Search

Background and Aims: The Rome Foundation Global Epidemiology Study (RFGES) assessed the prevalence, burden, and associated factors of Disorders of Gut–Brain Interaction (DGBI) in 33 countries around the world. Achieving worldwide sampling necessitated use of two different surveying methods: In‐person household interviews (9 countries) and Internet surveys (26 countries). Two countries, China and Turkey, were surveyed with both methods. This paper examines the differences in the survey results with the two methods, as well as likely reasons for those differences. Methods: The two RFGES survey methods are described in detail, and differences in DGBI findings summarized for household versus Internet surveys globally, and in more detail for China and Turkey. Logistic regression analysis was used to elucidate factors contributing to these differences. Results: Overall, DGBI were only half as prevalent when assessed with household vs Internet surveys. Similar patterns of methodology‐related DGBI differences were seen within both China and Turkey, but prevalence differences between the survey methods were dramatically larger in Turkey. No clear reasons for outcome differences by survey method were identified, although greater relative reduction in bowel and anorectal versus upper gastrointestinal disorders when household versus Internet surveying was used suggests an inhibiting influence of social sensitivity. Conclusions: The findings strongly indicate that besides affecting data quality, manpower needs and data collection time and costs, the choice of survey method is a substantial determinant of symptom reporting and DGBI prevalence outcomes. This has important implications for future DGBI research and epidemiological research more broadly. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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]