Economic evaluation of strategies against coronavirus: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 outbreak was defined as a pandemic on 11 March 2020 by the World Health Organization. After that, COVID-19 has enormously influenced health systems around the world, and it has claimed more than 4.2 million deaths until July 2021. The pandemic has led to global health, social and economic costs. This situation has prompted a crucial search for beneficial interventions and treatments, but little is known about their monetary value. This study is aimed at systematically reviewing the articles conducted on the economic evaluation of preventive, control and treatment strategies against COVID-19. MATERIAL AND METHOD: We searched PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar from December 2019 to October 2021 to find applicable literature to the economic evaluation of strategies against COVID-19. Two researchers screened potentially eligible titles and abstracts. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist was used to quality assessment of studies. RESULTS: Thirty-six studies were included in this review, and the average CHEERS score was 72. Cost-effectiveness analysis was the most common type of economic evaluation, used in 21 studies. And the quality-adjusted life year (QALY) was the main outcome applied to measure the effectiveness of interventions, which was used in 19 studies. In addition, articles were reported a wide range of incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), and the lowest cost per QALY ($321.14) was related to the use of vaccines. CONCLUSION: Based on the results of this systematic review, it seems that all strategies are likely to be more cost-effective against COVID-19 than no intervention and vaccination was the most cost-effective strategy. This research provides insight for decision makers in choosing optimal interventions against the next waves of the current pandemic and possible future pandemics.

Relationship between personality type and musculoskeletal disorders among office staff.

BACKGROUND: Musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) have been recognized as common health-related problems in the workplace. Accordingly, poorly-designed workstations and assigned tasks can lead to exposure to risk factors inducing MSDs among office staff. Accompanied by physical risk factors, psychological ones in working environments can also contribute to MSDs occurrence. Thus, the purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between personality types as a psychological factor and MSDs occurrence among office staff. METHODS: This cross-sectional study was carried out on office staff working at Shiraz University of Medical Sciences (SUMS) in 2016. The participants included 339 employees recruited using multi-stage simple random sampling method. The required data were likewise collected via a demographic characteristics information checklist, the Personality Pattern Questionnaire (PPQ), as well as the standardized Nordic Musculoskeletal Questionnaire (NMQ). RESULTS: The findings revealed that the participants' mean±standard deviation (SD) age were 36.4±7.8 years. As well, the most prevalent MSDs complaints were reported in lower back, knee, and neck regions with relative frequencies of 35%, 30%, and 25% respectively. Moreover, the results demonstrated that 0.6% of the participants were determined as individuals having a strong tendency for type A personality, 26.8% of them showed tendency for type A personality, 63.1% of these employees were categorized into those having a tendency for type B personality, and 9.4% of them were identified as participants who showed a strong tendency for type B personality. Additionally, statistically significant relationships were observed between personality types and MSDs occurrence (p=0.023). Furthermore, musculoskeletal symptoms were reported more prevalent among individuals having tendency for type A personality. CONCLUSION: Personality types and MSDs occurrence seemed to be associated. It was thus suggested to take account of psychological factors (e.g., personality types) in macro policy-making, employee selection, and professional staff training programs.

Prevalence, Awareness, Treatment, and Control of Hypertension in an Isfahan State Institution Sample.

Background: Hypertension is a major risk factor for premature disability and death and is the leading risk factor for global disease burden. The present study aimed to assess the rates of prevalence, awareness, treatment, and control of hypertension in a sample of teachers, staff, and students at Isfahan University of Medical Sciences (IUMS). Methods: This cross-sectional survey was conducted from January to September 2015 on the staff, teachers, and students at IUMS. A total of 1500 subjects were randomly selected and were invited to participate in the survey. Hypertension was defined as an average of 2 blood pressure measurements of at least 140/90 mmHg. The rate of awareness was determined based on self-reports, treatment was defined as the regular use of blood pressure-lowering medications, and control was defined as the maintenance of blood pressure below 140/90 mmHg. Results: The study population comprised 1317 individuals (45.9% female) at a mean age of 41.4±9.5 years. The prevalence rate of hypertension was 17.5% (231 of 1317 participants), and the rate of awareness was 54.5% (126 of 231 hypertensive patients). Seventy-nine (62.7%) patients were undergoing treatment, and 51.9% (41 of 79) controlled their disease. Institutional position (P<0.017), age (P<0.001), body mass index (P<0.001), education level (P<0.001), smoking status (P<0.001), and history of diabetes mellitus (P<0.001) were the most frequent risk factors associated with hypertension. Conclusion: The percentage of the hypertensive subjects who were aware, treated, and controlled was unacceptably low in our sample at IUMS. Hypertension is, therefore, a major health problem in this state institution.