scholarly journals DIAGNOSIS AND MANAGEMENT OF PULMONARY EMBOLISM EURASIAN ASSOCIATION OF CARDIOLOGY (EAC) CLINICAL PRACTICE GUIDELINES (2021)

2021 ◽  
pp. 44-77
Author(s):  
E. P. Panchenko ◽  
T. V. Balahonova ◽  
N. M. Danilov ◽  
A. L. Komarov ◽  
E. S. Kropachyova ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Health Professionals ◽  
Clinical Judgment ◽  
Medical Knowledge ◽  
Health Condition ◽  
Careful Consideration ◽  
Individual Responsibility ◽  
Health Authorities ◽  
Public Health Authorities ◽  
The Individual

Disclaimer. The EAC Guidelines represent the views of the EAC, and were produced after careful consideration of the scientific and medical knowledge, and the evidence available at the time of their publication. The EAC is not responsible in the event of any contradiction, discrepancy, and/or ambiguity between the EAC Guidelines and any other official recommendations or guidelines issued by the relevant public health authorities, in particular in relation to good use of healthcare or therapeutic strategies. Health professionals are encouraged to take the EAC Guidelines fully into account when exercising their clinical judgment, as well as in the determination and the implementation of preventive, diagnostic, or therapeutic medical strategies; however, the EAC Guidelines do not override, in any way whatsoever, the individual responsibility of health professionals to make appropriate and accurate decisions in consideration of each patient’s health condition and in consultation with that patient and, where appropriate and/or necessary, the patient’s caregiver. Nor do the EAC Guidelines exempt health professionals from taking into full and careful consideration the relevant official updated recommendations or guidelines issued by the competent public health authorities, in order to manage each patient’s case in light of the scientifically accepted data pursuant to their respective ethical and professional obligations. It is also the health professional’s responsibility to verify the applicable rules and regulations relating to drugs and medical devices at the time of prescription.

scholarly journals EURASIAN ASSOCIATION OF CARDIOLOGY (EAC) GUIDELINES FOR THE DIAGNOSIS AND TREATMENT OF CHRONIC THROMBOEMBOLIC PULMONARY HYPERTENSION (2020)

2021 ◽  
pp. 6-43
Author(s):  
I. E. Chazova ◽  
T. V. Martynyuk ◽  
Z. S. Valieva ◽  
V. A. Azizov ◽  
R. S. Akchurin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Health Professionals ◽  
Clinical Judgment ◽  
Medical Knowledge ◽  
Chronic Thromboembolic Pulmonary Hypertension ◽  
Health Condition ◽  
Careful Consideration ◽  
Individual Responsibility ◽  
Health Authorities ◽  
Public Health Authorities

Disclaimer The EAC Guidelines represent the views of the EAC, and were produced after careful consideration of the scientific and medical knowledge, and the evidence available at the time of their publication. The EAC is not responsible in the event of any contradiction, discrepancy, and/or ambiguity between the EAC Guidelines and any other official recommendations or guidelines issued by the relevant public health authorities, in particular in relation to good use of healthcare or therapeutic strategies. Health professionals are encouraged to take the EAC Guidelines fully into account when exercising their clinical judgment, as well as in the determination and the implementation of preventive, diagnostic, or therapeutic medical strategies; however, the EAC Guidelines do not override, in any way whatsoever, the individual responsibility of health professionals to make appropriate and accurate decisions in consideration of each patient’s health condition and in consultation with that patient and, where appropriate and/or necessary, the patient’s caregiver. Nor do the EAC Guidelines exempt health professionals from taking into full and careful consideration the relevant official updated recommendations or guidelines issued by the competent public health authorities, in order to manage each patient’s case in light of the scientifically accepted data pursuant to their respective ethical and professional obligations. It is also the health professional’s responsibility to verify the applicable rules and regulations relating to drugs and medical devices at the time of prescription.

scholarly journals Eurasian clinical guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS)

2021 ◽  
pp. 6-59
Author(s):  
O. L. Barbarash ◽  
A. L. Komarov ◽  
E. P. Panchenko ◽  
I. I. Staroverov ◽  
R. M. Shahnovich ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Health Professionals ◽  
Clinical Judgment ◽  
Medical Knowledge ◽  
Careful Consideration ◽  
Individual Responsibility ◽  
St Segment Elevation ◽  
Coronary Syndrome ◽  
Health Authorities ◽  
Public Health Authorities

The EAC Guidelines represent the views of the EAC, and were produced after careful consideration of the scientific and medical knowledge, and the evidence available at the time of their publication. The EAC is not responsible in the event of any contradiction, discrepancy, and/or ambiguity between the EAC Guidelines and any other official recommendations or guidelines issued by the relevant public health authorities, in particular in relation to good use of healthcare or therapeutic strategies. Health professionals are encouraged to take the EAC Guidelines fully into account when exercising their clinical judgment, as well as in the determination and the implementation of preventive, diagnostic, or therapeutic medical strategies; however, the EAC Guidelines do not override, in any way whatsoever, the individual responsibility of health professionals to make appropriate and accurate decisions in consideration of each patient’s health condition and in consultation with that patient and, where appropriate and/or necessary, the patient’s caregiver. Nor do the EAC Guidelines exempt health professionals from taking into full and careful consideration the relevant official updated recommendations or guidelines issued by the competent public health authorities, in order to manage each patient’s case in light of the scientifically accepted data pursuant to their respective ethical and professional obligations. It is also the health professional’s responsibility to verify the applicable rules and regulations relating to drugs and medical devices at the time of prescription.

scholarly journals EURASIAN ASSOCIATION OF CARDIOLOGY (EAC)/ RUSSIAN NATIONAL ATHEROSCLEROSIS SOCIETY (RNAS, RUSSIA) GUIDELINES FOR THE DIAGNOSIS AND CORRECTION OF DYSLIPIDEMIA FOR THE PREVENTION AND TREATMENT OF ATHEROSCLEROSIS (2020)

2020 ◽  
pp. 6-29
Author(s):  
V. V. Kukharchuk ◽  
M. V. Ezhov ◽  
I. V. Sergienko ◽  
G. G. Arabidze ◽  
T. V. Balakhonova ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Conflict Of Interest ◽  
Health Professionals ◽  
Clinical Judgment ◽  
Working Group ◽  
Medical Knowledge ◽  
Careful Consideration ◽  
Individual Responsibility ◽  
Health Authorities ◽  
Public Health Authorities

Disclaimer РThe EAC/RNAS Guidelines represent the views of the EAC and RNAS, and were produced after careful consideration of the scientific and medical knowledge, and the evidence available at the time of their publication. The EAC and RNAS is not responsible in the event of any contradiction, discrepancy, and/or ambiguity between the EAC/RNAS Guidelines and any other official recommendations or guidelines issued by the relevant public health authorities, in particular in relation to good use of healthcare or therapeutic strategies. Health professionals are encouraged to take the EAC/RNAS Guidelines fully into account when exercising their clinical judgment, as well as in the determination and the implementation of preventive, diagnostic, or therapeutic medical strategies; however, the EAC/RNAS Guidelines do not override, in any way whatsoever, the individual responsibility of health professionals to make appropriate and accurate decisions in consideration of each patient’s health condition and in consultation with that patient and, where appropriate and/or necessary, the patient’s caregiver. Nor do the EAC/RNAS Guidelines exempt health professionals from taking into full and careful consideration the relevant official updated recommendations or guidelines issued by the competent public health authorities, in order to manage each patient’s case in light of the scientifically accepted data pursuant to their respective ethical and professional obligations. It is also the health professional’s responsibility to verify the applicable rules and regulations relating to drugs and medical devices at the time of prescription.Members of the Working Group confirmed the lack of financial support / conflict of interest. In the event of a conflict of interest being reported, the member (s) of the Working Group was (were) excluded from the discussion of sections related to the area of conflict of interest.

scholarly journals Eurasian Guidelines for the diagnostics and management of stable coronary artery disease (2020-2021)

2021 ◽  
pp. 54-93
Author(s):  
Yu. A. Karpov ◽  
O. L. Barbarash ◽  
A. A. Boschenko ◽  
V. V. Kashtalap ◽  
V. V. Kukharchuk ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Conflict Of Interest ◽  
Health Professionals ◽  
Clinical Judgment ◽  
Working Group ◽  
Stable Coronary Artery Disease ◽  
Careful Consideration ◽  
Individual Responsibility ◽  
Health Authorities ◽  
Public Health Authorities

Disclaimer The EAC Guidelines represent the views of the EAC, and were produced after careful consideration of the scientific and medical knowledge, and the evidence available at the time of their publication. The EAC is not responsible in the event of any contradiction, discrepancy, and/or ambiguity between the EAC Guidelines and any other official recommendations or guidelines issued by the relevant public health authorities, in particular in relation to good use of healthcare or therapeutic strategies. Health professionals are encouraged to take the EAC Guidelines fully into account when exercising their clinical judgment, as well as in the determination and the implementation of preventive, diagnostic, or therapeutic medical strategies; however, the EAC Guidelines do not override, in any way whatsoever, the individual responsibility of health professionals to make appropriate and accurate decisions in consideration of each patient’s health condition and in consultation with that patient and, where appropriate and/or necessary, the patient’s caregiver. Nor do the EAC Guidelines exempt health professionals from taking into full and careful consideration the relevant official updated recommendations or guidelines issued by the competent public health authorities, in order to manage each patient’s case in light of the scientifically accepted data pursuant to their respective ethical and professional obligations. It is also the health professional’s responsibility to verify the applicable rules and regulations relating to drugs and medical devices at the time of prescription.Members of the Working Group confirmed the lack of financial support / conflict of interest. In the event of a conflict of interest being reported, the member (s) of the Working Group was (were) excluded from the discussion of sections related to the area of conflict of interest.

scholarly journals EURASIAN ASSOCIATION OF CARDIOLOGY (EAC)/ NATIONAL SOCIETY OF HEART FAILURE AND MYOCARDIAL DISEASE (NSHFMD) GUIDELINES FOR THE DIAGNOSIS AND TREATMENT OF CHRONIC HEART FAILURE (2020)

2020 ◽  
pp. 6-76
Author(s):  
S. N. Tereshchenko ◽  
I. V. Zhirov ◽  
T. M. Uskach ◽  
M. A. Saidova ◽  
S. P. Golitsyn ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Heart Failure ◽  
Conflict Of Interest ◽  
Health Professionals ◽  
Working Group ◽  
Careful Consideration ◽  
Individual Responsibility ◽  
National Society ◽  
Health Authorities ◽  
Public Health Authorities

Disclaimer The EAC/NSHFMD Guidelines represent the views of the EAC and NSHFMD, and were produced after careful consideration of the scientific and medical knowledge, and the evidence available at the time of their publication. The EAC and NSHFMD is not responsible in the event of any contradiction, discrepancy, and/or ambiguity between the EAC/NSHFMD Guidelines and any other official recommendations or guidelines issued by the relevant public health authorities, in particular in relation to good use of healthcare or therapeutic strategies. Health professionals are encouraged to take the EAC/NSHFMD Guidelines fully into account when exercising their clinical judgment, as well as in the determination and the implementation of preventive, diagnostic, or therapeutic medical strategies; however, the EAC/NSHFMD Guidelines do not override, in any way whatsoever, the individual responsibility of health professionals to make appropriate and accurate decisions in consideration of each patient’s health condition and in consultation with that patient and, where appropriate and/or necessary, the patient’s caregiver. Nor do the EAC/NSHFMD Guidelines exempt health professionals from taking into full and careful consideration the relevant official updated recommendations or guidelines issued by the competent public health authorities, in order to manage each patient’s case in light of the scientifically accepted data pursuant to their respective ethical and professional obligations. It is also the health professional’s responsibility to verify the applicable rules and regulations relating to drugs and medical devices at the time of prescription.Members of the Working Group confirmed the lack of financial support/ conflict of interest. In the event of a conflict of interest being reported, the member (s) of the Working Group was (were) excluded from the discussion of sections related to the area of conflict of interest.E.B. Wataman professor, Dr. of Sci. (Med.) (Moldova); E.K. Kurlyanskaya, Cand. of Sci. (Med.) (Belarus); A.M. Noruzbaeva professor (Kyrgyzstan); V.A. Azizov professor (Azerbaijan); Zelveyan P.A., Dr. of Sci. (Med.) (Armenia)

scholarly journals Recommendations for sample pooling on the Cepheid GeneXpert® system using the Cepheid Xpert® Xpress SARS-CoV-2 assay

PLoS ONE ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (11) ◽  
pp. e0241959
Author(s):  
Michael G. Becker ◽  
Tracy Taylor ◽  
Sandra Kiazyk ◽  
Dana R. Cabiles ◽  
Adrienne F. A. Meyers ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Limit Of Detection ◽  
Point Of Care ◽  
Viral Loads ◽  
Pooled Testing ◽  
Health Authorities ◽  
Public Health Authorities ◽  
Sample Pooling ◽  
Testing Site ◽  
The Individual

The coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) pandemic, caused by SARS-CoV-2, has resulted in a global testing supply shortage. In response, pooled testing has emerged as a promising strategy that can immediately increase testing capacity. In pooled sample testing, multiple samples are combined (or pooled) together and tested as a single unit. If the pool is positive, the individual samples can then be individually tested to identify the positive case(s). Here, we provide support for the adoption of sample pooling with the point-of-care Cepheid Xpert® Xpress SARS-CoV-2 molecular assay. Corroborating previous findings, the limit of detection of this assay was comparable to laboratory-developed reverse-transcription quantitative PCR SARS-CoV-2 tests, with observed detection below 100 copies/mL. The Xpert® Xpress assay detected SARS-CoV-2 after samples with minimum viral loads of 461 copies/mL were pooled in groups of six. Based on these data, we recommend the adoption of pooled testing with the Xpert® Xpress SARS-CoV-2 assay where warranted based on public health needs. The suggested number of samples per pool, or the pooling depth, is unique for each point-of-care testing site and can be determined by the positive test rates. To statistically determine appropriate pooling depth, we have calculated the pooling efficiency for numerous combinations of pool sizes and test rates. This information is included as a supplemental dataset that we encourage public health authorities to use as a guide to make recommendations that will maximize testing capacity and resource conservation.

Conclusion

2018 ◽  
pp. 170-177
Author(s):  
Michael Dwyer
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Medical Practitioner ◽  
Public Confidence ◽  
Childhood Immunization ◽  
Lifestyle Choice ◽  
Immunization Programme ◽  
Health Authorities ◽  
Health Initiatives ◽  
Public Health Authorities ◽  
The Individual

This book is important as it is the first comprehensive study of the origins of the childhood immunization programme in Ireland. It portrays Irish public health authorities as being progressive regarding their willingness to accept and employ new public health initiatives, and importantly, it highlights how this attitude differed from the sluggish response of their British counterparts. The book explores the radical public health interventions which pitted efforts to achieve communal health against the rights of the individual. It presents a historical precedent where the actions of one medical practitioner undermined public confidence in the immunization process itself. In an era when childhood immunization is increasingly considered more of a lifestyle choice than a lifesaving intervention, this book may bring some historical context to bear on a current public health debate.

scholarly journals Users’ Beliefs Toward Physical Distancing in Facebook Pages of Public Health Authorities During COVID-19 Pandemic in Early 2020

2021 ◽  
pp. 109019812110144
Author(s):  
Soon Guan Tan ◽  
Aravind Sesagiri Raamkumar ◽  
Hwee Lin Wee
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Health Belief Model ◽  
United States Public Health ◽  
Health Belief ◽  
The United States ◽  
Health Authorities ◽  
Public Health Authorities ◽  
Control And Prevention ◽  
Belief Model ◽  
The Health Belief Model

This study aims to describe Facebook users’ beliefs toward physical distancing measures implemented during the Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic using the key constructs of the health belief model. A combination of rule-based filtering and manual classification methods was used to classify user comments on COVID-19 Facebook posts of three public health authorities: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention of the United States, Public Health England, and Ministry of Health, Singapore. A total of 104,304 comments were analyzed for posts published between 1 January, 2020, and 31 March, 2020, along with COVID-19 cases and deaths count data from the three countries. Findings indicate that the perceived benefits of physical distancing measures ( n = 3,463; 3.3%) was three times higher than perceived barriers ( n = 1,062; 1.0%). Perceived susceptibility to COVID-19 ( n = 2,934; 2.8%) was higher compared with perceived severity ( n = 2,081; 2.0%). Although susceptibility aspects of physical distancing were discussed more often at the start of the year, mentions on the benefits of intervention emerged stronger toward the end of the analysis period, highlighting the shift in beliefs. The health belief model is useful for understanding Facebook users’ beliefs at a basic level, and it provides a scope for further improvement.

scholarly journals Fueling the Covid-19 pandemic: summer school holidays and incidence rates in German districts

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas Plümper ◽  
Eric Neumayer
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Fixed Effects ◽  
Summer School ◽  
Incidence Rates ◽  
Contact Tracing ◽  
Robert Koch Institute ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Holiday Period ◽  
Health Authorities ◽  
Public Health Authorities

AbstractBackgroundThe Robert-Koch-Institute reports that during the summer holiday period a foreign country is stated as the most likely place of infection for an average of 27 and a maximum of 49% of new SARS-CoV-2 infections in Germany.MethodsCross-sectional study on observational data. In Germany, summer school holidays are coordinated between states and spread out over 13 weeks. Employing a dynamic model with district fixed effects, we analyze the association between these holidays and weekly incidence rates across 401 German districts.ResultsWe find effects of the holiday period of around 45% of the average district incidence rates in Germany during their respective final week of holidays and the 2 weeks after holidays end. Western states tend to experience stronger effects than Eastern states. We also find statistically significant interaction effects of school holidays with per capita taxable income and the share of foreign residents in a district’s population.ConclusionsOur results suggest that changed behavior during the holiday season accelerated the pandemic and made it considerably more difficult for public health authorities to contain the spread of the virus by means of contact tracing. Germany’s public health authorities did not prepare adequately for this acceleration.

scholarly journals Indoor Environmental Quality in Dwellings and Lifestyle Behaviors during the COVID-19 Pandemic: Russian Perspective

2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (11) ◽  
pp. 5975
Author(s):  
Vladimir Reshetnikov ◽  
Oleg Mitrokhin ◽  
Elena Belova ◽  
Victor Mikhailovsky ◽  
Maria Mikerova ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Medical Students ◽  
Environmental Quality ◽  
Indoor Environmental Quality ◽  
Lifestyle Behaviors ◽  
Contagious Diseases ◽  
Health Authorities ◽  
Public Health Authorities ◽  
Isolation Index ◽  
Novel Coronavirus

The novel coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak is a public health emergency of international concern, and as a response, public health authorities started enforcing preventive measures like self-isolation and social distancing. The enforcement of isolation has consequences that may affect the lifestyle-related behavior of the general population. Quarantine encompasses a range of strategies that can be used to detain, isolate, or conditionally release individuals or populations infected or exposed to contagious diseases and should be tailored to circumstances. Interestingly, medical students may represent an example of how the COVID-19 pandemic can form new habits and change lifestyle behaviors. We conducted a web-based survey to assess changes in lifestyle-related behavior of self-isolated medical students during the COVID-19 pandemic. Then we analyzed the sanitary-hygienic regulations of the Russian Federation to determine the requirements for healthy buildings. Results showed that during the pandemic, the enforcement of isolation affects medical students’ lifestyle-related behavior and accompanies an increase in non-communicable diseases (NCDs). Indoor environmental quality (IEQ) and healthy buildings are cutting-edge factors in preventing COVID-19 and NCDs. The Russian sanitary-hygienic regulations support improving this factor with suitable requirements for ventilation, sewage, waste management, and disinfection. Herein, assessing isolation is possible through the hygienic self-isolation index.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document