Health and non-health benefits and equity impacts of individual-level economic relief programs during epidemics/pandemics in high income settings: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Economic relief programs are strategies designed to sustain societal welfare and population health during a regional or global scale infectious disease outbreak. While economic relief programmes are considered essential during a regional or global health crisis, there is no clear consensus in the literature about their health and non-health benefits and their impact on promoting equity. METHODS: We conducted a scoping review, searching eight electronic databases from January 01, 2001, to April 3, 2023, using text words and subject headings for recent pathogens (coronavirus (COVID-19), Ebola, Influenza, Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS), severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), HIV, West Nile, and Zika), and economic relief programs; but restricted eligibility to high-income countries and selected diseases due to volume. Title and abstract screening were conducted by trained reviewers and Distiller AI software. Data were extracted in duplicates by two trained reviewers using a pretested form, and key findings were charted using a narrative approach. RESULTS: We identified 27,263 de-duplicated records, of which 50 were eligible. Included studies were on COVID-19 and Influenza, published between 2014 and 2023. Zero eligible studies were on MERS, SARS, Zika, Ebola, or West Nile Virus. We identified seven program types of which cash transfer (n = 12) and vaccination or testing incentive (n = 9) were most common. Individual-level economic relief programs were reported to have varying degrees of impact on public health measures, and sometimes affected population health outcomes. Expanding paid sick leave programs had the highest number of studies reporting health-related outcomes and positively impacted public health measures (isolation, vaccination uptake) and health outcomes (case counts and the utilization of healthcare services). Equity impact was most often reported for cash transfer programs and incentive for vaccination programs. Positive effects on general well-being and non-health outcomes included improved mental well-being and quality of life, food security, financial resilience, and job security. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that individual-level economic relief programs can have significant impacts on public health measures, population health outcomes and equity. As countries prepare for future pandemics, our findings provide evidence to stakeholders to recognize health equity as a fundamental public health goal when designing pandemic preparedness policies.

Characterising the effectiveness of social determinants of health-focused hepatitis B interventions: a systematic review.

Social determinants of health are important in designing effective interventions for hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection. This systematic review characterises equity-oriented, social determinants of health-focused HBV interventions, and describes their effectiveness in terms of the prevention, care, or treatment of HBV in high-income countries. We searched electronic databases for central concepts of 'HBV', 'equity', 'social determinants of health', 'intervention', and 'Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries'. Screening and data abstraction were conducted independently by two reviewers. Data were abstracted from 66 studies; articles with a comparative study design (n=36) were included in the narrative synthesis, highlighting social determinants of health domains of interventions, HBV-relevant health outcomes, and extra-health social determinants of health effects (ie, those effects that extend beyond health outcomes). Synthesis aligned with six emergent themes corresponding to HBV prevention and care: knowledge and education, diagnosis and screening, immunisation, care initiation, engagement with clinical care and treatment, and upstream prevention. Studies presented a heterogeneous array of HBV-relevant health outcomes. Most interventions were tailored for social determinants of health domains of race, ethnicity, culture, and language; drug use; and socioeconomic status. Across the themes, at least two-thirds of interventions showed comparative effectiveness for addressing HBV. Extra-health social determinants of health outcomes were observed for two studies. Considerable diversity in population-level approaches was observed regarding intervention goals and effectiveness; most interventions were effective at enhancing the prevention, care, or treatment of HBV.

Inclusion of non-medical interventions in model-based economic evaluations for tuberculosis: A scoping review.

BACKGROUND: The economic evaluation of health interventions is important in priority setting. Several guidance documents exist to support the conduct of economic evaluations, however, there is limited guidance for the evaluation of non-medical interventions. For tuberculosis (TB), where equity-deserving groups are disproportionately impacted, assessing interventions aimed at addressing social risk factors is necessary to effectively reduce TB burden. OBJECTIVE: This scoping review seeks to assess the existing literature on model-based economic evaluations of TB interventions to gauge the extent to which non-medical interventions have been evaluated in low-TB-incidence jurisdictions. As a secondary objective, this review aims to characterize key features of existing economic evaluations of medical and non-medical interventions. METHODS: A literature search was conducted in the grey literature and MEDLINE, Embase, EconLit, and PsychINFO databases to September 6, 2022 following the Arksey and O'Malley framework. Eligible articles were those that used decision-analytic modeling for economic evaluation of TB interventions in low-TB-incidence jurisdictions. RESULTS: This review identified 127 studies that met the inclusion criteria; 11 focused on prevention, 73 on detection, and 43 on treatment of TB. Only three studies (2%) evaluated non-medical interventions, including smoking reduction strategies, improving housing conditions, and providing food vouchers. All three non-medical intervention evaluations incorporated TB transmission and robust uncertainty analysis into the evaluation. The remainder of the studies evaluated direct medical interventions, eight of which were focused on specific implementation components (e.g., video observed therapy) which shared similar methodological challenges as the non-medical interventions. The majority of remaining evaluated medical interventions were focused on comparing various screening programs (e.g., immigrant screening program) and treatment regimens. CONCLUSIONS: This scoping review identified a gap in literature in the evaluation of non-medical TB interventions. However, the identified articles provided useful examples of how economic modeling can be used to explore non-traditional interventions using existing economic evaluation methods.