fbpx Effectiveness in Scotland | Page 157 | Scienza in rete

Effectiveness in Scotland

Primary tabs

Read time: 2 mins

The effectiveness of the pandemic H1N1 influenza vaccination program, introduced in Scotland in October 2009, has been assessed by a team of researchers from different Scottish and French institutions, coordinated by Dr. Colin Simpson, from the University of Edinburgh. The results of this assessment has been published in the June issue of Lancet.
The vaccination campaign consisted of two phases, the first being aimed at frontline health-care workers, pregnant women and people whose underlying health problems make them more sensitive to influenza-like illness; in the second phase, all children aged between 6 months and 5 years were targeted.
The researchers performed a retrospective study by linking primary care, hospital records and death certification datasets of 247178 persons, representing the 5% of Scottish population. Of them, 38296 (15.5%) were given the vaccination. In this nationally representative cohort there were fewer hospital admissions and deaths from influenza-like illness – influenza, pneumonia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and cardiac disorders – in patients who were vaccinated against H1N1 influenza A virus. A representative sub-group of patient was swabbed and tested with RT-PCR, revealing an estimated vaccine effectiveness of 77%. Such a result proved to be higher than recent estimates in case-control studies undertaken in the UK (72%) and Europe (71.9%) but lower than another one performed in Navarre, Spain (89%).
The study thus provided evidence that the Scottish H1N1 vaccination program have been effective, both in terms of protection against the virus and reduction of mortality from influenza-like illness, and is likely to have reduced the burden of pandemic influenza on health-care providers.

Autori: 
Sezioni: 
Dossier: 
H1N1 vaccine

prossimo articolo

Vogliamo dare un'attenuante neuroscientifica all'ipocrisia?

figura laterale con smiley a coprire il volto

Predichiamo l’onestà, ma cediamo al vantaggio personale: è solo ipocrisia o c’è di più? Un recente studio di neuroscienze indaga i meccanismi cerebrali che regolano il conflitto tra interesse e morale, mostrando come giudichiamo severamente gli altri mentre assolviamo noi stessi. Ne emerge un interrogativo scomodo: siamo davvero responsabili delle nostre incoerenze o vi siamo, almeno in parte, biologicamente predisposti?

Predicare bene e razzolare male è il detto che sintetizza l'incoerenza tra i principi morali sbandierati e l'effettivo comportamento di molti individui in diversi contesti, da quelli interpersonali agli affari di interesse nazionale.

La moralità è il frutto della negoziazione tra guadagno e costo (tra onestà e interesse personale) e obbliga a prendere decisioni da una prospettiva di prima persona, ma gli individui giudicano l'onestà o l'imbroglio come morali o immorali anche da una prospettiva di terza persona, quando valutano il comportamento altrui.