Search

Background: Given the limited understanding of individuals' positive gains, this study aimed to identify these gains that could be leveraged by policymakers to enhance future health and societal resilience., Methods: We used a global qualitative approach to survey adults over 18 from 30 countries across six World Health Organization (WHO) regions, who detailed up to three personal positive gains from COVID-19 pandemic via an open-ended question. Inductive thematic analysis was employed to identify main themes, and quantitative methods were used for demographic and regional comparisons based on the percentage of responses for each theme., Results: From 35 911 valid responses provided by 13 853 participants, six main themes (one negative theme), 39 subthemes, and 673 codes were identified. Five positive gain themes emerged, ordered by response frequency: 1) improved health awareness and practices; 2) strengthened social bonds and trust; 3) multi-dimensional personal growth; 4) resilience and preparedness building; 5) accelerated digital transformation. The percentage of responses under these themes consistently appeared in the same order across various demographic groups and economic development levels. However, there were variations in the predominant theme across WHO regions and countries, with either Theme 1, Theme 2, or Theme 3 having the highest percentage of responses. Although our study primarily focused on positive gains, unexpectedly, 12% of responses (4304) revealed 'negative gains', leading to an unforeseen theme: 'Distrust and emerging vulnerabilities.' While this deviates from our main topic, we retained it as it provides valuable insights. Notably, these 'negative gains' had a higher percentage of responses in areas like Burundi (94.1%), Rwanda (31.8%), Canada (26.9%), and in the African Region (37.7%) and low-income (43.9%) countries, as well as among non-binary individuals, those with lower education, and those facing employment challenges., Conclusions: Globally, the identified diverse positive gains guide the domains in which health policies and practices can transform these transient benefits into enduring improvements for a healthier, more resilient society. However, variations in thematic responses across demographics, countries, and regions highlights need for tailored health strategies., Competing Interests: Disclosure of interest: The authors completed the ICMJE Disclosure of Interest Form (available upon request from the corresponding author) and disclose no relevant interests., (Copyright © 2025 by the Journal of Global Health. All rights reserved.)

Background: We aimed to identify the central lifestyle, the most impactful among lifestyle factor clusters; the central health outcome, the most impactful among health outcome clusters; and the bridge lifestyle, the most strongly connected to health outcome clusters, across 29 countries to optimise resource allocation for local holistic health improvements., Methods: From July 2020 to August 2021, we surveyed 16 461 adults across 29 countries who self-reported changes in 18 lifestyle factors and 13 health outcomes due to the pandemic. Three networks were generated by network analysis for each country: lifestyle, health outcome, and bridge networks. We identified the variables with the highest bridge expected influence as central or bridge variables. Network validation included nonparametric and case-dropping subset bootstrapping, and centrality difference tests confirmed that the central or bridge variables had significantly higher expected influence than other variables within the same network., Results: Among 87 networks, 75 were validated with correlation-stability coefficients above 0.25. Nine central lifestyle types were identified in 28 countries: cooking at home (in 11 countries), food types in daily meals (in one country), less smoking tobacco (in two countries), less alcohol consumption (in two countries), less duration of sitting (in three countries), less consumption of snacks (in five countries), less sugary drinks (in five countries), having a meal at home (in two countries), taking alternative medicine or natural health products (in one country). Six central health outcomes were noted among 28 countries: social support received (in three countries), physical health (in one country), sleep quality (in four countries), quality of life (in seven countries), less mental burden (in three countries), less emotional distress (in 13 countries). Three bridge lifestyles were identified in 19 countries: food types in daily meals (in one country), cooking at home (in one country), overall amount of exercise (in 17 countries). The centrality difference test showed the central and bridge variables had significantly higher centrality indices than others in their networks (P < 0.05)., Conclusions: In 29 countries, cooking at home, less emotional distress, and overall amount of exercise emerged as common central lifestyle, health outcome, and bridge lifestyle factors, respectively. However, notable regional variations necessitate tailored interventions and resource allocations to effectively address unique local key variables and promote holistic health in each locale. The study's cross-sectional design and self-reported data may limit generalisability, emphasising the need for cautious interpretation and further longitudinal research., Keywords: global; across-country comparisons; lifestyle; health outcomes; network analysis., Competing Interests: Disclosure of interest: The authors completed the ICMJE Disclosure of Interest Form (available upon request from the corresponding author) and disclose no relevant interests., (Copyright © 2025 by the Journal of Global Health. All rights reserved.)

Background: In this study, we assessed the general population's fears towards various diseases and events, aiming to inform public health strategies that balance health-seeking behaviours., Methods: We surveyed adults from 30 countries across all World Health Organization (WHO) regions between July 2020 and August 2021. Participants rated their fear of 11 factors on an 11-point Likert scale. We stratified the data by age and gender and examined variations across countries and regions through multidimensional preference analysis., Results: Of the 16 512 adult participants, 62.7% (n = 10 351) were women. The most feared factor was the loss of family members, reported by 4232 participants (25.9%), followed by cancer (n = 2248, 13.7%) and stroke (n = 1416, 8.7%). The highest weighted fear scores were for loss of family members (mean (x̄) = 7.46, standard deviation (SD) = 3.04), cancer (x̄ = 7.00, SD = 3.09), and stroke (x̄ = 6.61, SD = 3.24). The least feared factors included animals/insects (x̄ = 3.72, SD = 2.96), loss of a mobile phone (x̄ = 4.27, SD = 2.98), and social isolation (x̄ = 4.83, SD = 3.13). Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) was the sixth most feared factor (x̄ = 6.23, SD = 2.92). Multidimensional preference analyses showed distinct fears of COVID-19 and job loss in Australia and Burundi. The other countries primarily feared loss of family members, cancer, stroke, and heart attacks; this ranking was consistent across WHO regions, economic levels, and COVID-19 severity levels., Conclusions: Fear of family loss can improve public health messaging, highlighting the need for bereavement support and the prevention of early death-causing diseases. Addressing cancer fears is crucial to encouraging the use of preventive services. Fear of non-communicable diseases remains high during health emergencies. Top fears require more resources and countries with similar concerns should collaborate internationally for effective fear management., Competing Interests: Disclosure of interest: The authors completed the ICMJE Disclosure of Interest Form (available upon request from the corresponding author) and disclose no relevant interests., (Copyright © 2024 by the Journal of Global Health. All rights reserved.)

Background: Central and bridge nodes can drive significant overall improvements within their respective networks. We aimed to identify them in 16 prevalent chronic diseases during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic to guide effective intervention strategies and appropriate resource allocation for most significant holistic lifestyle and health improvements., Methods: We surveyed 16 512 adults from July 2020 to August 2021 in 30 territories. Participants self-reported their medical histories and the perceived impact of COVID-19 on 18 lifestyle factors and 13 health outcomes. For each disease subgroup, we generated lifestyle, health outcome, and bridge networks. Variables with the highest centrality indices in each were identified central or bridge. We validated these networks using nonparametric and case-dropping subset bootstrapping and confirmed central and bridge variables' significantly higher indices through a centrality difference test., Findings: Among the 48 networks, 44 were validated (all correlation-stability coefficients >0.25). Six central lifestyle factors were identified: less consumption of snacks (for the chronic disease: anxiety), less sugary drinks (cancer, gastric ulcer, hypertension, insomnia, and pre-diabetes), less smoking tobacco (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease), frequency of exercise (depression and fatty liver disease), duration of exercise (irritable bowel syndrome), and overall amount of exercise (autoimmune disease, diabetes, eczema, heart attack, and high cholesterol). Two central health outcomes emerged: less emotional distress (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, eczema, fatty liver disease, gastric ulcer, heart attack, high cholesterol, hypertension, insomnia, and pre-diabetes) and quality of life (anxiety, autoimmune disease, cancer, depression, diabetes, and irritable bowel syndrome). Four bridge lifestyles were identified: consumption of fruits and vegetables (diabetes, high cholesterol, hypertension, and insomnia), less duration of sitting (eczema, fatty liver disease, and heart attack), frequency of exercise (autoimmune disease, depression, and heart attack), and overall amount of exercise (anxiety, gastric ulcer, and insomnia). The centrality difference test showed the central and bridge variables had significantly higher centrality indices than others in their networks (P < 0.05)., Conclusion: To effectively manage chronic diseases during the COVID-19 pandemic, enhanced interventions and optimised resource allocation toward central lifestyle factors, health outcomes, and bridge lifestyles are paramount. The key variables shared across chronic diseases emphasise the importance of coordinated intervention strategies., Competing Interests: Disclosure of interest: The authors completed the ICMJE Disclosure of Interest Form (available upon request from the corresponding author) and disclose no relevant interests., (Copyright © 2024 by the Journal of Global Health. All rights reserved.)

Background: The interconnected nature of lifestyles and interim health outcomes implies the presence of the central lifestyle, central interim health outcome and bridge lifestyle, which are yet to be determined. Modifying these factors holds immense potential for substantial positive changes across all aspects of health and lifestyles. We aimed to identify these factors from a pool of 18 lifestyle factors and 13 interim health outcomes while investigating potential gender and occupation differences., Methods: An international cross-sectional study was conducted in 30 countries across six World Health Organization regions from July 2020 to August 2021, with 16 512 adults self-reporting changes in 18 lifestyle factors and 13 interim health outcomes since the pandemic., Results: Three networks were computed and tested. The central variables decided by the expected influence centrality were consumption of fruits and vegetables (centrality = 0.98) jointly with less sugary drinks (centrality = 0.93) in the lifestyles network; and quality of life (centrality = 1.00) co-dominant (centrality = 1.00) with less emotional distress in the interim health outcomes network. The overall amount of exercise had the highest bridge expected influence centrality in the bridge network (centrality = 0.51). No significant differences were found in the network global strength or the centrality of the aforementioned key variables within each network between males and females or health workers and non-health workers (all P-values >0.05 after Holm-Bonferroni correction)., Conclusions: Consumption of fruits and vegetables, sugary drinks, quality of life, emotional distress, and the overall amount of exercise are key intervention components for improving overall lifestyle, overall health and overall health via lifestyle in the general population, respectively. Although modifications are needed for all aspects of lifestyle and interim health outcomes, a larger allocation of resources and more intensive interventions were recommended for these key variables to produce the most cost-effective improvements in lifestyles and health, regardless of gender or occupation., Competing Interests: Disclosure of interest: The authors completed the ICMJE Disclosure of Interest Form (available upon request from the corresponding author) and disclose no relevant interests., (Copyright © 2023 by the Journal of Global Health. All rights reserved.)

Background: The health area being greatest impacted by coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and residents' perspective to better prepare for future pandemic remain unknown. We aimed to assess and make cross-country and cross-region comparisons of the global impacts of COVID-19 and preparation preferences of pandemic., Methods: We recruited adults in 30 countries covering all World Health Organization (WHO) regions from July 2020 to August 2021. 5 Likert-point scales were used to measure their perceived change in 32 aspects due to COVID-19 (-2 = substantially reduced to 2 = substantially increased) and perceived importance of 13 preparations (1 = not important to 5 = extremely important). Samples were stratified by age and gender in the corresponding countries. Multidimensional preference analysis displays disparities between 30 countries, WHO regions, economic development levels, and COVID-19 severity levels., Results: 16 512 adults participated, with 10 351 females. Among 32 aspects of impact, the most affected were having a meal at home (mean (m) = 0.84, standard error (SE) = 0.01), cooking at home (m = 0.78, SE = 0.01), social activities (m = -0.68, SE = 0.01), duration of screen time (m = 0.67, SE = 0.01), and duration of sitting (m = 0.59, SE = 0.01). Alcohol (m = -0.36, SE = 0.01) and tobacco (m = -0.38, SE = 0.01) consumption declined moderately. Among 13 preparations, respondents rated medicine delivery (m = 3.50, SE = 0.01), getting prescribed medicine in a hospital visit / follow-up in a community pharmacy (m = 3.37, SE = 0.01), and online shopping (m = 3.33, SE = 0.02) as the most important. The multidimensional preference analysis showed the European Region, Region of the Americas, Western Pacific Region and countries with a high-income level or medium to high COVID-19 severity were more adversely impacted on sitting and screen time duration and social activities, whereas other regions and countries experienced more cooking and eating at home. Countries with a high-income level or medium to high COVID-19 severity reported higher perceived mental burden and emotional distress. Except for low- and lower-middle-income countries, medicine delivery was always prioritised., Conclusions: Global increasing sitting and screen time and limiting social activities deserve as much attention as mental health. Besides, the pandemic has ushered in a notable enhancement in lifestyle of home cooking and eating, while simultaneously reducing the consumption of tobacco and alcohol. A health care system and technological infrastructure that facilitate medicine delivery, medicine prescription, and online shopping are priorities for coping with future pandemics., Competing Interests: Disclosure of interest: The authors completed the ICMJE Disclosure of Interest Form (available upon request from the corresponding author) and disclose no relevant interests., (Copyright © 2023 by the Journal of Global Health. All rights reserved.)