Estimation of Utility Values for Computing Quality-adjusted Life Years Associated With Homelessness.

BACKGROUND: There is a lack of data-driven evidence about the burden of homelessness, and lack of a holistic measure of effectiveness for evaluating interventions targeting homelessness. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) can help holistically capture the burden of homelessness, and facilitate the valuation and comparison of interventions designed to address homelessness. OBJECTIVE: This study estimated utility values required to compute the QALYs associated with homelessness, and also examined individual-level characteristics that affect these values. RESEARCH DESIGN: The study is cross-sectional and derived from a large national survey conducted during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. SUBJECTS: A sample of 6607 middle- and low-income adults in the United States. MEASURES: A self-completion standard gamble survey was used to estimate utility values associated with homelessness. Linear regression was used to analyze the association between individual-level characteristics and these utility values. RESULTS: The study estimated the average utility value associated with homelessness as 43.4% among the study participants. This implies that 1 year of life as a homeless individual is perceived to be equivalent to less than half a year of life as a stably housed individual in good health. The study also found that individuals who have experienced homelessness and financial distress value life as a homeless person considerably less than those who have not had these experiences. CONCLUSIONS: The method developed in this study can be used to estimate QALYs in studies evaluating homelessness interventions, thereby establishing the societal value of these interventions and informing policy and budgetary decision-making. Future studies estimating the utility values associated with homelessness in the general population, as well as specific homeless groups, are required to provide more generalizable evidence.

Prospective association between receipt of the economic impact payment and mental health outcomes.

BACKGROUND: The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act of 2020 provided 'economic impact payments' (EIPs) of $1200 to US adults with annual personal income of $75 000 or less. This study examined the prospective association between EIP receipt and mental health outcomes. METHODS: A nationally representative sample of 3169 middle-income and low-income US adults completed a baseline assessment of their health and well-being in May-June 2020 and a 3-month follow-up assessment during the period of the COVID-19 pandemic when EIPs were distributed. RESULTS: Controlling for sociodemographic characteristics, EIP recipients had higher odds of reporting a positive COVID-19 test, endorsing a history of post-traumatic stress disorder and reporting any illicit drug use in the past month than participants who did not receive EIP. Participants who did not receive EIP were more likely to report a history of anxiety disorder or alcohol use disorder and recent suicidal ideation than EIP recipients. There was no association between EIP receipt and financial distress, although over one-third to over half of EIP recipients were not employed at baseline. Between baseline and 3-month follow-up, receipt of EIP was significantly associated with reduced medical conditions and alcohol use problems, but increased depression, suicidal ideation and COVID-19 era-related stress. CONCLUSION: The EIP provided a brief income stimulus to many adults in need but was not associated with improvements in financial distress or mental health among middle-income and low-income recipients. Long-term income security and employment may be more important to improving and sustaining positive mental health outcomes.

A meta-analysis of the global impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on stroke care & the Houston Experience.

OBJECTIVE: To review the global impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on stroke care-metrics and report data from a health system in Houston. METHODS: We performed a meta-analysis of the published literature reporting stroke admissions, intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) cases, number of thrombolysis (tPA) and thrombectomy (MT) cases, and time metrics (door to needle, DTN; and door to groin time, DTG) during the pandemic compared to prepandemic period. Within our hospital system, between January-June 2019 and January-June 2020, we compared the proportion of stroke admissions and door to tPA and MT times. RESULTS: A total of 32,640 stroke admissions from 29 studies were assessed. Compared to prepandemic period, the mean ratio of stroke admissions during the pandemic was 70.78% [95% CI, 65.02%, 76.54%], ICH cases was 83.10% [95% CI, 71.01%, 95.17%], tPA cases was 81.74% [95% CI, 72.33%, 91.16%], and MT cases was 88.63% [95% CI, 74.12%, 103.13%], whereas DTN time was 104.48% [95% CI, 95.52%, 113.44%] and DTG was 104.30% [95% CI, 81.99%, 126.61%]. In Houston, a total of 4808 cases were assessed. There was an initial drop of ~30% in cases at the pandemic onset. Compared to 2019, there was a significant reduction in mild strokes (NIHSS 1-5) [N (%), 891 (43) vs 635 (40), P = 0.02]. There were similar mean (SD) (mins) DTN [44 (17) vs 42 (17), P = 0.14] but significantly prolonged DTG times [94 (15) vs 85 (20), P = 0.005] in 2020. INTERPRETATION: The COVID-19 pandemic led to a global reduction in stroke admissions and treatment interventions and prolonged treatment time metrics.

Successful conduct of an acute stroke clinical trial during COVID.

Most clinical research stopped during COVID due to possible impact on data quality and personnel safety. We aimed to assess the impact of COVID on acute stroke clinical trial conduct at sites that continued to enroll patients during the pandemic. BEST-MSU is an ongoing study of Mobile Stroke Units (MSU) vs standard management of tPA-eligible acute stroke patients in the pre-hospital setting. MSU personnel include a vascular neurologist via telemedicine, and a nurse, CT technologist, paramedics and emergency medicine technicians on-board. During COVID, consent, 90-day modified Rankin Scale (mRS) and EQ5D were obtained by phone instead of in-person, but other aspects of management were similar to the pre-COVID period. We compared patient demographics, study metrics, and infection of study personnel during intra- vs pre-COVID eras. Five of 6 BEST-MSU sites continued to enroll during COVID. There were no differences in intra- (n = 57) vs pre- (n = 869) COVID enrolled tPA eligible patients' age, sex, race (38.6% vs 38.0% Black), ethnicity (15.8% vs 18.6% Hispanic), or NIHSS (median 11 vs 9). The percent of screened patients enrolled and adjudicated tPA eligible declined from 13.6% to 6.6% (p < .001); study enrollment correlated with local stay-at-home and reopening orders. There were no differences in alert to MSU arrival or arrival to tPA times, but MSU on-scene time was 5 min longer (p = .01). There were no differences in ED door to CT, tPA treatment or thrombectomy puncture times, hospital length of stay, discharge disposition, or remote vs in-person 90-day mRS or EQ5D. One MSU nurse tested positive but did not require hospitalization. Clinical research in the pre-hospital setting can be carried out accurately and safely during a pandemic. tPA eligibility rates declined, but otherwise there were no differences in patient demographics, deterioration of study processes, or serious infection of study staff. Trial registration: NCT02190500.