Self-reported health needs and use of primary health care services by adolescents enrolled in post-mandatory schools or vocational training programmes in Switzerland.

BACKGROUND: The second Swiss Multicenter Adolescent Survey on Health (SMASH02) was conducted among a representative sample (n = 7428) of students and apprentices aged 16 to 20 from the three language areas of Switzerland during the year 2002. This paper reports on health needs expressed by adolescents and their use of health care services over the 12 months preceding the survey. METHODS: Nineteen cantons representing 80% of the resident population agreed to participate. A complex iterative random cluster sample of 600 classes was drawn with classes as primary sampling unit. The participation rate was 97.7% for the classes and 99.8% for the youths in attendance. The self-administered questionnaire included 565 items. The median rate of item non-response was 1.8%. Ethical and legal requirements applying to surveys of adolescent populations were respected. RESULTS: Overall more than 90% of adolescents felt in good to excellent health. Suffering often or very often from different physical complaints or pain was also reported such as headache (boys: 15.9%, girls: 37.4%), stomach-ache (boys: 9.7%, girls: 30.0%), joint pain (boys: 24.7%, girls: 29.5%) or back pain (boys: 24.3%, girls: 34.7%). Many adolescents reported a need for help on psychosocial and lifestyle issues, such as stress (boys: 28.5%, girls: 47.7%) or depression (boys: 18.9%, girls: 34.4%). Although about 75% of adolescents reported having consulted a general practitioner and about one-third having seen another specialist, reported reasons for visits do not correspond to the expressed needs. Less than 10% of adolescents had visited a psychiatrist, a family planning centre or a social worker. CONCLUSIONS: The reported rates of health services utilisation by adolescents does not match the substantial reported needs for help in various areas. This may indicate that the corresponding problems are not adequately detected and/or addressed by professionals from the health and social sectors.

Screening primary-care patients forgoing health care for economic reasons.

BACKGROUND: Growing social inequities have made it important for general practitioners to verify if patients can afford treatment and procedures. Incorporating social conditions into clinical decision-making allows general practitioners to address mismatches between patients' health-care needs and financial resources. OBJECTIVES: Identify a screening question to, indirectly, rule out patients' social risk of forgoing health care for economic reasons, and estimate prevalence of forgoing health care and the influence of physicians' attitudes toward deprivation. DESIGN: Multicenter cross-sectional survey. PARTICIPANTS: Forty-seven general practitioners working in the French-speaking part of Switzerland enrolled a random sample of patients attending their private practices. MAIN MEASURES: Patients who had forgone health care were defined as those reporting a household member (including themselves) having forgone treatment for economic reasons during the previous 12 months, through a self-administered questionnaire. Patients were also asked about education and income levels, self-perceived social position, and deprivation levels. KEY RESULTS: Overall, 2,026 patients were included in the analysis; 10.7% (CI95% 9.4-12.1) reported a member of their household to have forgone health care during the 12 previous months. The question "Did you have difficulties paying your household bills during the last 12 months" performed better in identifying patients at risk of forgoing health care than a combination of four objective measures of socio-economic status (gender, age, education level, and income) (R(2) = 0.184 vs. 0.083). This question effectively ruled out that patients had forgone health care, with a negative predictive value of 96%. Furthermore, for physicians who felt powerless in the face of deprivation, we observed an increase in the odds of patients forgoing health care of 1.5 times. CONCLUSION: General practitioners should systematically evaluate the socio-economic status of their patients. Asking patients whether they experience any difficulties in paying their bills is an effective means of identifying patients who might forgo health care.

The occurrence of intra-operative hypotension varies between hospitals: observational analysis of more than 147,000 anaesthesia.

BACKGROUND: Hypotension, a common intra-operative incident, bears an important potential for morbidity. It is most often manageable and sometimes preventable, which renders its study important. Therefore, we aimed at examining hospital variations in the occurrence of intra-operative hypotension and its predictors. As secondary endpoints, we determined to what extent hypotension relates to the risk of post-operative incidents and death. METHODS: We used the Anaesthesia Databank Switzerland, built on routinely and prospectively collected data on all anaesthesias in 21 hospitals. The three outcomes were assessed using multi-level logistic regression models. RESULTS: Among 147,573 anaesthesias, hypotension ranged from 0.6% to 5.2% in participating hospitals, and from 0.3% up to 12% in different surgical specialties. Most (73.4%) were minor single events. Age, ASA status, combined general and regional anaesthesia techniques, duration of surgery and hospitalization were significantly associated with hypotension. Although significantly associated, the emergency status of the surgery had a weaker effect. Hospitals' odds ratios for hypotension varied between 0.12 and 2.50 (P < or = 0.001), even after adjusting for patient and anaesthesia factors, and for type of surgery. At least one post-operative incident occurred in 9.7% of the procedures, including 0.03% deaths. Intra-operative hypotension was associated with a higher risk of post-operative incidents and death. CONCLUSION: Wide variations remain in the occurrence of hypotension among hospitals after adjustment for risk factors. Although differential reporting from hospitals may exist, variations in anaesthesia techniques and blood pressure maintenance may also have contributed. Intra-operative hypotension is associated with morbidities and sometimes death, and constant vigilance must thus be advocated.

Comparing potentially avoidable hospitalization rates related to ambulatory care sensitive conditions in Switzerland: the need to refine the definition of health conditions and to adjust for population health status.

BACKGROUND: Regional rates of hospitalization for ambulatory care sensitive conditions (ACSC) are used to compare the availability and quality of ambulatory care but the risk adjustment for population health status is often minimal. The objectives of the study was to examine the impact of more extensive risk adjustment on regional comparisons and to investigate the relationship between various area-level factors and the properly adjusted rates. METHODS: Our study is an observational study based on routine data of 2 million anonymous insured in 26 Swiss cantons followed over one or two years. A binomial negative regression was modeled with increasingly detailed information on health status (age and gender only, inpatient diagnoses, outpatient conditions inferred from dispensed drugs and frequency of physician visits). Hospitalizations for ACSC were identified from principal diagnoses detecting 19 conditions, with an updated list of ICD-10 diagnostic codes. Co-morbidities and surgical procedures were used as exclusion criteria to improve the specificity of the detection of potentially avoidable hospitalizations. The impact of the adjustment approaches was measured by changes in the standardized ratios calculated with and without other data besides age and gender. RESULTS: 25% of cases identified by inpatient main diagnoses were removed by applying exclusion criteria. Cantonal ACSC hospitalizations rates varied from to 1.4 to 8.9 per 1,000 insured, per year. Morbidity inferred from diagnoses and drugs dramatically increased the predictive performance, the greatest effect found for conditions linked to an ACSC. More visits were associated with fewer PAH although very high users were at greater risk and subjects who had not consulted at negligible risk. By maximizing health status adjustment, two thirds of the cantons changed their adjusted ratio by more than 10 percent. Cantonal variations remained substantial but unexplained by supply or demand. CONCLUSION: Additional adjustment for health status is required when using ACSC to monitor ambulatory care. Drug-inferred morbidities are a promising approach.

Global surveillance of cancer survival 1995-2009 : analysis of individual data for 25 676 887 patients from 279 population-based registries in 67 countries (CONCORD-2)

BACKGROUND: Worldwide data for cancer survival are scarce. We aimed to initiate worldwide surveillance of cancer survival by central analysis of population-based registry data, as a metric of the effectiveness of health systems, and to inform global policy on cancer control. METHODS: Individual tumour records were submitted by 279 population-based cancer registries in 67 countries for 25·7 million adults (age 15-99 years) and 75 000 children (age 0-14 years) diagnosed with cancer during 1995-2009 and followed up to Dec 31, 2009, or later. We looked at cancers of the stomach, colon, rectum, liver, lung, breast (women), cervix, ovary, and prostate in adults, and adult and childhood leukaemia. Standardised quality control procedures were applied; errors were corrected by the registry concerned. We estimated 5-year net survival, adjusted for background mortality in every country or region by age (single year), sex, and calendar year, and by race or ethnic origin in some countries. Estimates were age-standardised with the International Cancer Survival Standard weights. FINDINGS: 5-year survival from colon, rectal, and breast cancers has increased steadily in most developed countries. For patients diagnosed during 2005-09, survival for colon and rectal cancer reached 60% or more in 22 countries around the world; for breast cancer, 5-year survival rose to 85% or higher in 17 countries worldwide. Liver and lung cancer remain lethal in all nations: for both cancers, 5-year survival is below 20% everywhere in Europe, in the range 15-19% in North America, and as low as 7-9% in Mongolia and Thailand. Striking rises in 5-year survival from prostate cancer have occurred in many countries: survival rose by 10-20% between 1995-99 and 2005-09 in 22 countries in South America, Asia, and Europe, but survival still varies widely around the world, from less than 60% in Bulgaria and Thailand to 95% or more in Brazil, Puerto Rico, and the USA. For cervical cancer, national estimates of 5-year survival range from less than 50% to more than 70%; regional variations are much wider, and improvements between 1995-99 and 2005-09 have generally been slight. For women diagnosed with ovarian cancer in 2005-09, 5-year survival was 40% or higher only in Ecuador, the USA, and 17 countries in Asia and Europe. 5-year survival for stomach cancer in 2005-09 was high (54-58%) in Japan and South Korea, compared with less than 40% in other countries. By contrast, 5-year survival from adult leukaemia in Japan and South Korea (18-23%) is lower than in most other countries. 5-year survival from childhood acute lymphoblastic leukaemia is less than 60% in several countries, but as high as 90% in Canada and four European countries, which suggests major deficiencies in the management of a largely curable disease. INTERPRETATION: International comparison of survival trends reveals very wide differences that are likely to be attributable to differences in access to early diagnosis and optimum treatment. Continuous worldwide surveillance of cancer survival should become an indispensable source of information for cancer patients and researchers and a stimulus for politicians to improve health policy and health-care systems. FUNDING: Canadian Partnership Against Cancer (Toronto, Canada), Cancer Focus Northern Ireland (Belfast, UK), Cancer Institute New South Wales (Sydney, Australia), Cancer Research UK (London, UK), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (Atlanta, GA, USA), Swiss Re (London, UK), Swiss Cancer Research foundation (Bern, Switzerland), Swiss Cancer League (Bern, Switzerland), and University of Kentucky (Lexington, KY, USA).