These results suggest that cancers originating from different sites in the head and neck may have different tumor biology. Therefore, they should be considered as different entities.

Background The COVID-19 pandemic, declared by the World Health Organization as a public health international emergency concern in March 2020, has caused serious impacts on individuals, families, communities, and societies across the globe. The COVID-19 pandemic not only disrupted the health systems and the economy, but also significantly impacted routine immunization programs. Aim To study the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic lockdown on the routine immunization coverage program in the province of Laghman, Afghanistan. Methods A comparative cross-sectional quantitative study was conducted to understand the impact of COVID-19 on routine childhood immunization during the study period. Secondary data was used from the Ministry of Health from April to July 2020 and compared with the historical data of the same period in 2019. Student t -test was used to test the association between the mean changes in the daily immunization coverage. A p -value<0.05 was considered as statistically significant with 95% confidence interval. Results There was a 21.4% significant ( p <0.01) decline in the total immunization coverage during April–July 2020 compared to April–July 2019. This reduction was diverse across all districts and all vaccine antigens. The most affected district was Alingar, and the most affected vaccines were measles and OPV4, with 28% declines, followed by PCV3 at 26%, and DPT3, IPV, OPV3, PCV2 and rotavirus at 23%. The outreach vaccination coverage declined by 56.1% compared to the fixed, at 13.4%. Conclusion The COVID-19 pandemic seriously affected the routine immunization in Afghanistan. On average, 325 children per day missed out on a lifesaving vaccine in Laghman province which put them at risk of getting preventable diseases. To provide access to routine immunization during pandemics, the study suggests a set of customized interventions to strengthen and sustain routine immunization.

The study was aimed to identify the training received in Emergency Medicine by physicians and the limitations and difficulties self-perceived by those physicians to assist in emergencies, as well as to analyze the differences according to the work context.Observational cross-sectional study made by a survey using a self-administered questionnaire to a representative simple random sample (with replacement) of 294 doctors (n) working at the Primary Health Care centers out of the total of 851 doctors (N) that form the staff of physicians of Primary Health Care system of Asturias (Spain).In rural areas, the most frequently mentioned reasons were the lack of practical skills (32.65%), absence of adequate material (20.41%), lack of theoretical knowledge (8.16%), and poor equipment conditions (4.08%). In the semi-urban area, the most common reasons were the lack of practical skills (19.61%), lack of theoretical knowledge (10.78%), absence of adequate material (8.82%), and poor equipment conditions (4.90%). Finally, in the urban area, the main reason was the lack of practical skills (23.40%), absence of adequate material (20.21%), lack of theoretical knowledge (9.57%), and poor equipment conditions (4.26%). The differences were significant (P = .003) among the 3 work context.The absence of practical skills is the most frequent cause referred by doctors of the 3 areas as a key to not act correctly in an emergency. The doctors of the rural area perceive that they are better prepared in general to solve emergencies and it is the professionals of 3 areas that report having carried out more basic cardiopulmonary resuscitation, advanced and attention to the polytraumatized patient courses.

Objective: The objective of this study was to identify the perceived problems by medical and nursing professionals that have arisen in the Spanish Emergency Medical Services (EMS) as a consequence of the first wave of the severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2/SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, as well as the measures or solutions adopted to manage those problems and improve response. Method: This was a cross-sectional study of quantitative and qualitative methodology (“mixed methods”) using a self-administered questionnaire in 23 key informants of EMS of Spain selected by purposeful sampling, followed by the statistical analysis of both types of variables and an integration of the results in the discussion. Results: Common problems had been identified in many EMS, as well as similar solutions in some of them. Among the former, the following had been found: lack of leadership and support from managers, initial shortage of personal protective equipment (PPE), lack of participation in decision making, initial lack of clinical protocols, and slowness and/or lack of adaptability of the system, among others. Among the solutions adopted: reinforcement of emergency call centers, development of specific coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) telephone lines and new resources, personal effort of professionals, new functions of EMS, support to other structures, and reinforcement of the role of nursing. Conclusion: The general perception among the respondents was that there was a lack of support and communication with health care managers and that the staff expertise was not used by policy makers to make decisions adapted to reality, also expressing the need to improve the capacity for analysis of the EMS response. Few respondents reported good overall satisfaction with their EMS response. The EMS adopted different types of measures to adapt to the COVID-19 pandemic.