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: Oral disorders are still a major global public health challenge, considering their perpetuating and chronic nature. Currently, there is no direct index to measure the quality of care on a population scale. Hence, we aim to propose a new index to measure the quality of care for oral disorders worldwide. Methods: We generated our database using the data from the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) study 2017. Among different variables such as prevalence, incidence, years lived with disability, and disability-adjusted life years, we utilised principal component analysis (PCA) to determine the component that bears the greatest proportion of information to generate the novel quality of care index (QCI) for oral disorders. Results: Global QCI for oral disorders gradually increased from 1990 to 2017 (from 70.5 to 74.6). No significant gender disparity was observed during this period, and the gender disparity ratio (GDR) was considered optimal in 1990 and 2017. Between 1990 and 2017, the age-standardised QCI for all oral disorders increased in all the SDI regions. The highest QCI for all oral disorders in 2017 belonged to high-middle SDI countries (=80.24), and the lowest YLDs rate was seen in the low SDI quintile. In 1990, the quality of care in European, Central Asian, and Central and South American countries was in the lowest quintiles, whereas the North American, East Asian, Middle Eastern, and some African countries had the highest quality of dental care. Maynmar (=100), Uganda (=92.5), Taiwan (=92.0), China (=92.5), and the United States (=89.2) were the five countries with the highest age-standardised QCI. Nicaragua (=41.3), Belgium (=40.2), Venezuela (=38.4), Sierra Leone (=30.5), and the Gambia (=30.3) were the five countries with the least age-standardised QCI values. Conclusion: The quality of care for all oral disorders showed an increasing trend on a global scale from 1990 to 2017. However, the QCI distribution was not homogenous among various regions. To prevent the exacerbation of imminent disparities in this regard, better attention to total tooth loss in high-income countries and prioritising primary healthcare provision in low-income countries are recommended for oral disorders. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]