For Publishers
DiscoveryMetadataPeer reviewHostingPublishing
For Researchers
JoinPublishReviewCollect
Register
Blog
About
Search
Advanced search
My ScienceOpen
Search
For Publishers
For Researchers
Blog
About
11
views
33
references
 Top references
cited by
13
    
0 reviews
 Review
0
comments
 Comment
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      139
      similar
       All similar
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Cost-Effectiveness of Coronavirus Disease 2019 Policy Measures: A Systematic Review

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Objectives

          The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic has had a major impact on our society, with drastic policy restrictions being implemented to contain the spread of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. This study aimed to provide an overview of the available evidence on the cost-effectiveness of various coronavirus disease 2019 policy measures.

          Methods

          A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science. Health economic evaluations considering both costs and outcomes were included. Their quality was comprehensively assessed using the Consensus Health Economic Criteria checklist. Next, the quality of the epidemiological models was evaluated.

          Results

          A total of 3688 articles were identified (March 2021), of which 23 were included. The studies were heterogeneous with regard to methodological quality, contextual factors, strategies’ content, adopted perspective, applied models, and outcomes used. Overall, testing/screening, social distancing, personal protective equipment, quarantine/isolation, and hygienic measures were found to be cost-effective. Furthermore, the most optimal choice and combination of strategies depended on the reproduction number and context. With a rising reproduction number, extending the testing strategy and early implementation of combined multiple restriction measures are most efficient.

          Conclusions

          The quality assessment highlighted numerous flaws and limitations in the study approaches; hence, their results should be interpreted with caution because the specific context (country, target group, etc) is a key driver for cost-effectiveness. Finally, including a societal perspective in future evaluations is key because this pandemic has an indirect impact on the onset and treatment of other conditions and on our global economy.

          Related collections

          Most cited references33

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Rayyan—a web and mobile app for systematic reviews

          Mourad Ouzzani, Hossam Hammady, Zbys Fedorowicz … (2017)
          Background Synthesis of multiple randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in a systematic review can summarize the effects of individual outcomes and provide numerical answers about the effectiveness of interventions. Filtering of searches is time consuming, and no single method fulfills the principal requirements of speed with accuracy. Automation of systematic reviews is driven by a necessity to expedite the availability of current best evidence for policy and clinical decision-making. We developed Rayyan (http://rayyan.qcri.org), a free web and mobile app, that helps expedite the initial screening of abstracts and titles using a process of semi-automation while incorporating a high level of usability. For the beta testing phase, we used two published Cochrane reviews in which included studies had been selected manually. Their searches, with 1030 records and 273 records, were uploaded to Rayyan. Different features of Rayyan were tested using these two reviews. We also conducted a survey of Rayyan’s users and collected feedback through a built-in feature. Results Pilot testing of Rayyan focused on usability, accuracy against manual methods, and the added value of the prediction feature. The “taster” review (273 records) allowed a quick overview of Rayyan for early comments on usability. The second review (1030 records) required several iterations to identify the previously identified 11 trials. The “suggestions” and “hints,” based on the “prediction model,” appeared as testing progressed beyond five included studies. Post rollout user experiences and a reflexive response by the developers enabled real-time modifications and improvements. The survey respondents reported 40% average time savings when using Rayyan compared to others tools, with 34% of the respondents reporting more than 50% time savings. In addition, around 75% of the respondents mentioned that screening and labeling studies as well as collaborating on reviews to be the two most important features of Rayyan. As of November 2016, Rayyan users exceed 2000 from over 60 countries conducting hundreds of reviews totaling more than 1.6M citations. Feedback from users, obtained mostly through the app web site and a recent survey, has highlighted the ease in exploration of searches, the time saved, and simplicity in sharing and comparing include-exclude decisions. The strongest features of the app, identified and reported in user feedback, were its ability to help in screening and collaboration as well as the time savings it affords to users. Conclusions Rayyan is responsive and intuitive in use with significant potential to lighten the load of reviewers.
          Article 0 comments Cited 4433 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic on Mental Health in the General Population: A Systematic Review

            Jiaqi Xiong, Orly Lipsitz, Flora Nasri … (2020)
            Highlights • The Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has resulted in unprecedented hazards to mental health globally. • Relatively high rates of anxiety, depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, psychological distress, and stress were reported in the general population during the COVID-19 pandemic in eight countries. • Common risk factors associated with mental distress during the COVID-19 pandemic include female gender, younger age group (≤40 years), presence of chronic/psychiatric illnesses, unemployment, student status, and frequent exposure to social media/news concerning COVID-19. • Mitigation of COVID-19 induced psychological distress requires government intervention and individual efforts.
            Article 0 comments Cited 2143 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Psychological Impact and Associated Factors During the Initial Stage of the Coronavirus (COVID-19) Pandemic Among the General Population in Spain

              Rocío Rodríguez-Rey, Helena Garrido-Hernansaiz, Sílvia Collado (2020)
              The outbreak of COVID-19 in Spain started at the end of February. By 9th April 2020 Spain was the second country in confirmed cases and in deaths. On March 14, 2020, the Spanish Government declared the state of alarm to limit viral transmission. During such state, citizens must stay confined at home with few justified exceptions. This whole situation drastically changed the life of the population, which can cause a wide range of psychosocial impacts. This study explored the psychological impact of the COVID-19 pandemic in the general adult population (N = 3055) during the first stages of the outbreak in Spain, as well as their anxiety, stress and depression levels. We also examined the extent to which the following variables were associated to participants’ mental health: (1) demographics; (2) degree of concern about the pandemic; (3) environmental conditions during the home confinement, (4) changes in daily life as a consequence of the pandemic; (5) contact with the COVID-19 disease; (6) actual and perceived severity of the crisis; (7) information about the COVID-19, (8) perceived health status and (9) leisure activities conducted within the last 24 h. Our results show that Spanish consider the current COVID-19 health crisis as fairly severe, and the majority felt that the COVID-19 crisis had greatly impacted on their daily life, including changes in their daily routines and cancelation of important activities. About 36% of the participants reported moderate to severe psychological impact, 25% showed mild to severe levels of anxiety, 41% reported depressive symptoms, and 41% felt stressed. Women, young, and those who that lost their job during the health crisis showed the strongest negative psychological symptoms. What worried Spaniards the most was the likelihood of suffering an economic crisis derived from the pandemic. We found factors associated with better mental health, such as being satisfied with the information received about the health crisis, conducting leisure activities, and the perception of being in good health. These findings can be used to design psychological interventions to help coping with COVID-19 pandemic, both in Spain and other countries.
              Article 0 comments Cited 313 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
                Bookmark
                All references

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Journal ID (nlm-ta): Value Health
                Journal ID (iso-abbrev): Value Health
                Title: Value in Health
                Publisher: ISPOR-The Professional Society for Health Economics and Outcomes Research. Published by Elsevier Inc.
                ISSN (Print): 1098-3015
                ISSN (Electronic): 1524-4733
                Publication date PMC-release: 30 September 2021
                Publication date (Electronic): 30 September 2021
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium
                [2 ]BIOMATH, Department of Data Analysis and Mathematical Modeling, Faculty of Bioscience Engineering, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium
                [3 ]KERMIT, Department of Data Analysis and Mathematical Modeling, Faculty of Bioscience Engineering, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium
                [4 ]ELIZA, Centre for General Practice, Department of Primary and Interdisciplinary Care and VAXINFECTIO, Laboratory of Medical Microbiology, Vaccine and Infectious Disease Institute, University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium
                Author notes
                [∗ ] Correspondence: Sophie Vandepitte, PhD, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Ghent University, Corneel Heymanslaan 10, Ghent 9000, Belgium.
                [∗]

                Sophie Vandepitte and Tijs Alleman contributed equally to the manuscript and should both be considered first author.

                Article
                Publisher Item ID: S1098-3015(21)01589-8
                DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2021.05.013
                PMC ID: 8481648
                SO-VID: 51599c0f-a345-4376-968a-fd0b2742755c
                Copyright © © 2021 ISPOR-The Professional Society for Health Economics and Outcomes Research. Published by Elsevier Inc.
                License:

                Since January 2020 Elsevier has created a COVID-19 resource centre with free information in English and Mandarin on the novel coronavirus COVID-19. The COVID-19 resource centre is hosted on Elsevier Connect, the company's public news and information website. Elsevier hereby grants permission to make all its COVID-19-related research that is available on the COVID-19 resource centre - including this research content - immediately available in PubMed Central and other publicly funded repositories, such as the WHO COVID database with rights for unrestricted research re-use and analyses in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for free by Elsevier for as long as the COVID-19 resource centre remains active.

                History
                Date accepted : 23 May 2021
                Categories
                Subject: Article

                ScienceOpen disciplines: Economics of health & social care
                Keywords: cost-effectiveness,covid-19,policy measures,systematic review
                Data availability:
                ScienceOpen disciplines: Economics of health & social care
                Keywords: cost-effectiveness, covid-19, policy measures, systematic review

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_

                Similar content139

                See all similar

                Cited by13

                See all cited by

                Most referenced authors824

                See all reference authors