Search

Objectives: We aimed to synthesise knowledge on the relative social value of child and adult health. Methods: Quantitative and qualitative studies that evaluated the willingness of the public to prioritise treatments for children over adults were included. A search to September 2023 was undertaken. Completeness of reporting was assessed using a checklist derived from Johnston et al. Findings were tabulated by study type (matching/person trade-off, discrete choice experiment, willingness to pay, opinion survey or qualitative). Evidence in favour of children was considered in total, by length or quality of life, methodology and respondent characteristics. Results: Eighty-eight studies were included; willingness to pay (n = 9), matching/person trade-off (n = 12), discrete choice experiments (n = 29), opinion surveys (n = 22) and qualitative (n = 16), with one study simultaneously included as an opinion survey. From 88 studies, 81 results could be ascertained. Across all studies irrespective of method or other characteristics, 42 findings supported prioritising children, while 12 provided evidence favouring adults in preference to children. The remainder supported equal prioritisation or found diverse or unclear views. Of those studies considering prioritisation within the under 18 years of age group, nine findings favoured older children over younger children (including for life saving interventions), six favoured younger children and five found diverse views. Conclusions: The balance of evidence suggests the general public favours prioritising children over adults, but this view was not found across all studies. There are research gaps in understanding the public's views on the value of health gains to very young children and the motivation behind the public's views on the value of child relative to adult health gains. Clinical Trial Registration: The review is registered at PROSPERO number: CRD42021244593. There were two amendments to the protocol: (1) some additional search terms were added to the search strategy prior to screening to ensure coverage and (2) a more formal quality assessment was added to the process at the data extraction stage. This assessment had not been identified at the protocol writing stage. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: We assessed the mental health effects of Australia's 2019–2020 bushfires 12–18 months later, predicting psychological distress and positive psychological outcomes from bushfire exposure and a range of demographic variables, and seeking insights to enhance disaster preparedness and resilience planning for different profiles of people. Methods: We surveyed 3083 bushfire-affected and non-affected Australian residents about their experiences of bushfire, COVID-19, psychological distress (depression, anxiety, stress, post-traumatic stress disorder) and positive psychological outcomes (resilient coping, wellbeing). Results: We found high rates of distress across all participants, exacerbated by severity of bushfire exposure. For people who were bushfire-affected, being older, having less financial stress, and having no or fewer pre-existing mental disorders predicted both lower distress and higher positive outcomes. Being male or having less income loss also predicted positive outcomes. Severity of exposure, higher education and higher COVID-19-related stressors predicted both higher distress and higher positive outcomes. Pre-existing physical health diagnosis and previous bushfire experience did not significantly predict distress or positive outcomes. Recommendations: To promote disaster resilience, we recommend investment in mental health, particularly for younger adults and for those in rural and remote areas. We also recommend investment in mechanisms to protect against financial distress and the development of a broader definition of bushfire-related impacts than is currently used to capture brushfires' far-reaching effects. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]