The effects of cash transfers on adult and child mortality in low- and middle-income countries.

Poverty is an important social determinant of health that is associated with increased risk of death1-5. Cash transfer programmes provide non-contributory monetary transfers to individuals or households, with or without behavioural conditions such as children's school attendance6,7. Over recent decades, cash transfer programmes have emerged as central components of poverty reduction strategies of many governments in low- and middle-income countries6,7. The effects of these programmes on adult and child mortality rates remains an important gap in the literature, however, with existing evidence limited to a few specific conditional cash transfer programmes, primarily in Latin America8-14. Here we evaluated the effects of large-scale, government-led cash transfer programmes on all-cause adult and child mortality using individual-level longitudinal mortality datasets from many low- and middle-income countries. We found that cash transfer programmes were associated with significant reductions in mortality among children under five years of age and women. Secondary heterogeneity analyses suggested similar effects for conditional and unconditional programmes, and larger effects for programmes that covered a larger share of the population and provided larger transfer amounts, and in countries with lower health expenditures, lower baseline life expectancy, and higher perceived regulatory quality. Our findings support the use of anti-poverty programmes such as cash transfers, which many countries have introduced or expanded during the COVID-19 pandemic, to improve population health.

The Anticipated Future of Public Health Services Post COVID-19: Viewpoint.

In March 2020, the World Health Organization declared COVID-19 as a global pandemic. The COVID-19 pandemic has affected various public health functions and essential services in different ways and magnitudes. Although all countries have witnessed the effect of COVID-19, the impact differed based on many factors including the integrity and resiliency of the countries' health systems. This paper presents opinions and expectations of the authors about the anticipated changes in the future of public health at the global, regional, and national levels. The viewpoint is based on the current efforts and challenges that various stakeholders have carried out to control COVID-19 and the contribution from the literature on the future of public health. Numerous agencies and actors are involved in the fight against COVID-19 with variations in their effectiveness. The public health services showed weaknesses in most of the countries, in addition to the lack of adequate curative medicine settings. The pandemic highlighted the need for better governance and stronger and more resilient health systems and capacities. The COVID-19 experience has also emphasized the importance of coordination and collaboration among the countries and stakeholders. The COVID-19 pandemic might lead to a wide discussion to improve international and national approaches to prepare for and respond to similar events in terms of preparedness and response mechanisms and tools. Public health will not be the same as before COVID-19. New health priorities, approaches, and new agendas will be on the table of the global platforms and initiatives. More investment in research and technology to meet the demand for new vaccines and medicines, innovative methods like distance learning and working, more respect and remuneration to health professionals, and normalization of the public health and social measures that were induced during the COVID-19 pandemic are expected to be seen in future.

Determinants of Shielding Behavior During the COVID-19 Pandemic and Associations With Well-being Among National Health Service Patients: Longitudinal Observational Study.

BACKGROUND: The UK National Health Service (NHS) classified 2.2 million people as clinically extremely vulnerable (CEV) during the first wave of the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic, advising them to "shield" (to not leave home for any reason). OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to measure the determinants of shielding behavior and associations with well-being in a large NHS patient population for informing future health policy. METHODS: Patients contributing to an ongoing longitudinal participatory epidemiology study (Longitudinal Effects on Wellbeing of the COVID-19 Pandemic [LoC-19], n=42,924) received weekly email invitations to complete questionnaires (17-week shielding period starting April 9, 2020) within their NHS personal electronic health record. Question items focused on well-being. Participants were stratified into four groups by self-reported CEV status (qualifying condition) and adoption of shielding behavior (baselined at week 1 or 2). The distribution of CEV criteria was reported alongside situational variables and univariable and multivariable logistic regression. Longitudinal trends in physical and mental well-being were displayed graphically. Free-text responses reporting variables impacting well-being were semiquantified using natural language processing. In the lead up to a second national lockdown (October 23, 2020), a follow-up questionnaire evaluated subjective concern if further shielding was advised. RESULTS: The study included 7240 participants. In the CEV group (n=2391), 1133 (47.3%) assumed shielding behavior at baseline, compared with 633 (13.0%) in the non-CEV group (n=4849). CEV participants who shielded were more likely to be Asian (odds ratio [OR] 2.02, 95% CI 1.49-2.76), female (OR 1.24, 95% CI 1.05-1.45), older (OR per year increase 1.01, 95% CI 1.00-1.02), living in a home with an outdoor space (OR 1.34, 95% CI 1.06-1.70) or three to four other inhabitants (three: OR 1.49, 95% CI 1.15-1.94; four: OR 1.49, 95% CI 1.10-2.01), or solid organ transplant recipients (OR 2.85, 95% CI 2.18-3.77), or have severe chronic lung disease (OR 1.63, 95% CI 1.30-2.04). Receipt of a government letter advising shielding was reported in 1115 (46.6%) CEV participants and 180 (3.7%) non-CEV participants, and was associated with adopting shielding behavior (OR 3.34, 95% CI 2.82-3.95 and OR 2.88, 95% CI 2.04-3.99, respectively). In CEV participants, shielding at baseline was associated with a lower rating of mental well-being and physical well-being. Similar results were found for non-CEV participants. Concern for well-being if future shielding was required was most prevalent among CEV participants who had originally shielded. CONCLUSIONS: Future health policy must balance the potential protection from COVID-19 against our findings that shielding negatively impacted well-being and was adopted in many in whom it was not indicated and variably in whom it was indicated. This therefore also requires clearer public health messaging and support for well-being if shielding is to be advised in future pandemic scenarios.

Nonfatal opioid overdoses before and after Covid-19: Regional variation in rates of change.

BACKGROUND: The Covid-19 pandemic and its accompanying public-health orders (PHOs) have led to (potentially countervailing) changes in various risk factors for overdose. To assess whether the net effects of these factors varied geographically, we examined regional variation in the impact of the PHOs on counts of nonfatal overdoses, which have received less attention than fatal overdoses, despite their public health significance. METHODS: Data were collected from the Overdose Detection Mapping Application Program (ODMAP), which recorded suspected overdoses between July 1, 2018 and October 25, 2020. We used segmented regression models to assess the impact of PHOs on nonfatal-overdose trends in Washington DC and the five geographical regions of Maryland, using a historical control time series to adjust for normative changes in overdoses that occurred around mid-March (when the PHOs were issued). RESULTS: The mean level change in nonfatal opioid overdoses immediately after mid-March was not reliably different in the Covid-19 year versus the preceding control time series for any region. However, the rate of increase in nonfatal overdose was steeper after mid-March in the Covid-19 year versus the preceding year for Maryland as a whole (B = 2.36; 95% CI, 0.65 to 4.06; p = .007) and for certain subregions. No differences were observed for Washington DC. CONCLUSIONS: The pandemic and its accompanying PHOs were associated with steeper increases in nonfatal opioid overdoses in most but not all of the regions we assessed, with a net effect that was deleterious for the Maryland region as a whole.

Evaluation of individual and ensemble probabilistic forecasts of COVID-19 mortality in the United States.

Short-term probabilistic forecasts of the trajectory of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States have served as a visible and important communication channel between the scientific modeling community and both the general public and decision-makers. Forecasting models provide specific, quantitative, and evaluable predictions that inform short-term decisions such as healthcare staffing needs, school closures, and allocation of medical supplies. Starting in April 2020, the US COVID-19 Forecast Hub (https://covid19forecasthub.org/) collected, disseminated, and synthesized tens of millions of specific predictions from more than 90 different academic, industry, and independent research groups. A multimodel ensemble forecast that combined predictions from dozens of groups every week provided the most consistently accurate probabilistic forecasts of incident deaths due to COVID-19 at the state and national level from April 2020 through October 2021. The performance of 27 individual models that submitted complete forecasts of COVID-19 deaths consistently throughout this year showed high variability in forecast skill across time, geospatial units, and forecast horizons. Two-thirds of the models evaluated showed better accuracy than a naïve baseline model. Forecast accuracy degraded as models made predictions further into the future, with probabilistic error at a 20-wk horizon three to five times larger than when predicting at a 1-wk horizon. This project underscores the role that collaboration and active coordination between governmental public-health agencies, academic modeling teams, and industry partners can play in developing modern modeling capabilities to support local, state, and federal response to outbreaks.

We're all in this together: Focus on community attenuates effects of pandemic-related financial hardship on reactance to COVID-19 public health regulations.

There has been resistance to COVID-19 public health restrictions partly due to changes and reductions in work, resulting in financial stress. Psychological reactance theory posits that such restrictions to personal freedoms result in anger, defiance, and motivation to restore freedom. In an online study (N = 301), we manipulated the target of COVID-19 restrictions as impacting self or community. We hypothesized that (a) greater pandemic-related financial stress would predict greater reactance, (b) the self-focused restriction condition would elicit greater reactance than the community-focused restriction condition, (c) reactance would be greatest for financially-stressed individuals in the self-focused condition, and (d) greater reactance would predict lower adherence to social distancing guidelines. Independent of political orientation and sense of community, greater financial stress predicted greater reactance only in the self-focused condition; the community-focused condition attenuated this association. Additionally, greater reactance was associated with lower social distancing behavior. These findings suggest that economic hardship exacerbates negative responses to continued personal freedom loss. Community-focused COVID-19 health messaging may be better received during continued pandemic conditions.

Measuring citizens' engagement during emergencies: Psychometric validation of the Public Health Engagement Scale for Emergency Settings (PHEs-E).

The Covid-19 pandemic has highlighted the importance of citizens' behaviors in the containment of the virus. Individuals might change their intention to adhere to public health prescriptions depending on various personal characteristics, including their own emotional status, which has been recognized to be a crucial psychological factor in orienting people's adherence to public health recommendation during emergency settings. In particular, it is crucial to support citizens' alliance with authorities and feeling of trust: public engagement is a concept that refers to the general involvement of citizens into public affairs which is generally considered an effective approach to enhance citizens' understanding of their crucial role in public affairs. However, so far there is no agreement on the metrics and indexes that should be used to measures public engagement during a health crisis. The aim of this paper is to validate a psychometric scale (PHEs-E), which intends to measure the readiness of individuals to adhere to the prescribed behavioral change to contain the emergency. Data were collected throughout the pandemic in Italy: in particular, five independent samples were recruited starting from March 2020 to March 2021. Results showed that the proposed measure has good psychometric characteristics. A general linear model was computed to assess the differences of public engagement across the different data points and among citizens with different sociodemographic characteristics. Correlations with other psychological constructs (i.e. Anxiety, Depression and Self-Efficacy) were also tested, showing that more engaged citizens have a lower level of anxiety and depression, and a higher self-efficacy. This study's findings indicate that individuals' characteristics may differentiate citizens' motivation to engage in public health behavioral recommendation to prevent the COVID-19 contagion. However the scale could be useful to perform a psychological monitoring of psychological readiness to engage in public health strategies to face critical events and settings.

The Top News Stories of 2021: COVID-19 Year 2: With Politicized Public Health, Geography Is Destiny.

As some states approach endemic status, others face more misery.