DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey.
SETTING: Community setting (22 countries representing all 6 World Health Organization regions).
PARTICIPANTS: Persons (N=12,108) with traumatic or nontraumatic SCI aged at least 18 years, living in the community and able to respond to one of the available language versions of the questionnaire.
INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: LS measured by 5 items selected from the World Health Organization Quality of Life Assessment-BREF: satisfaction with overall quality of life, health, daily activities, relationships, and living conditions. LS index was calculated as the mean of these 5 items.
RESULTS: The highest level of LS was reported by persons with SCI living in the United States, Malaysia, and Switzerland (mean range, 3.76-3.80), and the lowest was reported by persons with SCI living in South Korea, Japan, and Morocco (mean range, 2.81-3.16). There was a significant cubic association between LS index and GDP-PPP. Regression tree analysis revealed the main variables differentiating LS index were GDP-PPP and monthly income, followed by time since injury and education.
CONCLUSIONS: Life satisfaction reported by persons with SCI related mainly to their country economic situation expressed by GDP-PPP and monthly income. The results of this study underscore the need for policy dialogues to avoid inequalities and improve the life experience in persons with SCI.
Objective: The World Health Organization organized the first global infodemiology conference, entirely online, during June and July 2020, with a follow-up process from August to October 2020, to review current multidisciplinary evidence, interventions, and practices that can be applied to the COVID-19 infodemic response. This resulted in the creation of a public health research agenda for managing infodemics.
Methods: As part of the conference, a structured expert judgment synthesis method was used to formulate a public health research agenda. A total of 110 participants represented diverse scientific disciplines from over 35 countries and global public health implementing partners. The conference used a laddered discussion sprint methodology by rotating participant teams, and a managed follow-up process was used to assemble a research agenda based on the discussion and structured expert feedback. This resulted in a five-workstream frame of the research agenda for infodemic management and 166 suggested research questions. The participants then ranked the questions for feasibility and expected public health impact. The expert consensus was summarized in a public health research agenda that included a list of priority research questions.
Results: The public health research agenda for infodemic management has five workstreams: (1) measuring and continuously monitoring the impact of infodemics during health emergencies; (2) detecting signals and understanding the spread and risk of infodemics; (3) responding and deploying interventions that mitigate and protect against infodemics and their harmful effects; (4) evaluating infodemic interventions and strengthening the resilience of individuals and communities to infodemics; and (5) promoting the development, adaptation, and application of interventions and toolkits for infodemic management. Each workstream identifies research questions and highlights 49 high priority research questions.
Conclusions: Public health authorities need to develop, validate, implement, and adapt tools and interventions for managing infodemics in acute public health events in ways that are appropriate for their countries and contexts. Infodemiology provides a scientific foundation to make this possible. This research agenda proposes a structured framework for targeted investment for the scientific community, policy makers, implementing organizations, and other stakeholders to consider.