Lessons from SARS: A retrospective study of outpatient care during an infectious disease outbreak

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>During severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) outbreak in Toronto, outpatient clinics at SickKids Hospital were closed to prevent further disease transmission. In response, a decision was made by the neonatal neuro-developmental follow up (NNFU) clinic staff to select patients with scheduled appointments to have a mail/telephone assessment using Ages and Stages Questionnaire (ASQ) or to postpone/skip their visit. The objective of this study was to compare the developmental assessment and its outcome in two groups of NNFU clinic patients, SARS versus non-SARS, over three standard clinic appointments.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We compared the diagnostic accuracy (identification of developmental delay), and patient management (referral for therapy or communication of a new diagnosis) of the strategies used during SARS, April/May 2003, to the standard assessment methods used for patients seen in April/May 2005 (non-SARS). In all cases data were obtained for 3 patient visits: before, during and after these 2 months and were compared using descriptive statistics.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>There were 95 patients in the SARS group and 99 non-SARS patients. The gestational age, sex, entry diagnosis and age at the clinic visit was not different between the groups. The NNFU clinic staff mailed ASQ to 27 families during SARS, 17 (63%) were returned, and 8 of the 17 were then contacted by telephone. Criteria used to identify infants at risk selected for either mailed ASQ or phone interviews were not clearly defined in the patients' charts. There was a significant under identification of developmental delay during SARS (18% versus 45%). Of those who responded to the mailed questionnaire, referrals for therapy rates were similar to non-SARS group. The lost to follow up rate was 24% for the SARS group compared with 7% for non-SARS. There was no difference in the overall rate of developmental delay in the two groups as identified at the 'after' visit.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Poor advanced planning led to a haphazard assessment of patients during this infectious disease outbreak. Future pandemic plans should consider planning for outpatient care as well as in hospital management of patients.</p

Health risk factors associated with meat, fruit and vegetable consumption in cohort studies: A comprehensive meta-analysis

The aim of this study was to perform a meta-analysis to test the association between red, processed, and total meat, as well as fruit and vegetable consumption, and selected health risk factors, including body weight status, smoking habit, physical activity level, level of education, and alcohol drinking in cohort studies on non-communicable disease. A systematic search of electronic databases was performed to identify relevant articles published up to March 2017. In a two-stage approach, frequency-weighted linear regression coefficients were first calculated for each variable, and then combined across studies through meta-regression. Ninety-eight studies including 20 on red meat, 6 on processed meat, 12 on total meat, 37 on fruit and vegetable combined, 21 on fruit and 24 on vegetable consumption were analyzed. Intake of red meat was positively associated with BMI, percentage of overweight and obese, low physical activity, and current and ever smoking and inversely associated with percentage of non-smokers and high physically active individuals. Similar associations were found for red meat were found, although based on fewer data. Intake of fruits and vegetables was positively associated with prevalence of non-smokers, high education and high physical activity, and similar results were found when examining fruit and vegetable consumption separately. Stratification by geographical area revealed that some associations were stronger in US rather than European or Asian cohorts. In conclusions, the distribution of health risk factors associated with high meat and fruit/vegetable consumption may differ from those of low-consumers. Some of these differences may mediate, confound, or modify the relation between diet and non-communicable disease risk