The COVID-19 pandemic has affected many healthcare services worldwide. Like many other nations, the Netherlands experienced large numbers of individuals affected by COVID-19 in 2020, leading to... Show moreThe COVID-19 pandemic has affected many healthcare services worldwide. Like many other nations, the Netherlands experienced large numbers of individuals affected by COVID-19 in 2020, leading to increased demands on hospitals and intensive care units. The Dutch Ministry of Health decided to suspend the Dutch biennial fecal immunochemical test (FIT) based colorectal cancer (CRC) screening program from March 16, 2020. FIT invitations were resumed on June 3. In this study, we describe the short-term effects of this suspension on a myriad of relevant screening outcomes. As a result of the suspension, a quarter of the individuals due for screening between March and November 2020 had not received their invitation for FIT screening by November 30, 2020. Furthermore, 57.8% of those who received a consecutive FIT between the restart and November 30, 2020, received it outside the upper limit of the standard screening interval (26 months). Median time between positive FIT and colonoscopy did not change as a result of the pandemic. Participation rates of FIT screening and follow-up colonoscopy in the months just before and during the suspension were significantly lower than expected, but returned to normal levels after the suspension. Based on the anticipated 2020 cohort size, we estimate that the number of individuals with advanced neoplasia currently detected up until November 2020 was 31.2% lower compared to what would have been expected without a pandemic. Future studies should monitor the impact on long-term screening outcomes as a result of the pandemic. Show less
With increasing age, associations between traditional risk factors (TRFs) and cardiovascular disease (CVD) shift. It is unknown which mid-life risk factors remain relevant predictors for CVD in... Show moreWith increasing age, associations between traditional risk factors (TRFs) and cardiovascular disease (CVD) shift. It is unknown which mid-life risk factors remain relevant predictors for CVD in older people.We systematically searched PubMed and EMBASE on August 16th 2019 for studies assessing predictive ability of > 1 of fourteen TRFs for fatal and non-fatal CVD, in the general population aged 60 + .We included 12 studies, comprising 11 unique cohorts. TRF were evaluated in 2 to 11 cohorts, and retained in 0-70% of the cohorts: age (70%), diabetes (64%), male sex (57%), systolic blood pressure (SBP) (50%), smoking (36%), high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL) (33%), left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) (33%), total cholesterol (22%), diastolic blood pressure (20%), antihypertensive medication use (AHM) (20%), body mass index (BMI) (0%), hypertension (0%), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (0%). In studies with low to moderate risk of bias, systolic blood pressure (SBP) (80%), smoking (80%) and HDL cholesterol (60%) were more often retained. Model performance was moderate with C-statistics ranging from 0.61 to 0.77.Compared to middle-aged adults, in people aged 60 + different risk factors predict CVD and current prediction models perform only moderate at best. According to most studies, age, sex and diabetes seem valuable predictors of CVD in old-age. SBP, HDL cholesterol and smoking may also have predictive value. Other blood pressure and cholesterol related variables, BMI, and LVH seem of very limited or no additional value. Without competing risk analysis, predictors are overestimated. Show less
Introduction. A smoking prevention program was developed to prepare children in elementary school for secondary school. This study assessed the effects on smoking in secondary school. Methods. In... Show moreIntroduction. A smoking prevention program was developed to prepare children in elementary school for secondary school. This study assessed the effects on smoking in secondary school. Methods. In 2002, 121 schools in The Netherlands were randomly assigned to the intervention or control group. The intervention group received 3 lessons in 5th grade of elementary school and a second 3 lessons in 6th grade. The control group received "usual care". Students completed 5 questionnaires: before and after the lessons in 5th and 6th grade and in the first class of secondary school. At baseline, 3173 students completed the questionnaire; 57% completed all questionnaires. Results. The program had limited effect at the end of elementary school. One year later in secondary school significant effects on behavioral determinants and smoking were found. The intervention group had a higher intention not to smoke (beta=0.13, 95% confidence interval = 0.01-0.24) and started to smoke less often than the control group (odds ratio = 0.59,95% confidence interval = 0.35-0.99): smoking increased from 2.5% to 3.6% in the intervention group and from 3.2% to 6.5% in the control group. Girls showed the largest differences in smoking between intervention and control condition. Conclusions. A prevention program in elementary school seems to be effective in preventing smoking. (c) 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Show less
