The COVID-19 pandemic and health-related quality of life across 13 high- and low-middle-income countries: A cross-sectional analysis.

BACKGROUND: Most research on the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) health burden has focused on confirmed cases and deaths, rather than consequences for the general population's health-related quality of life (HRQoL). It is also important to consider HRQoL to better understand the potential multifaceted implications of the COVID-19 pandemic in various international contexts. This study aimed to assess the association between the COVID-19 pandemic and changes in HRQoL in 13 diverse countries. METHODS AND FINDINGS: Adults (18+ years) were surveyed online (24 November to 17 December 2020) in 13 countries spanning 6 continents. Our cross-sectional study used descriptive and regression-based analyses (age adjusted and stratified by gender) to assess the association between the pandemic and changes in the general population's HRQoL, measured by the EQ-5D-5L instrument and its domains (mobility, self-care, usual activities, pain/discomfort, and anxiety/depression), and how overall health deterioration was associated with individual-level (socioeconomic, clinical, and experiences of COVID-19) and national-level (pandemic severity, government responsiveness, and effectiveness) factors. We also produced country-level quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) associated to COVID-19 pandemic-related morbidity. We found that overall health deteriorated, on average across countries, for more than one-third of the 15,480 participants, mostly in the anxiety/depression health domain, especially for younger people (<35 years old) and females/other gender. This translated overall into a 0.066 mean "loss" (95% CI: -0.075, -0.057; p-value < 0.001) in the EQ-5D-5L index, representing a reduction of 8% in overall HRQoL. QALYs lost associated with morbidity were 5 to 11 times greater than QALYs lost based on COVID-19 premature mortality. A limitation of the study is that participants were asked to complete the prepandemic health questionnaire retrospectively, meaning responses may be subject to recall bias. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we observed that the COVID-19 pandemic was associated with a reduction in perceived HRQoL globally, especially with respect to the anxiety/depression health domain and among younger people. The COVID-19 health burden would therefore be substantially underestimated if based only on mortality. HRQoL measures are important to fully capture morbidity from the pandemic in the general population.

Malaysian public preferences and decision making for COVID-19 vaccination: A discrete choice experiment.

Background: Low vaccine uptake has the potential to seriously undermine COVID-19 vaccination programs, as very high coverage levels are likely to be needed for virus suppression to return life to normal. We aimed to determine the influence of vaccine attributes (including access costs) on COVID-19 vaccination preferences among the Malaysian public to improve national uptake. Methods: An online Discrete Choice Experiment (DCE) was conducted on a representative sample of 2028 Malaysians. Respondents were asked to make vaccination decisions in a series of hypothetical scenarios. A nested, mixed logit model was used to estimate the preferences for vaccination over vaccine refusal and for how those preferences varied between different sub-populations. The attributes were the risk of developing severe side effects of the vaccine, vaccine effectiveness, vaccine content, vaccination schedule, and distance from home to vaccination centre. Findings: Reported public uptake of COVID-19 vaccination was primarily influenced by the risk of developing severe side effects (b = -1·747, 95% CI = -2·269, -1·225), vaccine effectiveness (b = 3·061, 95% CI = 2·628, 3·494) and its Halal status (b = 3·722, 95% CI = 3·152, 4·292). Other factors such as appointment timing and travel distance to the vaccination centre also had an effect on vaccine uptake. There was substantial heterogeneity in preferences between different populations, particularly for age groups, ethnicity, regions, and underlying health conditions. Interpretation: Perceived effectiveness and side effects are likely to affect COVID-19 vaccine uptake in Malaysia. Halal content is critical to Malays' vaccination choices. Reducing the physical distance to vaccination centres, particularly in rural areas where uptake is lower, is likely to improve uptake. Funding: Ministry of Health Research Grant from the Malaysian government [NIH/800-3/2/1 Jld.7(46), grant reference no: 57377 and warrant no: 91000776].

Is There Broad-Based Support in High-Income Countries for COVID-19 Vaccine Donation? Evidence from Seven Countries.

BACKGROUND: Many high-income countries (HICs) have now vaccinated a substantial proportion of their population against COVID-19. Many low-income countries (LICs) may need to wait until at least 2022 before even the most vulnerable 20% of their populations are vaccinated. Beyond ethical considerations, some redistribution of doses would reduce the risk of the emergence and spread of new variants and benefit the economy, both globally and in donor countries. However, the willingness of HIC governments to donate vaccine doses is likely to depend on public support. While previous work has indicated strong average levels of public support in HIC for donation, little is known about how broad-based this support is. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the extent to which support for donation holds across both pre-specified and exploratory subgroups. METHODS: From 24 November-28 December 2020 we conducted an online survey of 8209 members of the general public in seven HIC (Australia, Canada, France, Italy, Spain, UK and USA). We conducted tests of proportions and used Bayesian ordinal logistic regression models to assess the extent of support for donation across population subgroups. RESULTS: We found broad-based support for donations in terms of age, gender, socio-economic status and political ideology. We found no strong evidence that support for donations was higher among those with greater income or a university education. Support for donation among those on the political right and centre was lower than on the left, but 51% (95% confidence interval 48-53%) of respondents who identified with the right supported some level of donation. Those in the more altruistic half of the sample (as captured by willingness to donate money to a good cause) were more likely to support donation than those who were not, but around half of the less altruistic group supported some level of donation. CONCLUSION: There is broad-based support for policymakers in HICs to donate some of their countries' COVID-19 vaccine doses for distribution to LICs.

Citizens from 13 countries share similar preferences for COVID-19 vaccine allocation priorities.

How does the public want a COVID-19 vaccine to be allocated? We conducted a conjoint experiment asking 15,536 adults in 13 countries to evaluate 248,576 profiles of potential vaccine recipients who varied randomly on five attributes. Our sample includes diverse countries from all continents. The results suggest that in addition to giving priority to health workers and to those at high risk, the public favors giving priority to a broad range of key workers and to those with lower income. These preferences are similar across respondents of different education levels, incomes, and political ideologies, as well as across most surveyed countries. The public favored COVID-19 vaccines being allocated solely via government programs but were highly polarized in some developed countries on whether taking a vaccine should be mandatory. There is a consensus among the public on many aspects of COVID-19 vaccination, which needs to be taken into account when developing and communicating rollout strategies.

Lessons from the pandemic on the value of research infrastructure.

The COVID-19 pandemic has shed a spotlight on the resilience of healthcare systems, and their ability to cope efficiently and effectively with unexpected crises. If we are to learn one economic lesson from the pandemic, arguably it is the perils of an overfocus on short-term allocative efficiency at the price of lack of capacity to deal with uncertain future challenges. In normal times, building spare capacity with 'option value' into health systems may seem inefficient, the costs potentially exceeding the benefits. Yet the fatal weakness of not doing so is that this can leave health systems highly constrained when dealing with unexpected, but ultimately inevitable, shocks-such as the COVID-19 pandemic. In this article, we argue that the pandemic has highlighted the potentially enormous option value of biomedical research infrastructure. We illustrate this with reference to COVID-19 response work supported by the United Kingdom National Institute for Health Research Oxford Biomedical Research Centre. As the world deals with the fallout from the most serious economic crisis since the Great Depression, pressure will soon come to review government expenditure, including research funding. Developing a framework to fully account for option value, and understanding the public appetite to pay for it, should allow us to be better prepared for the next emerging problem.