Economic evaluation of strategies against coronavirus: a systematic review

Masks and respirators for prevention of respiratory infections: a state of the science review

SUMMARYThis narrative review and meta-analysis summarizes a broad evidence base on the benefits-and also the practicalities, disbenefits, harms and personal, sociocultural and environmental impacts-of masks and masking. Our synthesis of evidence from over 100 published reviews and selected primary studies, including re-analyzing contested meta-analyses of key clinical trials, produced seven key findings. First, there is strong and consistent evidence for airborne transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and other respiratory pathogens. Second, masks are, if correctly and consistently worn, effective in reducing transmission of respiratory diseases and show a dose-response effect. Third, respirators are significantly more effective than medical or cloth masks. Fourth, mask mandates are, overall, effective in reducing community transmission of respiratory pathogens. Fifth, masks are important sociocultural symbols; non-adherence to masking is sometimes linked to political and ideological beliefs and to widely circulated mis- or disinformation. Sixth, while there is much evidence that masks are not generally harmful to the general population, masking may be relatively contraindicated in individuals with certain medical conditions, who may require exemption. Furthermore, certain groups (notably D/deaf people) are disadvantaged when others are masked. Finally, there are risks to the environment from single-use masks and respirators. We propose an agenda for future research, including improved characterization of the situations in which masking should be recommended or mandated; attention to comfort and acceptability; generalized and disability-focused communication support in settings where masks are worn; and development and testing of novel materials and designs for improved filtration, breathability, and environmental impact.

Cost-effectiveness of mask mandates on subways to prevent SARS-CoV-2 transmission in the United States

BACKGROUND

Community-based mask wearing has been shown to reduce the transmission of SARS-CoV-2. However, few studies have conducted an economic evaluation of mask mandates, specifically in public transportation settings. This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of implementing mask mandates for subway passengers in the United States by evaluating its potential to reduce COVID-19 transmission during subway travel.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We assessed the health impacts and costs of subway mask mandates compared to mask recommendations based on the number of infections that would occur during subway travel in the U.S. Using a combined box and Wells-Riley infection model, we estimated monthly infections, hospitalizations, and deaths averted under a mask mandate scenario as compared to a mask recommendation scenario. The analysis included costs of implementing mask mandates and COVID-19 treatment from a limited societal perspective. The cost-effectiveness (net cost per averted death) of mandates was estimated for three different periods based on dominant SARS-CoV-2 variants: Alpha, Beta, and Gamma (November 2020 to February 2021); Delta (July to October 2021); and early Omicron (January to March 2022).

RESULTS

Compared with mask recommendations only, mask mandates were cost-effective across all periods, with costs per averted death less than a threshold of $11.4 million (ranging from cost-saving to $3 million per averted death). Additionally, mask mandates were more cost-effective during the early Omicron period than the other two periods and were cost saving in January 2022. Our findings showed that mandates remained cost-effective when accounting for uncertainties in input parameters (e.g., even if mandates only resulted in small increases in mask usage by subway ridership).

CONCLUSIONS

The findings highlight the economic value of mask mandates on subways, particularly during high virus transmissibility periods, during the COVID-19 pandemic. This study may inform stakeholders on mask mandate decisions during future outbreaks of novel viral respiratory diseases.

Going Forward: Potential Impact of Protein-Based COVID-19 Vaccination Coverage on Population Outcomes and Costs in the United States

Policymakers in the United States (US) recommend coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination with a monovalent 2023-2024 vaccine formulation based on the Omicron XBB.1.5 variant. We estimated the potential US population-level health and economic impacts of increased COVID-19 vaccine coverage that might be expected with the availability of a protein-based vaccine with simpler storage requirements in addition to messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA) vaccines. A Markov model was developed to estimate 1-year COVID-19-related costs, cases, hospitalizations, and deaths with and without the availability of a protein-based vaccine option. The model population was stratified by age and risk status. Model inputs were sourced from published literature or derived from publicly available data. Our model estimated that a five-percentage-point increase in coverage due to the availability of a protein-based vaccine option would prevent over 500,000 cases, 66,000 hospitalizations, and 3000 COVID-19-related deaths. These clinical outcomes translated to 42,000 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained and an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of USD 16,141/QALY from a third-party payer perspective. In sensitivity analyses, outcomes were most sensitive to COVID-19 incidence and severity across age groups. The availability of a protein-based vaccine option in the US could reduce hospitalizations and deaths and is predicted to be cost-effective.

Factors affecting the acceptance of tele-psychiatry: a scoping study

BACKGROUND

In today's digital world, providing services through telemedicine has become an essential issue in health systems, and the Covid-19 pandemic has made this necessity even more apparent. On the other hand, mental health services are needed more than ever, and their nature makes their delivery via telemedicine more feasible than other specialized services. This study aimed to determine the factors affecting the acceptance of telemedicine among users of this technology in the field of mental health.

METHODS

This article is a scoping review based on the PRISMA guidelines and without any time limit until June 20, 2022. The search was performed in PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and PsycINFO databases using keywords related to the three fields of telemedicine, acceptance, and mental disorders. Two authors independently selected the studies based on inclusion and exclusion criteria. Then the data were collected using a data extraction form, and finally, the results were determined using the content analysis method.

RESULTS

Five main factors affect the acceptance of telemedicine among users of this technology in the field of mental health: perceived effectiveness, users' understanding of the effects of telemedicine on the quality and outcomes of care delivery, technological aspects, organizational change capacity, the nature of the disease and psychological and psychosocial factors. These main factors are associated with 21 related sub-factors.

CONCLUSIONS

Revealing the factors affecting the acceptance of telemedicine among recipients and providers of services, as key actors in health systems, can help managers and policymakers to successfully implement telemedicine in the less-regarded field of mental health, especially in the early stages.

Irrational prescription and its costs in neonatal surfactant therapy: public and private hospitals of Iran in 2018

BACKGROUND

Irrational prescription and its subsequent costs are a major challenge worldwide. Health systems must provide appropriate conditions for the implementation of national and international strategies to prevent irrational prescription. The aim of the present study was to determine the irrational surfactant prescription among neonates with respiratory distress and the resulting direct medical costs for private and public hospitals in Iran.

METHODS

This was a cross-sectional descriptive study performed retrospectively using data belonged to 846 patients. Initially, the data were extracted from the patients' medical records and the information system of the Ministry of Health. The obtained data were then compared with the surfactant prescription guideline. Afterward, each neonatal surfactant prescription was evaluated based on the three filters listed in the guideline (including right drug, right dose, and right time). Finally, chi-square and ANOVA tests were used to investigate the inter-variable relationships.

RESULTS

The results showed that 37.47% of the prescriptions were irrational and the average costs of each irrational prescription was calculated as 274.37 dollars. It was estimated that irrational prescriptions account for about 53% of the total surfactant prescription cost. Among the selected provinces, Tehran and Ahvaz had the worst and the best performance, respectively. As well, public hospitals outperformed private hospitals in terms of the in drug selection, but they underperformed them in terms of the right dose determination.

CONCLUSION

The results of the present study are considered as a warning to insurance organizations, in order to reduce unnecessary costs caused by these irrational prescriptions by developing new service purchase protocols. Our suggestion is the use of educational interventions to reduce irrational prescriptions due to drug selection as well as using computer alert approaches to reduce irrational prescriptions caused by wrong dose administration.