Search

Background: In responding to Covid-19, governments have tried to balance protecting health while minimizing gross domestic product (GDP) losses. We compare health-related net benefit (HRNB) and GDP losses associated with government responses of the UK, Ireland, Germany, Spain and Sweden from UK healthcare payer perspective., Methods: We compared observed cases, hospitalizations and deaths under 'mitigation' to modelled events under 'no mitigation' to 20 July 2020. We thus calculated healthcare costs, quality adjusted life years (QALYs), and HRNB at £20,000/QALY saved by each country. On per population (i.e. per capita) basis, we compared HRNB with forecast reductions in 2020 GDP growth (overall or compared with Sweden as minimal mitigation country) and qualitatively and quantitatively described government responses., Results: The UK saved 3.17 (0.32-3.65) million QALYs, £33 (8-38) billion healthcare costs and £1416 (220-1637) HRNB per capita at £20,000/QALY. Per capita, this is comparable to £1455 GDP loss using Sweden as comparator and offsets 46.1 (7.1-53.2)% of total £3075 GDP loss. Germany, Spain, and Sweden had greater HRNB per capita. These also offset a greater percentage of total GDP losses per capita. Ireland fared worst on both measures. Countries with more mask wearing, testing, and population susceptibility had better outcomes. Highest stringency responses did not appear to have best outcomes., Conclusions: Our exploratory analysis indicates the benefit of government Covid-19 responses may outweigh their economic costs. The extent that HRNB offset economic losses appears to relate to population characteristics, testing levels, and mask wearing, rather than response stringency., (© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Public Health Association. All rights reserved.)

Background/purpose: The current study aims to analyze the thematic structures and trends of scientific publications that examine the relationship between the COVID-19 pandemic and education, while presenting a roadmap for future research on this topic. Materials/methods: The data were obtained from the Web of Science Core Collection (WoSCC) bibliographic database by identifying the publications that examine the relationship between the COVID-19 pandemic and education, then were analyzed using bibliometric methodology and content analysis. VOSviewer, GraphPad softwares, and visualization maps were used to analyze the data and to present the findings. Results: The results of the study show that publications examining the relationship between the COVID-19 pandemic and education focused on "online education" and "teacher education," while the countries that contributed the most to publications on this issue were USA, United Kingdom, Canada, and Spain. It was determined that most publications preferred the "theoretical model" and the majority of the research data were obtained through "scale/interview forms." Furthermore, the findings of this study revealed that during the COVID-19 pandemic period, the editorial/refereeing processes of the articles submitted to academic journals were carried out very quickly and the articles were published unusually quickly. Conclusion: This study indicated that the majority of scientific studies on COVID-19 are focused on the field of health, and that there is limited edition research on COVID-19-related education. To the best of the authors' knowledge, the current study is the first research article in the international literature to examine the thematic structures and trends of scientific publications on the relationship between solely education and COVID-19 through bibliometric and content analysis; and contributes to the knowledge base on COVID-19-related education by mapping the existing knowledge.

This rapid systematic review aims to examine emerging evidence on the effects of COVID-19 on educational institutions and assess the prevalence of e-learning changes in the sector. This paper reviews literature on learning, teaching, and assessment approaches adopted since the COVID-19 outbreak, and assesses the impact on the sector, staff, and students, summarizing findings from peer-reviewed articles. It categorizes these into five key themes: (1) digital learning; (2) e-learning challenges; (3) digital transition to emergency virtual assessment (EVA); (4) psychological impact of COVID-19; and (5) creating collaborative cultures. This represents the first systematic review of COVID-19's impact on education, clarifying current themes being investigated. The author suggests that the term 'emergency virtual assessment' (EVA) is now added for future research discussion. Finally, the paper identifies research gaps, including researching the impact on lesser developed countries, the psychological impact of transition, and the important role of leadership and leadership styles during the transition and handling of the pandemic.