Search

Background: Human communities suffered a vast socioeconomic burden in dealing with the pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) globally. Real-word data about these burdens can inform governments about evidence-based resource allocation and prioritization. The aim of this scoping review was to map the cost-of-illness (CoI) studies associated with COVID-19. Methods: This scoping review was conducted from January 2019 to December 2021. We searched cost-of-illness papers published in English within Web of Sciences, PubMed, Google Scholar, Scopus, Science Direct and ProQuest. For each eligible study, extracted data included country, publication year, study period, study design, epidemiological approach, costing method, cost type, cost identification, sensitivity analysis, estimated unit cost and national burden. All of the analyses were applied in Excel software. Results: 2352 records were found after the search strategy application, finally 28 articles met the inclusion criteria and were included in the review. Most of the studies were done in the United States, Turkey, and China. The prevalence-based approach was the most common in the studies, and most of studies also used Hospital Information System data (HIS). There were noticeable differences in the costing methods and the cost identification. The average cost of hospitalization per patient per day ranged from 101$ in Turkey to 2,364$ in the United States. Among the studies, 82.1% estimated particularly direct medical costs, 3.6% only indirect costs, and 14.3% both direct and indirect costs. Conclusion: The economic burden of COVID-19 varies from country to country. The majority of CoI studies estimated direct medical costs associated with COVID-19 and there is a paucity of evidence for direct non-medical, indirect, and intangible costs, which we recommend for future studies. To create homogeneity in CoI studies, we suggest researchers follow a conceptual framework and critical appraisal checklist of cost-of-illness (CoI) studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Personalised Care and Support Planning (PCSP) replaces conventional annual reviews for people with long-term conditions. It is designed to help healthcare professionals (HCPs) and patients engage in conversations as equals and collaboratively plan actions oriented to each patient's priorities, alongside biomedical concerns. Little is known about how the shift to remote consulting initiated with COVID-19 restrictions has impacted PCSP. Aim: To investigate HCPs' experiences of conducting PCSP conversations remotely and consider implications for the fulfilment of PCSP ambitions as remote consulting continues beyond COVID-19 restrictions. Methods: 19 semi-structured interviews with HCPs in England and Scotland; interpretive analysis. Results: HCPs' accounts made clear that COVID-19 restrictions impacted multiple aspects of PCSP delivery, not just the mode of conversation. Broader disruption to general practice systems for gathering and sharing information ahead of PCSP conversations, and moves to 'wide window' appointment times, made it harder for patients to be prepared for PCSP conversations. This constrained scope to achieve PCSP ambitions even with the best professional communication skills. Most remote PCSP conversations were conducted by telephone. In the absence of visual communication with patients, it was sometimes harder to achieve the ambitions of PCSP conversations, including to balance patient and professional agendas, fulfil key planning activities, and foster a relational ethos of equal, collaborative partnership. The challenges were particularly severe when working with new patients and people with complex clinical and social problems. Although options for telephone appointments now offer valued flexibility, sustained experience of struggling to achieve PCSP ambitions via remote consulting led some HCPs to lower their standards for judging a "good" PCSP conversation, and to diminished professional satisfaction. Conclusions: There are significant challenges to fulfilling the ambitions of PCSP via telephone, especially when preparatory support is limited. This study provides grounds for scepticism about how compatible telephone appointments can be with this person-centred model of working, especially for people who are socially disadvantaged and live with complex health conditions. These threats to the provision of person-centred support for people with long-term conditions warrant careful attention going forward if the PCSP model and its benefits are to be sustained. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]