RESUMO
BACKGROUND: The existing evidence shows that the pattern of health expenditure differs considerably between people at the end-of-life and people in other periods of their lives. The awareness of these differences, combined with a detailed analysis of future mortality rates is one of the key pieces of information needed for health spending prognoses. The general objective of this review was to identify and map the existing empirical evidence on end-of-life expenditure related to health care for the older population. METHODS: To achieve the objective of the study a systematic scoping review was performed. There were 61 studies included in the analysis. The project has been registered through the Open Science Framework. RESULTS: The included studies cover different kinds of expenditure in terms of payers, providers and types of services, although most of them include analyses of hospital spending and nearly 60% of analyses were conducted for insurance expenditure. The studies provide very different results, which are difficult to compare. However, all of the studies analyzing expenditure by survivorship status indicate that expenditure on decedents is higher than on survivors. Many studies indicate a strong relationship between health expenditure and proximity to death and indicate that proximity to death is a more important determinant of health expenditure than age per se. Drawing conclusions on the relationship between end-of-life expenditure and socio-economic status would be possible only by placing the analysis in a broader context, including the rules of a health system's organization and financing. This review showed that a lot of studies are focused on limited types of care, settings, and payers, showing only a partial picture of health and social care systems in the context of end-of-life expenditure for the older population. CONCLUSION: The results of studies on end-of-life expenditure for the older population conducted so far are largely inconsistent. The review showed a great variety of problems appearing in the area of end-of-life expenditure analysis, related to methodology, data availability, and the comparability of results. Further research is needed to improve the methods of analyses, as well as to develop some analysis standards to enhance research quality and comparability.
RESUMO
Workplaces can be high-risk environments for SARS-CoV-2 outbreaks and subsequent community transmission. Identifying, understanding, and implementing effective workplace SARS-CoV-2 infection prevention and control (IPC) measures is critical to protect workers, their families, and communities. A rapid review and meta-analysis were conducted to synthesize evidence assessing the effectiveness of COVID-19 IPC measures implemented in global workplace settings through April 2021. Medline, Embase, PubMed, and Cochrane Library were searched for studies that quantitatively assessed the effectiveness of workplace COVID-19 IPC measures. The included studies comprised varying empirical designs and occupational settings. Measures of interest included surveillance measures, outbreak investigations, environmental adjustments, personal protective equipment (PPE), changes in work arrangements, and worker education. Sixty-one studies from healthcare, nursing home, meatpacking, manufacturing, and office settings were included, accounting for ~280,000 employees based in Europe, Asia, and North America. Meta-analyses showed that combined IPC measures resulted in lower employee COVID-19 positivity rates (0.2% positivity; 95% CI 0-0.4%) than single measures such as asymptomatic PCR testing (1.7%; 95% CI 0.9-2.9%) and universal masking (24%; 95% CI 3.4-55.5%). Modelling studies showed that combinations of (i) timely and widespread contact tracing and case isolation, (ii) facilitating smaller worker cohorts, and (iii) effective use of PPE can reduce workplace transmission. Comprehensive COVID-19 IPC measures incorporating swift contact tracing and case isolation, PPE, and facility zoning can effectively prevent workplace outbreaks. Masking alone should not be considered sufficient protection from SARS-CoV-2 outbreaks in the workplace.