A cross-sectional study of the association of age, gender, education and economic status with individual perceptions of governmental response to COVID-19.

OBJECTIVE: We assessed the impact of key population variables (age, gender, income and education) on perceptions of governmental effectiveness in communicating about COVID-19, helping meet needs for food and shelter, providing physical and mental healthcare services, and allocating dedicated resources to vulnerable populations. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study carried out in June 2020. PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING: 13 426 individuals from 19 countries. RESULTS: More than 60% of all respondents felt their government had communicated adequately during the pandemic. National variances ranged from 83.4% in China down to 37.2% in Brazil, but overall, males and those with a higher income were more likely to rate government communications highly. Almost half (48.8%) of the respondents felt their government had ensured adequate access to physical health services (ranging from 89.3% for Singapore to 27.2% for Poland), with higher ratings reported by younger and higher-income respondents. Ratings of mental health support were lower overall (32.9%, ranging from 74.8% in China to around 15% in Brazil and Sweden), but highest among younger respondents. Providing support for basic necessities of food and housing was rated highest overall in China (79%) and lowest in Ecuador (14.6%), with higher ratings reported by younger, higher-income and better-educated respondents across all countries. The same three demographic groups tended to rate their country's support to vulnerable groups more highly than other respondents, with national scores ranging from around 75% (Singapore and China) to 19.5% (Sweden). Subgroup findings are mostly independent of intercountry variations with 15% of variation being due to intercountry differences. CONCLUSIONS: The tendency of younger, better-paid and better-educated respondents to rate their country's response to the pandemic more highly, suggests that government responses must be nuanced and pay greater attention to the needs of less-advantaged citizens as they continue to address this pandemic.

COVID-SCORE: A global survey to assess public perceptions of government responses to COVID-19 (COVID-SCORE-10).

BACKGROUND: Understanding public perceptions of government responses to COVID-19 may foster improved public cooperation. Trust in government and population risk of exposure may influence public perception of the response. Other population-level characteristics, such as country socio-economic development, COVID-19 morbidity and mortality, and degree of democratic government, may influence perception. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We developed a novel ten-item instrument that asks respondents to rate key aspects of their government's response to the pandemic (COVID-SCORE). We examined whether the results varied by gender, age group, education level, and monthly income. We also examined the internal and external validity of the index using appropriate predefined variables. To test for dimensionality of the results, we used a principal component analysis (PCA) for the ten survey items. We found that Cronbach's alpha was 0.92 and that the first component of the PCA explained 60% of variance with the remaining factors having eigenvalues below 1, strongly indicating that the tool is both reliable and unidimensional. Based on responses from 13,426 people randomly selected from the general population in 19 countries, the mean national scores ranged from 35.76 (Ecuador) to 80.48 (China) out of a maximum of 100 points. Heterogeneity in responses was observed across age, gender, education and income with the greatest amount of heterogeneity observed between countries. National scores correlated with respondents' reported levels of trust in government and with country-level COVID-19 mortality rates. CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-SCORE survey instrument demonstrated satisfactory validity. It may help governments more effectively engage constituents in current and future efforts to control COVID-19. Additional country-specific assessment should be undertaken to measure trends over time and the public perceptions of key aspects of government responses in other countries.

The Hep-CORE policy score: A European hepatitis C national policy implementation ranking based on patient organization data.

BACKGROUND: New hepatitis C virus (HCV) treatments spurred the World Health Organization (WHO) in 2016 to adopt a strategy to eliminate HCV as a public health threat by 2030. To achieve this, key policies must be implemented. In the absence of monitoring mechanisms, this study aims to assess the extent of policy implementation from the perspective of liver patient groups. METHODS: Thirty liver patient organisations, each representing a country, were surveyed in October 2018 to assess implementation of HCV policies in practice. Respondents received two sets of questions based on: 1) WHO recommendations; and 2) validated data sources verifying an existing policy in their country. Academic experts selected key variables from each set for inclusion into policy scores. The similarity scores were calculated for each set with a multiple joint correspondence analysis. Proxy reference countries were included as the baseline to contextualize results. We extracted scores for each country and standardized them from 0 to 10 (best). RESULTS: Twenty-five countries responded. For the score based on WHO recommendations, Bulgaria had the lowest score whereas five countries (Cyprus, Netherlands, Portugal, Slovenia, and Sweden) had the highest scores. For the verified policy score, a two-dimensional solution was identified; first dimension scores pertained to whether verified policies were in place and second dimension scores pertained to the proportion of verified policies in-place that were implemented. Spain, UK, and Sweden had high scores for both dimensions. CONCLUSIONS: Patient groups reported that the European region is not on track to meet WHO 2030 HCV goals. More action should be taken to implement and monitor HCV policies.

Do the most heavily burdened countries have the right policies to eliminate viral hepatitis B and C?

In 2019, a Lancet Gastroenterology & Hepatology Commission on accelerating the elimination of viral hepatitis reported on the status of 11 viral hepatitis policy indicators in 66 countries and territories with the heaviest burden by global region. Policies were reported as being either in place, in development, or not in place. This study uses the Commission findings to estimate hepatitis B virus (HBV) and hepatitis C virus (HCV) policy scores and rankings for these 66 countries and territories. We applied a multiple correspondence analysis technique to reduce data on policy indicators into a weighted summary for the HBV and HCV policies. We calculated HBV and HCV policy scores for each country. Countries and territories that received higher scores had more policies in place and in development than did countries with lower scores. The highest scoring country for HBV was Australia, whereas Somalia had the lowest score. For the HCV policy score, Australia and New Zealand had perfect scores, whereas Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen had the lowest scores, all having no policy indicators in place.

The Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness of Hepatitis C Screening for Migrants in the EU/EEA: A Systematic Review.

Chronic hepatitis C (HCV) is a public health priority in the European Union/European Economic Area (EU/EEA) and is a leading cause of chronic liver disease and liver cancer. Migrants account for a disproportionate number of HCV cases in the EU/EEA (mean 14% of cases and >50% of cases in some countries). We conducted two systematic reviews (SR) to estimate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of HCV screening for migrants living in the EU/EEA. We found that screening tests for HCV are highly sensitive and specific. Clinical trials report direct acting antiviral (DAA) therapies are well-tolerated in a wide range of populations and cure almost all cases (>95%) and lead to an 85% lower risk of developing hepatocellular carcinoma and an 80% lower risk of all-cause mortality. At 2015 costs, DAA based regimens were only moderately cost-effective and as a result less than 30% of people with HCV had been screened and less 5% of all HCV cases had been treated in the EU/EEA in 2015. Migrants face additional barriers in linkage to care and treatment due to several patient, practitioner, and health system barriers. Although decreasing HCV costs have made treatment more accessible in the EU/EEA, HCV elimination will only be possible in the region if health systems include and treat migrants for HCV.