Search

COVID-19 is a global challenge that negatively affects the health–related quality of life (HRQoL) of the general population. The current study aimed to evaluate HRQoL and its associated factors among the Iranian general population during the COVID-19 pandemic. The data were collected in 2021 using the EuroQol 5-Dimension 3-Level (EQ-5D-3L) and EQ-5D Visual Analog Scale (EQ VAS) questionnaires through an online survey. Participants were recruited via social media from the Fars province. The multiple binary logistic regression model was used to identify factors influencing participants' HRQoL. Kolmogorov-Smirnov, the t-test, ANOVA, and the chi-square test were used. All tests were conducted at a significance level of 5% using Stata 14.2 and SPSS 16. A total of 1,198 participants were involved in this cross-sectional study. The mean age of participants was 33.3 (SD:10.2), and more than half were women (55.6%). The mean EQ-5D-3L index value and EQ-VAS of the respondents were 0.80 and 77.53, respectively. The maximum scores of the EQ-5D-3L and EQ-VAS in the present study were 1 and 100, respectively. The most frequently reported problems were anxiety/depression (A/D) (53.7%), followed by pain/discomfort (P/D) (44.2%). Logistic regression models showed that the odds of reporting problems on the A/D dimension increased significantly with supplementary insurance, including concern about getting COVID-19, hypertension, and asthma, by 35% (OR = 1.35; P = 0.03), 2% (OR = 1.02; P = 0.02), 83% (OR = 1.83; P = 0.02), and 6.52 times (OR = 6.52; P = 0.01), respectively. The odds of having problems on the A/D dimension were significantly lower among male respondents, those in the housewives + students category, and employed individuals by 54% (OR = 0.46; P = 0.04), 38% (OR = 0.62; P = 0.02) and 41% (OR = 0.59; P = 0.03), respectively. Moreover, the odds of reporting a problem on the P/D dimension decreased significantly in those belonging in a lower age group and with people who were not worried about getting COVID-19 by 71% (OR = 0.29; P = 0.03) and 65% (OR = 0.35; P = 0.01), respectively. The findings of this study could be helpful for policy-making and economic evaluations. A significant percentage of participants (53.7%) experienced psychological problems during the pandemic. Therefore, effective interventions to improve the quality of life of these vulnerable groups in society are essential.

Background and objectivesThe estimation of a cost- Effectiveness (CE) threshold from the perspective of those who have experienced a life-threatening disease can provide empirical evidence for health policy makers to make the best allocation decisions on limited resources. The aim of the current study was to empirically determine the CE threshold for cancer interventions from the perspective of cancer patients in Iran.MethodsA composite time trade-off (cTTO) task for deriving quality adjusted life-year (QALY) and a double-bounded dichotomous choice (DBDC) approach followed by open-ended question for examining patients’ willingness-to-pay were performed. A nationally representative sample of 580 cancer patients was recruited from the largest governmental cancer centers in Iran between June 2021 and January 2022, and data were gathered using face-to-face interviews. The CE threshold was calculated using the nonparametric Turnbull model and parametric interval-censored Weibull regression model. Furthermore, the factors that affect the CE threshold were determined using the parametric model.ResultsThe estimated CE threshold using the nonparametric Turnbull model and parametric interval-censored Weibull regression model was IRR 440,410,000 (USD 10,485.95) and IRR 595,280,000 (USD 14,173.33) per QALY, respectively. Gender, age, education, income, type of cancer, and current treatment status were significantly associated with the estimated CE threshold.ConclusionsThe value of parametric model-based threshold in this study was 1.98 times the Iranian GDP per capita, which was lower than the CE threshold value recommended by the WHO (i.e., 3 times the GDP per capita) for low-and middle-income countries.

Background and ObjectivePsychometric evidence to support the validity and reliability of the EuroQol-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) in cancer patients is limited. This study aimed to test the validity and reliability of the EQ-5D-5L (5L) in comparison with EQ-5D-3L (3L) in cancer patients.MethodsData of 650 cancer patients were collected through consecutive sampling method from three largest governmental cancer centers in Iran between June 2021 and January 2022. The data were gathered using the 3L, 5L, and the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer quality of life questionnaire (QLQ-C30) instruments. The 3L and 5L were compared in terms of ceiling effect, discriminatory power, convergent and known-groups validity, relative efficiency, inconsistency, agreement, and reliability.ResultsCompared with the 3L, ceiling effect decreased by 27.86%. Absolute and relative informativity of discriminatory power improved by 45.93% and 22.92% in the 5L, respectively. All convergent validity coefficients with 5L were stronger than with 3L. Both 3L and 5L demonstrated good known-groups validity, and the relative efficiency was higher for 5L in 4 out of 7 patients’ characteristics. The two instruments showed low overall inconsistency (1.45%) and 92.57% of the differences of observations between the 3L and 5L were within the 95% limit of agreement. The interclass correlation coefficient (ICC) for 3L and 5L indexes were 0.88 and 0.85, respectively, and kappa coefficients in the 3L dimensions (range=0.66-0.92) were higher than the 5L(range=0.64-0.79).ConclusionsThe 5L demonstrated to be better than the 3L in terms of ceiling effect, inconsistency, discriminatory power, convergent validity, relative efficiency.

BackgroundAlthough several studies have assessed the safety, efficacy, and effectiveness of interventions in treating the COVID-19, many of them have limitations that can have an immense impact on their results. This study aims to assess the potential limitations in systematic reviews (SRs) that evaluate the effect of interventions on the treatment of the COVID-19.MethodsPubMed, Scopus, and Web of Sciences (WOS) databases were searched from inception to January 1, 2022. All systematic reviews investigated the effectiveness, efficacy, safety, and outcome of the main intervention (Favipiravir, Remdesivir, Hydroxychloroquine, Ivermectin, Lopinavir/Ritonavir, or Tocilizumab) for the treatment of COVID-19 patients and reported the potential limitations of the included studies. We assessed the quality of the included studies using the Quality Assessment Tool (QAT) for review articles. We conducted a content analysis and prepared a narrative summary of the limitations.ResultsForty-six studies were included in this review. Ninety one percent of the included studies scored as strong quality and the remaining (9%) as moderate quality. Only 29.7% of the included systematic reviews have a registered protocol. 26% of the included studies mentioned a funding statement. The main limitations of the included studies were categorized in 10 domains: sample size, heterogeneity, follow-up, treatment, including studies, design, definitions, synthesis, quality, and search.ConclusionVarious limitations have been reported in all the included studies. Indeed, the existence of limitations in studies can affect their results, therefore, identifying these limitations can help researchers design better studies. As a result, stronger studies with more reliable results will be reported and disseminated. Further research on COVID-19 SRs is essential to improve research quality and also, efficiency among scientists across the world.

Background: Emerged in December 2019, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is one of the largest pandemics ever. During the early phase, little was known about public knowledge, attitudes, and practices (KAP) relating to coronavirus disease. This study was designed to determine KAP of Iranians toward COVID-19.Methods: A cross-sectional online survey was carried out in Iran from February 25 to April 25 using a self-administered questionnaire on 1,480 people. COVID-19-related KAP questions were adapted from other internationally validated questionnaires specific for infectious diseases.Results: All participants were aware of COVID-19. When asked unprompted, 80% of respondents could correctly cite fever, difficulty in breathing, and cough as signs/symptoms of COVID-19. Most of our sample population knew that staying at home and isolated (95.3%) as well as constant handwashing and using disinfectants (92.5%) could prevent COVID-19. However, there were also widespread misconceptions such as the belief that COVID-19 can be transmitted by wild animals (58%) and by air (48.3%). Unprompted, self-reported actions taken to avoid COVID-19 infection included handwashing with soap and water (95.4%), avoiding crowded places (93%), cleansing hands with other disinfectants (80.), and covering mouth and nose when coughing or sneezing (76.1%). The Internet and social media (94.5%) were the main coronavirus information sources. However, the most trusted information sources on coronavirus were health and medical professionals (79.3%). The majority of participants (77.0%) wanted more information about coronavirus to be available.Conclusion: Our findings suggest that people's knowledge and attitude toward COVID-19 at the time of its outbreak was at a high level.