Search

Abstract Background National health systems have different strengths and resilience levels. During the COVID-19 pandemic, resources often had to be reallocated and this impacted the availability of healthcare services in many countries. To date there have been few quantitative contemporary studies of inequalities in access to healthcare within and between countries. In this study, we aim to compare inequality within and between 16 economically diverse countries. Methods Online surveys were conducted on 22 150 adults in 16 countries across six continents in 2022. Quota sampling and post-stratification weighting was used to obtain an age, gender, geographically, and educationally representative sample. The study assesses the differences in challenges in access to healthcare during the pandemic (for GP, surgical/clinical and digital GP services) using country-specific expanded health-needs-adjusted Erreygers’ concentration indices and compares these values between countries using a Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient. Results Results show wide variation in income-related challenges in access within countries for different types of care. For example, Erreygers’ concentration index for digital services in Colombia exhibited highly regressive inequality at 0·17, compared to Japan with an index of -0·15. Inequalities between countries were also evident, with Spearman rank coefficients of -0·69 and -0·65 (p-values of 0·003 and 0·006) for digital and surgical access, indicating that lower income countries had greater inequality in healthcare access challenges. Conclusion During the pandemic, inequalities in challenges to accessing healthcare were greatest in low and middle-income countries. Digital technologies offer a reasonable means to address some of this inequality if adequate support is provided and accessible digital infrastructure exists.

Abstract Bacteria are becoming increasingly resistant to antibiotics, reducing our ability to treat infections and threatening to undermine modern health care. Optimising antibiotic use is a key element in tackling the problem. Traditional economic evaluation methods do not capture many of the benefits from improved antibiotic use and the potential impact on resistance. Not capturing these benefits is a major obstacle to optimising antibiotic use, as it fails to incentivise the development and use of interventions to optimise the use of antibiotics and preserve their effectiveness (stewardship interventions). Estimates of the benefits of improving antibiotic use involve considerable uncertainty as they depend on the evolution of resistance and associated health outcomes and costs. Here we discuss how economic evaluation methods might be adapted, in the face of such uncertainties. We propose a threshold-based approach that estimates the minimum resistance-related costs that would need to be averted by an intervention to make it cost-effective. If it is probable that without the intervention costs will exceed the threshold then the intervention should be deemed cost-effective.

Background Most research on the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) health burden has focused on confirmed cases and deaths, rather than consequences for the general population’s health-related quality of life (HRQoL). It is also important to consider HRQoL to better understand the potential multifaceted implications of the COVID-19 pandemic in various international contexts. This study aimed to assess the association between the COVID-19 pandemic and changes in HRQoL in 13 diverse countries. Methods and findings Adults (18+ years) were surveyed online (24 November to 17 December 2020) in 13 countries spanning 6 continents. Our cross-sectional study used descriptive and regression-based analyses (age adjusted and stratified by gender) to assess the association between the pandemic and changes in the general population’s HRQoL, measured by the EQ-5D-5L instrument and its domains (mobility, self-care, usual activities, pain/discomfort, and anxiety/depression), and how overall health deterioration was associated with individual-level (socioeconomic, clinical, and experiences of COVID-19) and national-level (pandemic severity, government responsiveness, and effectiveness) factors. We also produced country-level quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) associated to COVID-19 pandemic-related morbidity. We found that overall health deteriorated, on average across countries, for more than one-third of the 15,480 participants, mostly in the anxiety/depression health domain, especially for younger people (Conclusions In this study, we observed that the COVID-19 pandemic was associated with a reduction in perceived HRQoL globally, especially with respect to the anxiety/depression health domain and among younger people. The COVID-19 health burden would therefore be substantially underestimated if based only on mortality. HRQoL measures are important to fully capture morbidity from the pandemic in the general population. Author summary Why was this study done? The health burden of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has been closely tracked in terms of confirmed cases and deaths due to the virus, but data on the relationship between the COVID-19 pandemic and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of the general population globally is still quite limited. Existing studies have mainly focused on single countries and used relatively small convenience samples, making cross-country comparison difficult. It is important to understand similarities and differences in the association between the COVID-19 pandemic and HRQoL in different countries around the world, because this information can help policy-makers to find the most appropriate interventions that work in diverse settings, health conditions, and populations, to combat the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and potential future pandemics. What did the researchers do and find? We asked 15,536 participants from a diverse group of 13 countries (approx. 1,200 per country) to answer an online survey in which we asked questions about sociodemographic characteristics, health, and perceived HRQoL prior to and during the pandemic. We found that the COVID-19 pandemic was associated with significantly worse HRQoL for more than one-third of respondents, with anxiety/depression being the aspect of health that worsened the most, especially for younger people (What do these findings mean? The health burden of the COVID-19 pandemic may be substantially underestimated if we consider mortality alone. HRQoL measures are important to fully capture the considerable health burden of the COVID-19 pandemic and its associated containment policies. Our results provide benchmark evidence for countries at different stages in the pandemic and can help inform public health measures and economic policies in the event of other health shocks in the future.

Abstract The COVID-19 pandemic has shed a spotlight on the resilience of healthcare systems, and their ability to cope efficiently and effectively with unexpected crises. If we are to learn one economic lesson from the pandemic, arguably it is the perils of an overfocus on short-term allocative efficiency at the price of lack of capacity to deal with uncertain future challenges. In normal times, building spare capacity with ‘option value’ into health systems may seem inefficient, the costs potentially exceeding the benefits. Yet the fatal weakness of not doing so is that this can leave health systems highly constrained when dealing with unexpected, but ultimately inevitable, shocks—such as the COVID-19 pandemic. In this article, we argue that the pandemic has highlighted the potentially enormous option value of biomedical research infrastructure. We illustrate this with reference to COVID-19 response work supported by the United Kingdom National Institute for Health Research Oxford Biomedical Research Centre. As the world deals with the fallout from the most serious economic crisis since the Great Depression, pressure will soon come to review government expenditure, including research funding. Developing a framework to fully account for option value, and understanding the public appetite to pay for it, should allow us to be better prepared for the next emerging problem.

Abstract Background Deciding whether to discontinue antibiotics at early review is a cornerstone of hospital antimicrobial stewardship practice worldwide. In England, this approach is described in government guidance (‘Start Smart then Focus’). However,

Abstract Background To reduce inappropriate antibiotic use, public health campaigns often provide fear-based information about antimicrobial resistance (AMR). Meta-analyses have found that fear-based campaigns in other contexts are likely to be ineffective unless respondents feel confident they can carry out the recommended behaviour (‘self-efficacy’). This study aimed to test the likely impact of fear-based messages, with and without empowering self-efficacy elements, on patient consultations/antibiotic requests for influenza-like illnesses, using a randomised design. Methods We hypothesised that fear-based messages containing empowering information about self-management without antibiotics would be more effective than fear alone, particularly in a pre-specified subgroup with low AMR awareness. Four thousand respondents from an online panel, representative of UK adults, were randomised to receive three different messages about antibiotic use and AMR, designed to induce fear about AMR to varying degrees. Two messages (one ‘strong-fear’, one ‘mild-fear’) also contained empowering information regarding influenza-like symptoms being easily self-managed without antibiotics. The main outcome measures were self-reported effect of information on likelihood of visiting a doctor and requesting antibiotics, for influenza-like illness, analysed separately according to whether or not the AMR information was ‘very/somewhat new’ to respondents, pre-specified based on a previous (non-randomised) survey. Results The ‘fear-only’ message was ‘very/somewhat new’ to 285/1000 (28.5%) respondents, ‘mild-fear-plus-empowerment’ to 336/1500 (22.4%), and ‘strong-fear-plus-empowerment’ to 388/1500 (25.9%) (p = 0.002). Of those for whom the respective information was ‘very/somewhat new’, only those given the ‘strong-fear-plus-empowerment’ message said they would be less likely to request antibiotics if they visited a doctor for an influenza-like illness (p

Abstract Background To ensure patients continue to get early access to antibiotics at admission, while also safely reducing antibiotic use in hospitals, one needs to target the continued need for antibiotics as more diagnostic information becomes available. UK Department of Health guidance promotes an initiative called ‘Start Smart then Focus’: early effective antibiotics followed by active ‘review and revision’ 24–72 h later. However in 2017,

The COVID-19 pandemic has had a profound impact on the delivery of primary care services. We aimed to identify general practitioners’ (GPs’) perceptions and experiences of how the COVID-19 pandemic influenced antibiotic prescribing and antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) in general practice in England. Twenty-four semi-structured interviews were conducted with 18 GPs at two time-points: autumn 2020 (14 interviews) and spring 2021 (10 interviews). Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed and analysed thematically, taking a longitudinal approach. Participants reported a lower threshold for antibiotic prescribing (and fewer consultations) for respiratory infections and COVID-19 symptoms early in the pandemic, then returning to more usual (pre-pandemic) prescribing. They perceived the pandemic as having had less impact on antibiotic prescribing for urinary and skin infections. Participants perceived the changing ways of working and consulting (e.g., proportions of remote and in-person consultations) in addition to changing patient presentations and GP workloads as influencing the fluctuations in antibiotic prescribing. This was compounded by decreased engagement with, and priority of, AMS due to COVID-19-related urgent priorities. Re-engagement with AMS is needed, e.g., through reviving antibiotic prescribing feedback and targets/incentives. The pandemic disrupted, and required adaptations in, the usual ways of working and AMS. It is now important to identify opportunities, e.g., for re-organising ways of managing infections and AMS in the future.

Influenza-like illnesses (ILI) account for a significant portion of inappropriate antibiotic use. Patient expectations for antibiotics for ILI are likely to play a substantial role in ‘unnecessary’ antibiotic consumption. This study aimed to investigate trends in awareness of appropriate antibiotic use and antimicrobial resistance (AMR). Three sequential online surveys of independent representative samples of adults in the United Kingdom investigated expectations for, and consumption of, antibiotics for ILI (May/June 2015 (n = 2064); Oct/Nov 2016 (n = 4000); Mar 2017 (n = 4000)). Respondents were asked whether they thought antibiotics were effective for ILI and about their antibiotic use. Proportions and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for each question and interactions with respondent characteristics were tested using logistic regression. Over the three surveys, the proportion of respondents who believed antibiotics would “definitely/probably” help an ILI fell from 37% (95% CI 35–39%) to 28% (95% CI 26–29%). Those who would “definitely/probably” visit a doctor in this situation fell from 48% (95% CI 46–50%) to 36% (95% CI 34–37%), while those who would request antibiotics during a consultation fell from 39% (95% CI 37–41%) to 30% (95% CI 29–32%). The percentage of respondents who found the information we provided about AMR “new/surprising” fell from 34% (95% CI 32–36%) to 28% (95% CI 26–31%). Awareness improved more among black, Asian and minority ethnic (BAME) than white people, with little other evidence of differences in improvements between subgroups. Whilst a degree of selection bias is unavoidable in online survey samples, the results suggest that awareness of AMR and appropriate antibiotic use has recently significantly improved in the United Kingdom, according to a wide range of indicators.

Delayed antibiotic prescription in primary care has been shown to reduce antibiotic consumption, without increasing risk of complications, yet is not widely used in the UK. We sought to quantify the relative importance of factors affecting the decision to give a delayed prescription, using a stated-choice survey among UK general practitioners. Respondents were asked whether they would provide a delayed or immediate prescription in fifteen hypothetical consultations, described by eight attributes. They were also asked if they would prefer not to prescribe antibiotics. The most important determinants of choice between immediate and delayed prescription were symptoms, duration of illness, and the presence of multiple comorbidities. Respondents were more likely to choose a delayed prescription if the patient preferred not to have antibiotics, but consultation length had little effect. When given the option, respondents chose not to prescribe antibiotics in 51% of cases, with delayed prescription chosen in 21%. Clinical features remained important. Patient preference did not affect the decision to give no antibiotics. We suggest that broader dissemination of the clinical evidence supporting use of delayed prescription for specific presentations may help increase appropriate use. Establishing patient preferences regarding antibiotics may help to overcome concerns about patient acceptance. Increasing consultation length appears unlikely to affect the use of delayed prescription.

BackgroundDelayed (or "backup") antibiotic prescription, where the patient is given a prescription but advised to delay initiating antibiotics, has been shown to be effective in reducing antibiotic use in primary care. However, this strategy is not widely used in the United Kingdom. This study aimed to identify factors influencing preferences among the UK public for delayed prescription, and understand their relative importance, to help increase appropriate use of this prescribing option.Methods and findingsWe conducted an online choice experiment in 2 UK general population samples: adults and parents of children under 18 years. Respondents were presented with 12 scenarios in which they, or their child, might need antibiotics for a respiratory tract infection (RTI) and asked to choose either an immediate or a delayed prescription. Scenarios were described by 7 attributes. Data were collected between November 2018 and February 2019. Respondent preferences were modelled using mixed-effects logistic regression. The survey was completed by 802 adults and 801 parents (75% of those who opened the survey). The samples reflected the UK population in age, sex, ethnicity, and country of residence. The most important determinant of respondent choice was symptom severity, especially for cough-related symptoms. In the adult sample, the probability of choosing delayed prescription was 0.53 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.50 to 0.56, p < 0.001) for a chesty cough and runny nose compared to 0.30 (0.28 to 0.33, p < 0.001) for a chesty cough with fever, 0.47 (0.44 to 0.50, p < 0.001) for sore throat with swollen glands, and 0.37 (0.34 to 0.39, p < 0.001) for sore throat, swollen glands, and fever. Respondents were less likely to choose delayed prescription with increasing duration of illness (odds ratio (OR) 0.94 (0.92 to 0.96, p < 0.001)). Probabilities of choosing delayed prescription were similar for parents considering treatment for a child (44% of choices versus 42% for adults, p = 0.04). However, parents differed from the adult sample in showing a more marked reduction in choice of the delayed prescription with increasing duration of illness (OR 0.83 (0.80 to 0.87) versus 0.94 (0.92 to 0.96) for adults, p for heterogeneity p < 0.001) and a smaller effect of disruption of usual activities (OR 0.96 (0.95 to 0.97) versus 0.93 (0.92 to 0.94) for adults, p for heterogeneity p < 0.001). Females were more likely to choose a delayed prescription than males for minor symptoms, particularly minor cough (probability 0.62 (0.58 to 0.66, p < 0.001) for females and 0.45 (0.41 to 0.48, p < 0.001) for males). Older people, those with a good understanding of antibiotics, and those who had not used antibiotics recently showed similar patterns of preferences. Study limitations include its hypothetical nature, which may not reflect real-life behaviour; the absence of a "no prescription" option; and the possibility that study respondents may not represent the views of population groups who are typically underrepresented in online surveys.ConclusionsThis study found that delayed prescription appears to be an acceptable approach to reducing antibiotic consumption. Certain groups appear to be more amenable to delayed prescription, suggesting particular opportunities for increased use of this strategy. Prescribing choices for sore throat may need additional explanation to ensure patient acceptance, and parents in particular may benefit from reassurance about the usual duration of these illnesses.

It is known that virtually all inequality measures imply the existence of a 'benchmark income', above which adding incremental income increases inequality, and below which it decreases inequality. Benchmark incomes can be interpreted as social reference levels that identify the richest individual for whom it would be just to subsidize their income. Despite the intuitive appeal of benchmark incomes, there have been hardly any empirical applications to date. This paper provides the first estimates of benchmark incomes for a range of contrasting countries and different inequality measures. All benchmark incomes lie far above official national poverty lines. The results suggest that economic growth together with falling inequality need not necessarily be poverty reducing.