Suchergebnisse

Background: Measures for containing the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 and 2021 resulted in drastic changes in physical activity and dietary habits that also impacted body weight. Methods: The representative study German Health Update (GEDA 2021) includes self-reported information about body weight and body height for adults aged 18 years and older (n=2,985) from July to October 2021. In addition, the study asked about changes in body weight since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. Results: For 59% of participants, body weight has not changed since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, 26% report weight gain, and 15% report weight loss. Younger people indicate weight gain more often than older people, and individuals with obesity report weight gain more often than individuals without obesity. 1.5 years after the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, the average weight change within the population is approximately +0.34kg. Conclusions: The effects of restrictions in everyday life with regard to the possible negative impacts on body weight should be given greater consideration and should be monitored in the future.

In Anbetracht des wachsenden finanziellen Drucks auf die sozialen Sicherungssysteme drängt sich immer stärker die Frage auf, ob sich in Zukunft die Errungenschaften der modernen Medizin im Rahmen einer allgemeinen Gesundheitsversorgung bei weitgehend stabilen Beitragssätzen zur gesetzlichen Krankenversicherung (GKV) überhaupt noch finanzieren lassen. Die in den inzwischen zahlreich vorliegenden Untersuchungen formulierten Vorschläge für Maßnahmen zur Weiterentwicklung des Gesundheitssystems zielen überwiegend darauf ab, einerseits die Kosten im Gesundheitssystem zu begrenzen und andererseits die Eigenverantwortung der Patienten und Versicherten im Hinblick auf eine gesundheitsbewusste Lebensführung, individuelle Eigenvorsorge und Kostenbewusstsein zu stärken. Die Auswirkungen derartiger Maßnahmen auf die Versorgungssituation der Bürger werden im Einzelnen in der Regel nicht untersucht bzw. als bekannt angenommen. Insbesondere deren Akzeptabilität für die Patienten und Versicherten und damit auch ihre politische Umsetzbarkeit werden kaum thematisiert.

Hintergrund: Kindertageseinrichtungen (Kitas) spielen eine wichtige gesellschaftspolitische Rolle; gleichzeitig begünstigt der enge Kontakt der Kinder in Kitagruppen untereinander und mit Beschäftigten die Übertragung von Infektionen. In der COVID-19-Pandemie ergaben sich die Fragen, wie Infektionsgeschehen in Kitas verlaufen, welche Rolle Kitakinder in der Pandemie spielen und welche Schutz- und Hygienemaßnahmen in Kitas umgesetzt werden. Von 06/2020 bis 12/2021 wird die "Corona-KiTa-Studie" durchgeführt, in der pädagogische und infektionsepidemiologische Themen gemeinsam bearbeitet werden. Methoden: In der Studie werden Daten aus unterschiedlichen Quellen erhoben. Es werden amtliche Meldedaten sowie wöchentliche Angaben von Kitas im sog. KiTa-Register kontinuierlich ausgewertet. Zudem werden SARS-CoV-2-Ausbrüche in Kitas vor Ort durch wiederholte Probengewinnung und Befragungen untersucht. Ergebnisse: Das SARS-CoV-2-Infektionsgeschehen in Kitas bzw. bei Kindern im Kitaalter war von 03/2020 bis 05/2021 sehr dynamisch. In der 2. und 3. Pandemiewelle stiegen SARS-CoV-2-Ausbrüche in Kitas deutlich an, begleitet von einer erheblichen Zunahme an Kita- und Gruppenschließungen. Zuletzt erhöhte sich der Anteil der betroffenen Kinder bei den Ausbrüchen kontinuierlich. Allerdings ergab die erste Untersuchung von SARS-CoV-2-Ausbrüchen (n = 28), dass bei kindlichen Indexfällen im Schnitt nur ein Bruchteil der Kitakontakte (6,8 %) angesteckt wurde. Die Übertragungshäufigkeiten unterschieden sich zwischen einzelnen Kitas deutlich. Diskussion: Die Zusammenführung von regelmäßig erhobenen Melde- und Befragungsdaten sowie Ausbruchsuntersuchungen ermöglicht ein vielschichtiges Monitoring des Infektionsgeschehens in Kitas, dessen Ergebnisse in Empfehlungen für Public-Health-Maßnahmen einfließen können. ; Background: Daycare centers are of substantial sociopolitical and pedagogical relevance; at the same time, the close contact of children in daycare groups among each other and with employees favors the transmission of infections. ...

Die Ausbreitung des Coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 im Jahr 2020 und die damit einhergehenden Eindämmungsmaßnahmen haben viele Bereiche des alltäglichen Lebens verändert. Vermutet wird ein Einfluss auf die Gesundheit auch jenseits des Infektionsgeschehens. Deshalb wurde mit Daten der Studie Gesundheit in Deutschland aktuell (GEDA 2019/2020-EHIS) die gesundheitliche Lage der Bevölkerung in der ersten Pandemiephase analysiert. Mit der Fortführung der Befragungen werden die Analysen für das Jahr 2020 vervollständigt (n = 26.507 Teilnehmende), wobei nun der Fokus auf der dritten Pandemiephase (zweite Infektionswelle, sukzessive Wiedereinführung von Eindämmungsmaßnahmen) liegt. Die Gesundheitsindikatoren werden monatsweise dargestellt. Wie schon in der ersten Pandemiephase sind beim Tabakrauchen/der Passivrauchbelastung und bei erhaltener/fehlender/geleisteter Unterstützung keine pandemiebedingten Veränderungen zu beobachten. Rückgänge bei der Inanspruchnahme ärztlicher Leistungen sowie der depressiven Symptomatik sind in der dritten Pandemiephase, im Gegensatz zur ersten, nicht zu beobachten. Der Anstieg beim Körpergewicht/Body Mass Index nach der ersten Pandemiephase hat sich nicht fortgesetzt. Der Erhebungszeitraum erlaubt einen Vergleich der Zeiträume vor und ab pandemischer Lage. Es wird ein Rückgang bei der Inanspruchnahme ärztlicher Leistungen und depressiver Symptomatik sowie eine Erhöhung beim Körpergewicht/Body Mass Index im Zeitraum März 2020 bis Januar 2021 im Vergleich zum vorpandemischen Zeitraum April 2019 bis März 2020 beobachtet.

Background A pan-European approach to evaluate policy impact on health behaviour requires the employment of a consensus set of established and relevant indicators. Methods As part of the Joint Programming Initiative on a Healthy Diet for a Healthy Life, the Policy Evaluation Network PEN identified key indicators of health behaviours and their determinants. These key indicators are already, or have the potential to be, adopted by large European Union surveillance systems for the assessment of policy impact. The iterative selection process included consultations in two rounds via email prior to a 2-days expert workshop. The experts collated a list of dietary behaviour, physical activity and sedentary behaviour indicators for European policy monitoring in young and adult populations based on existing frameworks and literature reviews. The expert panel was composed of researchers, policy makers and representatives of major European surveillance systems and related initiatives, as well as, representatives of organisations providing monitoring data, such as the European Commission and Eurostat. Results The process provided two lists of key indicators including 37 diet 'policy' indicators and 35 indicators for dietary behaviour and their 'determinants'; as well as 32 physical activity 'policy' indicators and 35 indicators for physical activity, sedentary behaviour and their 'determinants'. Conclusion A total of 139 key indicators related to the individual, the setting and the population level, and suitable for the assessment of dietary behaviour, physical activity and sedentary behaviour were prioritised by policy makers and researchers with the ultimate aim to embed policy evaluation measures in existing surveillance systems across the European Union. In a next step, data sources and suitable instruments will be identified to assess these key indicators.

BACKGROUND: A pan-European approach to evaluate policy impact on health behaviour requires the employment of a consensus set of established and relevant indicators. METHODS: As part of the Joint Programming Initiative on a Healthy Diet for a Healthy Life, the Policy Evaluation Network PEN identified key indicators of health behaviours and their determinants. These key indicators are already, or have the potential to be, adopted by large European Union surveillance systems for the assessment of policy impact. The iterative selection process included consultations in two rounds via email prior to a 2-days expert workshop. The experts collated a list of dietary behaviour, physical activity and sedentary behaviour indicators for European policy monitoring in young and adult populations based on existing frameworks and literature reviews. The expert panel was composed of researchers, policy makers and representatives of major European surveillance systems and related initiatives, as well as, representatives of organisations providing monitoring data, such as the European Commission and Eurostat. RESULTS: The process provided two lists of key indicators including 37 diet 'policy' indicators and 35 indicators for dietary behaviour and their 'determinants'; as well as 32 physical activity 'policy' indicators and 35 indicators for physical activity, sedentary behaviour and their 'determinants'. CONCLUSION: A total of 139 key indicators related to the individual, the setting and the population level, and suitable for the assessment of dietary behaviour, physical activity and sedentary behaviour were prioritised by policy makers and researchers with the ultimate aim to embed policy evaluation measures in existing surveillance systems across the European Union. In a next step, data sources and suitable instruments will be identified to assess these key indicators. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12966-021-01111-0.

BACKGROUND:A pan-European approach to evaluate policy impact on health behaviour requires the employment of a consensus set of established and relevant indicators. METHODS: As part of the Joint Programming Initiative on a Healthy Diet for a Healthy Life, the Policy Evaluation Network PEN identified key indicators of health behaviours and their determinants. These key indicators are already, or have the potential to be, adopted by large European Union surveillance systems for the assessment of policy impact. The iterative selection process included consultations in two rounds via email prior to a 2-days expert workshop. The experts collated a list of dietary behaviour, physical activity and sedentary behaviour indicators for European policy monitoring in young and adult populations based on existing frameworks and literature reviews. The expert panel was composed of researchers, policy makers and representatives of major European surveillance systems and related initiatives, as well as, representatives of organisations providing monitoring data, such as the European Commission and Eurostat. RESULTS: The process provided two lists of key indicators including 37 diet 'policy' indicators and 35 indicators for dietary behaviour and their 'determinants'; as well as 32 physical activity 'policy' indicators and 35 indicators for physical activity, sedentary behaviour and their 'determinants'. CONCLUSIONS: A total of 139 key indicators related to the individual, the setting and the population level, and suitable for the assessment of dietary behaviour, physical activity and sedentary behaviour were prioritised by policy makers and researchers with the ultimate aim to embed policy evaluation measures in existing surveillance systems across the European Union. In a next step, data sources and suitable instruments will be identified to assess these key indicators.

Background A pan-European approach to evaluate policy impact on health behaviour requires the employment of a consensus set of established and relevant indicators. Methods As part of the Joint Programming Initiative on a Healthy Diet for a Healthy Life, the Policy Evaluation Network PEN identified key indicators of health behaviours and their determinants. These key indicators are already, or have the potential to be, adopted by large European Union surveillance systems for the assessment of policy impact. The iterative selection process included consultations in two rounds via email prior to a 2-days expert workshop. The experts collated a list of dietary behaviour, physical activity and sedentary behaviour indicators for European policy monitoring in young and adult populations based on existing frameworks and literature reviews. The expert panel was composed of researchers, policy makers and representatives of major European surveillance systems and related initiatives, as well as, representatives of organisations providing monitoring data, such as the European Commission and Eurostat. Results The process provided two lists of key indicators including 37 diet 'policy' indicators and 35 indicators for dietary behaviour and their 'determinants'; as well as 32 physical activity 'policy' indicators and 35 indicators for physical activity, sedentary behaviour and their 'determinants'. Conclusion A total of 139 key indicators related to the individual, the setting and the population level, and suitable for the assessment of dietary behaviour, physical activity and sedentary behaviour were prioritised by policy makers and researchers with the ultimate aim to embed policy evaluation measures in existing surveillance systems across the European Union. In a next step, data sources and suitable instruments will be identified to assess these key indicators. ; Peer Reviewed

peer-reviewed ; Background: A pan-European approach to evaluate policy impact on health behaviour requires the employment of a consensus set of established and relevant indicators. Methods: As part of the Joint Programming Initiative on a Healthy Diet for a Healthy Life, the Policy Evaluation Network PEN identified key indicators of health behaviours and their determinants. These key indicators are already, or have the potential to be, adopted by large European Union surveillance systems for the assessment of policy impact. The iterative selection process included consultations in two rounds via email prior to a 2-days expert workshop. The experts collated a list of dietary behaviour, physical activity and sedentary behaviour indicators for European policy monitoring in young and adult populations based on existing frameworks and literature reviews. The expert panel was composed of researchers, policy makers and representatives of major European surveillance systems and related initiatives, as well as, representatives of organisations providing monitoring data, such as the European Commission and Eurostat. Results: The process provided two lists of key indicators including 37 diet 'policy' indicators and 35 indicators for dietary behaviour and their 'determinants'; as well as 32 physical activity 'policy' indicators and 35 indicators for physical activity, sedentary behaviour and their 'determinants'. Conclusion: A total of 139 key indicators related to the individual, the setting and the population level, and suitable for the assessment of dietary behaviour, physical activity and sedentary behaviour were prioritised by policy makers and researchers with the ultimate aim to embed policy evaluation measures in existing surveillance systems across the European Union. In a next step, data sources and suitable instruments will be identified to assess these key indicators.