building.

Identification and profiling of current and emerging disaster risks is essential to inform effective disaster risk management practice. Without clear evidence, readiness to accept future threats is low, resulting in decreased ability to detect and anticipate these new threats. A consequential decreased strategic planning for mitigation, adaptation or response results in a lowered resilience capacity. This study aimed to investigate threats to the health and well-being of societies associated with disaster impact in Oceania. The study used a mixed methods approach to profile current and emerging disaster risks in selected countries of Oceania, including small and larger islands. Quantitative analysis of the International Disaster Database (EM-DAT) provided historical background on disaster impact in Oceania from 2000 to 2018. The profile of recorded events was analyzed to describe the current burden of disasters in the Oceania region. A total of 30 key informant interviews with practitioners, policy managers or academics in disaster management in the Oceania region provided first-hand insights into their perceptions of current and emerging threats, and identified opportunities to enhance disaster risk management practice and resilience in Oceania. Qualitative methods were used to analyze these key informant interviews. Using thematic analysis, we identified emerging disaster risk evidence from the data and explored new pathways to support decision-making on resilience building and disaster management. We characterized perceptions of the nature and type of contemporary and emerging disaster risk with potential impacts in Oceania. The study findings captured not only traditional and contemporary risks, such as climate change, but also less obvious ones, such as plastic pollution, rising inequality, uncontrolled urbanization, and food and water insecurity, which were perceived as contributors to current and/or future crises, or as crises themselves. The findings provided insights into how to improve disaster management more effectively, mainly through bottom-up approaches and education to increase risk-ownership and community action, enhanced political will, good governance practices and support of a people-centric approach.

Special Report: WADEM Climate Change Position Statement.

The World Association for Disaster and Emergency Medicine (WADEM; Madison, Wisconsin USA) is a multi-disciplinary professional association whose mission is the global improvement of prehospital and emergency health care, public health, and disaster health and preparedness. In April 2017, the biennial general meeting of the World Congress for Disaster and Emergency Medicine (WCDEM) endorsed the WADEM Climate Change Position Statement, which was subsequently published in Prehospital and Disaster Medicine in July 2017. This special report examines literature used and reviews the process of development of this Position Statement as a product of WADEM.Cuthbertson J, Archer F, Robertson A. Special report: WADEM climate change position statement. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2018;33(4):428-431.