Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 599
Filter
1.
J Hosp Med ; 18(7): 654-655, 2023 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-20244798
2.
Nature ; 618(7965): 575-582, 2023 Jun.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-20241955

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
Child Mortality , Developing Countries , Mortality , Poverty , Adult , Child, Preschool , Female , Humans , Child Mortality/trends , COVID-19/economics , COVID-19/epidemiology , Developing Countries/economics , Poverty/economics , Poverty/prevention & control , Poverty/statistics & numerical data , Life Expectancy , Health Expenditures/statistics & numerical data , Public Health/methods , Public Health/statistics & numerical data , Public Health/trends , Mortality/trends
3.
JAMA ; 329(9): 701-702, 2023 03 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2311190

ABSTRACT

This Medical News article discusses new research on the association between long COVID and employment status.


Subject(s)
Post-Acute COVID-19 Syndrome , Unemployment , Humans , COVID-19/complications , COVID-19/economics , Employment/economics , Post-Acute COVID-19 Syndrome/complications , Post-Acute COVID-19 Syndrome/economics , Socioeconomic Factors
5.
Front Public Health ; 11: 1109446, 2023.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2293233

ABSTRACT

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic drives psychological distress. Previous studies have mostly focused on individual determinants but overlooked family factors. The present study aimed to examine the associations of individual and family factors with psychological distress, and the mediating effect of individual fear and the moderating role of household income on the above associations. Methods: We conducted a population-based cross-sectional survey on Chinese adults in Hong Kong from February to March 2021 (N = 2,251) to measure the independent variables of anti-epidemic fatigue, anti-epidemic confidence, individual and family members' fear of COVID-19, and family well-being (range 0-10), and the dependent variable of psychological distress (through four-item Patient Health Questionnaire, range 0-4). Results: Hierarchical regression showed that anti-epidemic fatigue was positively (ß = 0.23, 95% CI [0.18, 0.28]) while anti-epidemic confidence was negatively (ß = -0.29, 95% CI [-0.36, -0.22]) associated with psychological distress. Family members' fear of COVID-19 was positively (ß = 0.11, 95% CI [0.05, 0.16]) while family well-being was negatively (ß = -0.57, 95% CI [-0.63, -0.51]) associated with psychological distress. Structural equation model showed that individual fear mediated the above associations except for family well-being. Multi-group analyses showed a non-significant direct effect of anti-epidemic confidence and a slightly stronger direct effect of family well-being on psychological distress among participants with lower incomes, compared to those with higher incomes. Conclusion: We have first reported the double-edged effect of family context on psychological distress, with the positive association between family members' fear of COVID-19 and psychological distress fully mediated by individual fear and the negative association between family well-being and psychological distress moderated by income level. Future studies are warranted to investigate how the contagion of fear develops in the family and how the inequality of family resources impacts family members' mental health amid the pandemic.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Family , Fear , Income , Psychological Distress , Adult , Humans , COVID-19/economics , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/psychology , Cross-Sectional Studies , Family/psychology , Family Characteristics , Fatigue/psychology , Fear/psychology , Health Surveys/statistics & numerical data , Hong Kong/epidemiology , Income/statistics & numerical data , Mental Health/statistics & numerical data , Pandemics , Family Health
6.
J Comp Eff Res ; 10(4): 281-284, 2021 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2270591

ABSTRACT

The economic burden of mortality due to the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) extends beyond the lives lost. Data from the Ohio Department of Public Health and Social Security Administration was used to estimate the years of potential life lost, 72,274 and economic value of those lost lives, US$17.39 billion. These estimates may be used to assess the risk-trade off of COVID-19 mitigation strategies in Ohio.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/economics , COVID-19/mortality , Value of Life/economics , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Child , Child, Preschool , Female , Humans , Infant , Male , Middle Aged , Ohio/epidemiology , Public Health , SARS-CoV-2 , Young Adult
9.
rev. cuid. (Bucaramanga. 2010) ; 11(3): e1318, ago.2020.
Article in Spanish | WHO COVID, LILACS (Americas) | ID: covidwho-2253460

ABSTRACT

La pandemia Covid- 19 está generando una gran crisis global en la que los países en desarrollo parecen ser los más afectados; en América Latina y el Caribe resulta preocupante dadas las precarias condiciones laborales y al alto índice de pobreza. El mercado laboral colombiano está seriamente perjudicado por el aislamiento social adoptado para desacelerar los contagios de COVID-19, sin embargo, son incontables las pérdidas humanas y económicas por esta pandemia que no discrimina. Enfrentar este enemigo invisible con prudencia y sensatez será la hazaña más grande de nuestra historia y la forma de lograrlo será nuestro más preciado legado para las generaciones venideras.


Subject(s)
Humans , Developing Countries/economics , COVID-19/economics , Health Policy , Colombia
11.
Lancet ; 398(10308): 1317-1343, 2021 10 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2184616

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The rapid spread of COVID-19 renewed the focus on how health systems across the globe are financed, especially during public health emergencies. Development assistance is an important source of health financing in many low-income countries, yet little is known about how much of this funding was disbursed for COVID-19. We aimed to put development assistance for health for COVID-19 in the context of broader trends in global health financing, and to estimate total health spending from 1995 to 2050 and development assistance for COVID-19 in 2020. METHODS: We estimated domestic health spending and development assistance for health to generate total health-sector spending estimates for 204 countries and territories. We leveraged data from the WHO Global Health Expenditure Database to produce estimates of domestic health spending. To generate estimates for development assistance for health, we relied on project-level disbursement data from the major international development agencies' online databases and annual financial statements and reports for information on income sources. To adjust our estimates for 2020 to include disbursements related to COVID-19, we extracted project data on commitments and disbursements from a broader set of databases (because not all of the data sources used to estimate the historical series extend to 2020), including the UN Office of Humanitarian Assistance Financial Tracking Service and the International Aid Transparency Initiative. We reported all the historic and future spending estimates in inflation-adjusted 2020 US$, 2020 US$ per capita, purchasing-power parity-adjusted US$ per capita, and as a proportion of gross domestic product. We used various models to generate future health spending to 2050. FINDINGS: In 2019, health spending globally reached $8·8 trillion (95% uncertainty interval [UI] 8·7-8·8) or $1132 (1119-1143) per person. Spending on health varied within and across income groups and geographical regions. Of this total, $40·4 billion (0·5%, 95% UI 0·5-0·5) was development assistance for health provided to low-income and middle-income countries, which made up 24·6% (UI 24·0-25·1) of total spending in low-income countries. We estimate that $54·8 billion in development assistance for health was disbursed in 2020. Of this, $13·7 billion was targeted toward the COVID-19 health response. $12·3 billion was newly committed and $1·4 billion was repurposed from existing health projects. $3·1 billion (22·4%) of the funds focused on country-level coordination and $2·4 billion (17·9%) was for supply chain and logistics. Only $714·4 million (7·7%) of COVID-19 development assistance for health went to Latin America, despite this region reporting 34·3% of total recorded COVID-19 deaths in low-income or middle-income countries in 2020. Spending on health is expected to rise to $1519 (1448-1591) per person in 2050, although spending across countries is expected to remain varied. INTERPRETATION: Global health spending is expected to continue to grow, but remain unequally distributed between countries. We estimate that development organisations substantially increased the amount of development assistance for health provided in 2020. Continued efforts are needed to raise sufficient resources to mitigate the pandemic for the most vulnerable, and to help curtail the pandemic for all. FUNDING: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/prevention & control , Developing Countries/economics , Economic Development , Healthcare Financing , International Agencies/economics , COVID-19/economics , COVID-19/epidemiology , Financing, Government/economics , Financing, Government/organization & administration , Global Health/economics , Government Programs/economics , Government Programs/organization & administration , Government Programs/statistics & numerical data , Government Programs/trends , Gross Domestic Product , Health Expenditures/statistics & numerical data , Health Expenditures/trends , Humans , International Agencies/organization & administration , International Cooperation
13.
Nature ; 611(7935): 332-345, 2022 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2106424

ABSTRACT

Despite notable scientific and medical advances, broader political, socioeconomic and behavioural factors continue to undercut the response to the COVID-19 pandemic1,2. Here we convened, as part of this Delphi study, a diverse, multidisciplinary panel of 386 academic, health, non-governmental organization, government and other experts in COVID-19 response from 112 countries and territories to recommend specific actions to end this persistent global threat to public health. The panel developed a set of 41 consensus statements and 57 recommendations to governments, health systems, industry and other key stakeholders across six domains: communication; health systems; vaccination; prevention; treatment and care; and inequities. In the wake of nearly three years of fragmented global and national responses, it is instructive to note that three of the highest-ranked recommendations call for the adoption of whole-of-society and whole-of-government approaches1, while maintaining proven prevention measures using a vaccines-plus approach2 that employs a range of public health and financial support measures to complement vaccination. Other recommendations with at least 99% combined agreement advise governments and other stakeholders to improve communication, rebuild public trust and engage communities3 in the management of pandemic responses. The findings of the study, which have been further endorsed by 184 organizations globally, include points of unanimous agreement, as well as six recommendations with >5% disagreement, that provide health and social policy actions to address inadequacies in the pandemic response and help to bring this public health threat to an end.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Delphi Technique , International Cooperation , Public Health , Humans , COVID-19/economics , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Government , Pandemics/economics , Pandemics/prevention & control , Public Health/economics , Public Health/methods , Organizations , COVID-19 Vaccines , Communication , Health Education , Health Policy , Public Opinion
15.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A ; 119(25): e2117155119, 2022 06 21.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2004835

ABSTRACT

This paper provides a picture of how societies in the G7 countries have responded to the COVID-19 pandemic. Our point of departure is to examine the effects of the pandemic in terms of four fundamental normative sources for well-being: Solidarity (S; willingness for social cooperation), Agency (A; empowerment to shape one's prospects through one's own efforts), GDP (G), and Environmental Performance (E)-SAGE for short. The normative foundations of SAGE are communitarianism, classical liberalism, materialistic utilitarianism, and ecoethics. We find that although G and E responded predictably and uniformly to the pandemic (such as G declining and carbon emissions improving), the societal responses were strikingly different. Societies that are cohesive and empowered (high S and A) may be expected to cope with the pandemic better than those that are fragmented and disempowered (low S and A). Furthermore, the pandemic has had diverse effects on S and A; while some societies became cohering and empowering (rising S and A), others became fragmenting and disempowering (falling S and A), and yet others became fragmenting and empowering. We also show that most G7 countries experienced greater tribalization (measured as the difference between inward S and outward S) during the pandemic. These trends are a matter of concern since they suggest that the willingness and perceived ability to address collective challenges collectively have waned. The analysis also suggests that governments' social policies may have an important role to play alongside economic and health policies in coping with the pandemic.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Pandemics , Public Policy , Social Behavior , Adaptation, Psychological , COVID-19/economics , COVID-19/psychology , Cooperative Behavior , Empowerment , Gross Domestic Product , Humans , Social Responsibility
17.
J Formos Med Assoc ; 120 Suppl 1: S6-S18, 2021 Jun.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1972183

ABSTRACT

The spread of the emerging pathogen, named as SARS-CoV-2, has led to an unprecedented COVID-19 pandemic since 1918 influenza pandemic. This review first sheds light on the similarity on global transmission, surges of pandemics, and the disparity of prevention between two pandemics. Such a brief comparison also provides an insight into the potential sequelae of COVID-19 based on the inference drawn from the fact that a cascade of successive influenza pandemic occurred after 1918 and also the previous experience on the epidemic of SARS and MERS occurring in 2003 and 2015, respectively. We then propose a systematic framework for elucidating emerging infectious disease (EID) such as COVID-19 with a panorama viewpoint from natural infection and disease process, public health interventions (non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) and vaccine), clinical treatments and therapies (antivirals), until global aspects of health and economic loss, and economic evaluation of interventions with emphasis on mass vaccination. This review not only concisely delves for evidence-based scientific literatures from the origin of outbreak, the spread of SARS-CoV-2 to three surges of pandemic, and NPIs and vaccine uptakes but also provides a new insight into how to apply big data analytics to identify unprecedented discoveries through COVID-19 pandemic scenario embracing from biomedical to economic viewpoints.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , COVID-19/economics , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Cost-Benefit Analysis , Humans , Influenza, Human/epidemiology , Influenza, Human/prevention & control , Pandemics/prevention & control , SARS-CoV-2
18.
J Formos Med Assoc ; 120 Suppl 1: S95-S105, 2021 Jun.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1972182

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Vaccine is supposed to be the most effective means to prevent COVID-19 as it may not only save lives but also reduce productivity loss due to resuming pre-pandemic activities. Providing the results of economic evaluation for mass vaccination is of paramount importance for all stakeholders worldwide. METHODS: We developed a Markov decision tree for the economic evaluation of mass vaccination against COVID-19. The effectiveness of reducing outcomes after the administration of three COVID-19 vaccines (BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech), mRNA-1273 (Moderna), and AZD1222 (Oxford-AstraZeneca)) were modelled with empirical parameters obtained from literatures. The direct cost of vaccine and COVID-19 related medical cost, the indirect cost of productivity loss due to vaccine jabs and hospitalization, and the productivity loss were accumulated given different vaccination scenarios. We reported the incremental cost-utility ratio and benefit/cost (B/C) ratio of three vaccines compared to no vaccination with a probabilistic approach. RESULTS: Moderna and Pfizer vaccines won the greatest effectiveness among the three vaccines under consideration. After taking both direct and indirect costs into account, all of the three vaccines dominated no vaccination strategy. The results of B/C ratio show that one dollar invested in vaccine would have USD $13, USD $23, and USD $28 in return for Moderna, Pfizer, and AstraZeneca, respectively when health and education loss are considered. The corresponding figures taking value of the statistical life into account were USD $176, USD $300, and USD $443. CONCLUSION: Mass vaccination against COVID-19 with three current available vaccines is cost-saving for gaining more lives and less cost incurred.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Mass Vaccination , BNT162 Vaccine , COVID-19/economics , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19 Vaccines/economics , ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 , Cost-Benefit Analysis , Humans , Mass Vaccination/economics
19.
JAMA ; 328(4): 360-366, 2022 07 26.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1971153

ABSTRACT

Importance: The COVID-19 pandemic caused a large decrease in US life expectancy in 2020, but whether a similar decrease occurred in 2021 and whether the relationship between income and life expectancy intensified during the pandemic are unclear. Objective: To measure changes in life expectancy in 2020 and 2021 and the relationship between income and life expectancy by race and ethnicity. Design, Setting, and Participants: Retrospective ecological analysis of deaths in California in 2015 to 2021 to calculate state- and census tract-level life expectancy. Tracts were grouped by median household income (MHI), obtained from the American Community Survey, and the slope of the life expectancy-income gradient was compared by year and by racial and ethnic composition. Exposures: California in 2015 to 2019 (before the COVID-19 pandemic) and 2020 to 2021 (during the COVID-19 pandemic). Main Outcomes and Measures: Life expectancy at birth. Results: California experienced 1 988 606 deaths during 2015 to 2021, including 654 887 in 2020 to 2021. State life expectancy declined from 81.40 years in 2019 to 79.20 years in 2020 and 78.37 years in 2021. MHI data were available for 7962 of 8057 census tracts (98.8%; n = 1 899 065 deaths). Mean MHI ranged from $21 279 to $232 261 between the lowest and highest percentiles. The slope of the relationship between life expectancy and MHI increased significantly, from 0.075 (95% CI, 0.07-0.08) years per percentile in 2019 to 0.103 (95% CI, 0.098-0.108; P < .001) years per percentile in 2020 and 0.107 (95% CI, 0.102-0.112; P < .001) years per percentile in 2021. The gap in life expectancy between the richest and poorest percentiles increased from 11.52 years in 2019 to 14.67 years in 2020 and 15.51 years in 2021. Among Hispanic and non-Hispanic Asian, Black, and White populations, life expectancy declined 5.74 years among the Hispanic population, 3.04 years among the non-Hispanic Asian population, 3.84 years among the non-Hispanic Black population, and 1.90 years among the non-Hispanic White population between 2019 and 2021. The income-life expectancy gradient in these groups increased significantly between 2019 and 2020 (0.038 [95% CI, 0.030-0.045; P < .001] years per percentile among Hispanic individuals; 0.024 [95% CI: 0.005-0.044; P = .02] years per percentile among Asian individuals; 0.015 [95% CI, 0.010-0.020; P < .001] years per percentile among Black individuals; and 0.011 [95% CI, 0.007-0.015; P < .001] years per percentile among White individuals) and between 2019 and 2021 (0.033 [95% CI, 0.026-0.040; P < .001] years per percentile among Hispanic individuals; 0.024 [95% CI, 0.010-0.038; P = .002] years among Asian individuals; 0.024 [95% CI, 0.011-0.037; P = .003] years per percentile among Black individuals; and 0.013 [95% CI, 0.008-0.018; P < .001] years per percentile among White individuals). The increase in the gradient was significantly greater among Hispanic vs White populations in 2020 and 2021 (P < .001 in both years) and among Black vs White populations in 2021 (P = .04). Conclusions and Relevance: This retrospective analysis of census tract-level income and mortality data in California from 2015 to 2021 demonstrated a decrease in life expectancy in both 2020 and 2021 and an increase in the life expectancy gap by income level relative to the prepandemic period that disproportionately affected some racial and ethnic minority populations. Inferences at the individual level are limited by the ecological nature of the study, and the generalizability of the findings outside of California are unknown.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Economic Status , Ethnicity , Life Expectancy , Pandemics , Racial Groups , COVID-19/economics , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/ethnology , California/epidemiology , Economic Status/statistics & numerical data , Ethnicity/statistics & numerical data , Humans , Income/statistics & numerical data , Life Expectancy/ethnology , Life Expectancy/trends , Minority Groups/statistics & numerical data , Pandemics/economics , Pandemics/statistics & numerical data , Racial Groups/statistics & numerical data , Retrospective Studies , Socioeconomic Factors , United States/epidemiology
20.
PLoS One ; 17(3): e0264484, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1938418

ABSTRACT

Companies developing automated driving system (ADS) technologies have spent heavily in recent years to conduct live testing of autonomous vehicles operating in real world environments to ensure their reliable and safe operations. However, the unexpected onset and ongoing resurgent effects of the Covid-19 pandemic starting in March 2020 has serve to halt, change, or delay the achievement of these new product development test objectives. This study draws on data obtained from the California automated vehicle test program to determine the extent that testing trends, test resumptions, and test environments have been affected by the pandemic. The importance of government policies to support and enable autonomous vehicles development during pandemic conditions is highlighted.


Subject(s)
Automation/methods , Autonomous Vehicles/statistics & numerical data , Mechanical Tests/methods , Accidents, Traffic/prevention & control , Accidents, Traffic/trends , Automation/economics , Automobile Driving/statistics & numerical data , COVID-19/economics , California , Humans , Mechanical Tests/economics , User-Centered Design
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL