scholarly journals What We Know About Sting-Related Deaths? Human Fatalities Caused by Hornet, Wasp and Bee Stings in Europe (1994-2016)

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xesús Feás ◽  
Carmen Vidal ◽  
Susana Remesar
Keyword(s):  
United Kingdom ◽  
The Netherlands ◽  
Eastern Europe ◽  
Southern Europe ◽  
Age Group ◽  
Gender Ratio ◽  
Insect Sting

Epidemiology of Hymenopteran-related deaths in Europe due to bee, wasp and hornet stings (Cause Code of Death: X23) based on official registers from WHO Mortality Database is described. Over a 23-year period (1994-2016), a total of 1,691 fatalities were officially recorded, mostly occurring in Western (42.8%) and Eastern (31.9%) Europe. The victims tended to concentrate in: Germany (n=327; 1998-2015), France (n=211; 2000-2014) and Romania (n=149; 1999-2016). The majority of deaths occurred in males (78.1%), within the age group of 25-64 years (66.7%), and in an “unspecified place” (44.2%). The X23 gender ratio (X23GR) of mortality varied from a minimum of 1.4 for Norway to a maximum of 20 for Slovenia. The highest X23MR, expressed in terms of annual rates and per million inhabitants, were recorded in countries from Eastern Europe (0.35) followed by Western (0.28), Northern (0.23) and Southern Europe (0.2). The countries with the highest and lowest mean X23MR were Estonia (0.61), Austria (0.6) and Slovenia (0.55); and Ireland (0.05), United Kingdom (0.06) and the Netherlands (0.06), respectively. Country-by-country data show that the incidence of insect-sting mortality is statistically low, but not negligible.

Społeczeństwo holenderskie i los Żydów: skomplikowana historia

2016 ◽  
pp. 425-434
Author(s):  
Dan Michman
Keyword(s):  
The Netherlands ◽  
Southern Europe ◽  
Dutch Society ◽  
Nazi Occupation ◽  
The Holocaust ◽  
Western European ◽  
Post War ◽  
Of Greece

The percentage of victimization of Dutch Jewry during the Shoah is the highest of Western, Central and Southern Europe (except, perhaps of Greece), and close to the Polish one: 75%, more than 104.000 souls. The question of disproportion between the apparent favorable status of the Jews in society – they had acquired emancipation in 1796 - and the disastrous outcome of the Nazi occupation as compared to other countries in general and Western European in particular has haunted Dutch historiography of the Shoah. Who should be blamed for that outcome: the perpetrators, i.e. the Germans, the bystanders, i.e. the Dutch or the victims, i.e. the Dutch Jews? The article first surveys the answers given to this question since the beginnings of Dutch Holocaust historiography in the immediate post-war period until the debates of today and the factors that influenced the shaping of some basic perceptions on “Dutch society and the Jews”. It then proceeds to detailing several facts from the Holocaust period that are essential for an evaluation of gentile attitudes. The article concludes with the observation that – in spite of ongoing debates – the overall picture which has accumulated after decades of research will not essentially being altered. Although the Holocaust was initiated, planned and carried out from Berlin, and although a considerable number of Dutchmen helped and hid Jews and the majority definitely despised the Germans, considerable parts of Dutch society contributed to the disastrous outcome of the Jewish lot in the Netherlands – through a high amount of servility towards the German authorities, through indifference when Jewish fellow-citizens were persecuted, through economically benefiting from the persecution and from the disappearance of Jewish neighbors, and through actual collaboration (stemming from a variety of reasons). Consequently, the picture of the Holocaust in the Netherlands is multi-dimensional, but altogether puzzling and not favorable.

scholarly journals Test–retest reliability of the EQ-5D-5L and the reworded QOLIBRI-OS in the general population of Italy, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Di Long ◽  
Suzanne Polinder ◽  
Gouke J. Bonsel ◽  
Juanita A. Haagsma
Keyword(s):  
United Kingdom ◽  
General Population ◽  
The Netherlands ◽  
Web Based ◽  
Retest Reliability ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Sum Score ◽  
Summary Index ◽  
Test Retest Reliability ◽  
Eq Vas

Abstract Purpose To assess the test–retest reliability of the EQ-5D-5L and the reworded Quality of Life After Traumatic Brain Injury Overall Scale (QOLIBRI-OS) for the general population of Italy, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom (UK). Methods The sample contains 1864 members of the general population (aged 18–75 years) of Italy, the Netherlands, and the UK who completed a web-based questionnaire at two consecutive time points. The survey included items on gender, age, level of education, occupational status, household annual income, chronic health status, and the EQ-5D-5L and reworded QOLIBRI-OS instrument. Test–retest reliability of the EQ-5D-5L dimensions, EQ-5D-5L summary index, EQ VAS, reworded QOLIBRI-OS dimensions and reworded QOLIBRI-OS level sum score was examined by Gwet’s Agreement Coefficient (Gwet’s AC) and Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC). Results Gwet’s AC ranged from 0.64 to 0.97 for EQ-5D-5L dimensions. The ICC ranged from 0.73 to 0.84 for the EQ-5D-5L summary index and 0.61 to 0.68 for EQ VAS in the three countries. Gwet’s AC ranged from 0.35 to 0.55 for reworded QOLIBRI-OS dimensions in the three countries. The ICC ranged from 0.69 to 0.77 for reworded QOLIBRI-OS level sum score. Conclusion Test–retest reliability of the EQ-5D-5L administered via a web-based questionnaire was substantial to almost perfect for the EQ-5D-5L dimensions, good for EQ-5D-5L summary index, and moderate for the EQ VAS. However, test–retest reliability was less satisfactory for the reworded QOLIBRI-OS. This indicates that the web-based EQ-5D-5L is a reliable instrument for the general population, but further research of the reworded QOLIBRI-OS is required.

scholarly journals Corrigendum to ‘Responses to an acellular pertussis booster vaccination in children, adolescents, and young and older adults: A collaborative study in Finland, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom’

EBioMedicine ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 68 ◽  
pp. 103420
Author(s):  
Pauline Versteegen ◽  
Marta Valente Pinto ◽  
Alex M. Barkoff ◽  
Pieter G.M. van Gageldonk ◽  
Jan van de Kassteele ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Older Adults ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
The Netherlands ◽  
Collaborative Study ◽  
Booster Vaccination ◽  
The United Kingdom
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document