ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: Disease transmission models are used in impact assessment and economic evaluations of infectious disease prevention and treatment strategies, prominently so in the COVID-19 response. These models rarely consider dimensions of equity relating to the differential health burden between individuals and groups. We describe concepts and approaches which are useful when considering equity in the priority setting process, and outline the technical choices concerning model structure, outputs, and data requirements needed to use transmission models in analyses of health equity. METHODS: We reviewed the literature on equity concepts and approaches to their application in economic evaluation and undertook a technical consultation on how equity can be incorporated in priority setting for infectious disease control. The technical consultation brought together health economists with an interest in equity-informative economic evaluation, ethicists specialising in public health, mathematical modellers from various disease backgrounds, and representatives of global health funding and technical assistance organisations, to formulate key areas of consensus and recommendations. RESULTS: We provide a series of recommendations for applying the Reference Case for Economic Evaluation in Global Health to infectious disease interventions, comprising guidance on 1) the specification of equity concepts; 2) choice of evaluation framework; 3) model structure; and 4) data needs. We present available conceptual and analytical choices, for example how correlation between different equity- and disease-relevant strata should be considered dependent on available data, and outline how assumptions and data limitations can be reported transparently by noting key factors for consideration. CONCLUSIONS: Current developments in economic evaluations in global health provide a wide range of methodologies to incorporate equity into economic evaluations. Those employing infectious disease models need to use these frameworks more in priority setting to accurately represent health inequities. We provide guidance on the technical approaches to support this goal and ultimately, to achieve more equitable health policies.
ABSTRACT
Background: The COVID-19 pandemic is a massive health crisis that has exerted enormous physical and psychological pressure. Mental healthcare for healthcare workers (HCWs) should receive serious consideration. This study served to determine the mental-health outcomes of 1,556 HCWs from 45 countries who participated in the COVID-19 IMPACT project, and to examine the predictors of the outcomes during the first pandemic wave. Methods: Outcomes assessed were self-reported perceived stress, depression symptom, and sleep changes. The predictors examined included sociodemographic factors and perceived social support. Results: The results demonstrated that half of the HCWs had moderate levels of perceived stress and symptoms of depression. Half of the HCWs (n = 800, 51.4%) had similar sleeping patterns since the pandemic started, and one in four slept more or slept less. HCWs reported less perceived stress and depression symptoms and higher levels of perceived social support than the general population who participated in the same project. Predictors associated with higher perceived stress and symptoms of depression among HCWs included female sex, not having children, living with parents, lower educational level, and lower social support. Discussion: The need for establishing ways to mitigate mental-health risks and adjusting psychological interventions and support for HCWs seems to be significant as the pandemic continues.
ABSTRACT
COVID-19 behaves like a heterogeneous disease. Some patients may develop dyspnea-free hypoxemia during its evolution (silent hypoxemia). Pulse oximetry plays a crucial role in detecting hypoxemia in these patients, especially when they remain at home. Patients with SpO2 levels ≤ 92% or desaturations ≥ 3% after exercise test require hospital admission. Progressive saturation declines reaching SpO2 levels < 96% require strict clinical assessment (radiological study, blood test) for which it will be sent to a health center.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Dyspnea , Humans , Hypoxia/diagnosis , Hypoxia/etiology , Oximetry , SARS-CoV-2ABSTRACT
This study aimed to compare the mediation of psychological flexibility, prosociality and coping in the impacts of illness perceptions toward COVID-19 on mental health among seven regions. Convenience sampled online survey was conducted between April and June 2020 from 9130 citizens in 21 countries. Illness perceptions toward COVID-19, psychological flexibility, prosociality, coping and mental health, socio-demographics, lockdown-related variables and COVID-19 status were assessed. Results showed that psychological flexibility was the only significant mediator in the relationship between illness perceptions toward COVID-19 and mental health across all regions (all ps = 0.001-0.021). Seeking social support was the significant mediator across subgroups (all ps range = <0.001-0.005) except from the Hong Kong sample (p = 0.06) and the North and South American sample (p = 0.53). No mediation was found for problem-solving (except from the Northern European sample, p = 0.009). Prosociality was the significant mediator in the Hong Kong sample (p = 0.016) and the Eastern European sample (p = 0.008). These findings indicate that fostering psychological flexibility may help to mitigate the adverse mental impacts of COVID-19 across regions. Roles of seeking social support, problem-solving and prosociality vary across regions.