Objective: The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to provide an estimate of the prevalence of anxiety and depressive disorders in youth with epilepsy (YWE). It also aimed to calculate the overall magnitude of observed differences in anxiety and depressive symptoms reported by YWE compared with healthy controls and investigate whether any factors moderated anxiety and depression outcomes in YWE. Methods: Following prospective registration, electronic databases were searched up until October 2018. Studies were included if they reported on the rate of anxiety or depression in samples of YWE, and/or if they used valid measures of anxious or depressive symptomatology in YWE compared with a healthy control sample. Results: Twenty-three studies met inclusion criteria. The overall pooled prevalence of anxiety disorders in YWE was 18.9% (95% confidence interval [CI] 12.0%–28.5%), and for depression the pooled prevalence was 13.5% (95% CI 8.8%–20.2%). In samples of YWE compared with healthy controls, significantly higher anxiety (d = 0.57, 95% CI 0.32–0.83, p < .000) and depressive (d = 0.42, 95% CI 0.16–0.68, p < .000) symptomatology was reported. Conclusions: YWE report anxiety and depressive disorders and symptoms to a significantly higher degree than youth without epilepsy. There is also evidence that certain anxiety disorders (e.g. generalized anxiety disorder, separation anxiety disorder) are particularly elevated, perhaps reflecting the unique impact of epilepsy on youth psychopathology. Research is needed to understand the risk factors associated with anxiety and depressive disorders in epilepsy, and better understand how these symptoms change across development.

We aimed to synthesise data on issues related to stakeholder perceptions of privacy, trust, and transparency in use of secondary data. A systematic literature review of healthcare consumer attitudes towards the secondary use and sharing of health administrative and clinical trial data was conducted. EMBASE/MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, PubMed, CINAHL, Informit Health Collection, PROSPERO Database of Systematic Reviews, PsycINFO, and ProQuest databases were searched. Eligible articles included those reporting qualitative or quantitative original research and published in English. No restrictions were placed on publication dates, study design or disease setting. One author screened articles for eligibility, and two authors were involved in the full text review process. Data was extracted using a pre-piloted data extraction template by one author and checked by another. Conflicts were resolved by consensus. Quality and bias were assessed using the QualSyst criteria for qualitative and quantitative studies. This paper focuses on a subset of 35 articles identified from the wider search which focus on issues of privacy, trust, and transparency. Studies included a total of 56,365 respondents. Results of this systematic literature review indicate that while respondents identified advantages in sharing health data, concerns relating to trust, transparency, and privacy remain. Organisations collecting health data and those who seek to share data or undertake secondary data analysis should continue to develop trust, transparency, and privacy with healthcare consumers through open dialogue and education. Consideration should be given to these issues at all stages of data collection including the conception, design, and implementation phases. While individuals understand the benefits of health data sharing for research purposes, ensuring a balance between public benefit and individual privacy is essential. Researchers and those undertaking secondary data analysis need to be cognisant of these key issues at all stages of their research. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO registration number CRD42018110559 (update June 2020).

Background: We aimed to synthesise data on issues related to stakeholder perceptions of consent for the use of secondary data. To better understand the current literature available, we conducted a systematic literature review of healthcare consumer attitudes towards the secondary use and sharing of health administrative and clinical trial data. Methods: EMBASE/MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, PubMed, CINAHL, Informit Health Collection, PROSPERO Database of Systematic Reviews, PsycINFO and ProQuest databases were searched. Eligible articles included those reporting qualitative or quantitative original research and published in English. No restrictions were placed on publication dates, study design or disease setting. One author screened articles for eligibility and two authors were involved in the full-text review process. Conflicts were resolved by consensus. Quality and bias were assessed using the QualSyst criteria for qualitative studies. Results: This paper focuses on a subset of 47 articles identified from the wider search and focuses on the issue of consent. Issues related to privacy, trust and transparency, and attitudes of healthcare professionals and researchers to secondary use and sharing of data have been dealt with in previous publications. Studies included a total of 216,149 respondents. Results indicate that respondents are generally supportive of using health data for research, particularly if the data is de-identified or anonymised. The requirement by participants to obtain consent prior to the use of health data for research was not universal, nor is the requirement for this always supported by legislation. Many respondents believed that either no consent or being informed of the research, but not providing additional consent, were sufficient. Conclusions: These results indicate that individuals should be provided with information and choice about how their health data is used and, where feasible, a mechanism to opt-out should be provided. To increase the acceptability of using health data for research, health organisations and data custodians must provide individuals with concise information about data protection mechanisms and under what circumstances their data may be used and by whom. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO CRD42018110559 (update June 2020).

A systematic literature review of researchers and healthcare professionals’ attitudes towards the secondary use and sharing of health administrative and clinical trial data was conducted using electronic data searching. Eligible articles included those reporting qualitative or quantitative original research and published in English. No restrictions were placed on publication dates, study design, or disease setting. Two authors were involved in all stages of the review process; conflicts were resolved by consensus. Data was extracted independently using a pre-piloted data extraction template. Quality and bias were assessed using the QualSyst criteria for qualitative studies. Eighteen eligible articles were identified, and articles were categorised into four key themes: barriers, facilitators, access, and ownership; 14 subthemes were identified. While respondents were generally supportive of data sharing, concerns were expressed about access to data, data storage infrastructure, and consent. Perceptions of data ownership and acknowledgement, trust, and policy frameworks influenced sharing practice, as did age, discipline, professional focus, and world region. Young researchers were less willing to share data; they were willing to share in circumstances where they were acknowledged. While there is a general consensus that increased data sharing in health is beneficial to the wider scientific community, substantial barriers remain. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO CRD42018110559

Shortly after the enactment of restrictions aimed at limiting the spread of COVID-19, various local government and public health authorities around the world reported an increased sighting of rats. Such reports have yet to be empirically validated. Here we combined data from multi-catch rodent stations (providing data on rodent captures), rodent bait stations (providing data on rodent activity) and residents’ complaints to explore the effects of a six week lockdown period on rodent populations within the City of Sydney, Australia. The sampling interval encompassed October 2019 to July 2020 with lockdown defined as the interval from April 1st to May 15th, 2020. Rodent captures and activity (visits to bait stations) were stable prior to lockdown. Captures showed a rapid increase and then decline during the lockdown, while rodent visits to bait stations declined throughout this period. There were no changes in the frequency of complaints during lockdown relative to before and after lockdown. There was a non-directional change in the geographical distribution of indices of rodent abundance suggesting that rodents redistributed in response to resource scarcity. We hypothesize that lockdown measures initially resulted in increased rodent captures due to sudden shortage of human-derived food resources. Rodent visits to bait stations might not show this pattern due to the nature of the binary data collected, namely the presence or absence of a visit. Relocation of bait stations driven by pest management goals may also have affected the detection of any directional spatial effect. We conclude that the onset of COVID-19 may have disrupted commensal rodent populations, with possible implications for the future management of these ubiquitous urban indicator species.