Impact, healthcare utilization and costs of travel-associated mosquito-borne diseases in international travellers: a prospective study.

BACKGROUND: International travellers frequently acquire infectious diseases whilst travelling, yet relatively little is known about the impact and economic burden of these illnesses on travellers. We conducted a prospective exploratory costing study on adult returning travellers with falciparum malaria, dengue, chikungunya or Zika virus. METHODS: Patients were recruited in eight Travel and Tropical Medicine clinics between June 2016 and March 2020 upon travellers' first contact with the health system in their country of residence. The patients were presented with a structured 52-question self-administered questionnaire after full recovery to collect information on patients' healthcare utilization and out-of-pocket costs both in the destination and home country, and about income and other financial losses due to the illness. RESULTS: A total of 134 patients participated in the study (malaria, 66; dengue, 51; chikungunya, 8; Zika virus, 9; all fully recovered; median age 40; range 18-72 years). Prior to travelling, 42% of patients reported procuring medical evacuation insurance. Across the four illnesses, only 7% of patients were hospitalized abroad compared with 61% at home. Similarly, 15% sought ambulatory services whilst abroad compared with 61% at home. The average direct out-of-pocket hospitalization cost in the destination country (USD $2236; range: $108-$5160) was higher than the direct out-of-pocket ambulatory cost in the destination country (USD $327; range: $0-$1560), the direct out-of-pocket hospitalization cost at home (USD $35; range: $0-$120) and the direct out-of-pocket ambulatory costs at home (US$45; range: $0-$192). Respondents with dengue or malaria lost a median of USD $570 (Interquartile range [IQR] 240-1140) and USD $240 (IQR 0-600), respectively, due to their illness, whilst those with chikungunya and Zika virus lost a median of USD $2400 (IQR 1200-3600) and USD $1500 (IQR 510-2625), respectively. CONCLUSION: Travellers often incur significant costs due to travel-acquired diseases. Further research into the economic impact of these diseases on travellers should be conducted.

What predicts people's belief in COVID-19 misinformation? A retrospective study using a nationwide online survey among adults residing in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Tackling infodemics with flooding misinformation is key to managing the COVID-19 pandemic. Yet only a few studies have attempted to understand the characteristics of the people who believe in misinformation. METHODS: Data was used from an online survey that was administered in April 2020 to 6518 English-speaking adult participants in the United States. We created binary variables to represent four misinformation categories related to COVID-19: general COVID-19-related, vaccine/anti-vaccine, COVID-19 as an act of bioterrorism, and mode of transmission. Using binary logistic regression and the LASSO regularization, we then identified the important predictors of belief in each type of misinformation. Nested vector bootstrapping approach was used to estimate the standard error of the LASSO coefficients. RESULTS: About 30% of our sample reported believing in at least one type of COVID-19-related misinformation. Belief in one type of misinformation was not strongly associated with belief in other types. We also identified 58 demographic and socioeconomic factors that predicted people's susceptibility to at least one type of COVID-19 misinformation. Different groups, characterized by distinct sets of predictors, were susceptible to different types of misinformation. There were 25 predictors for general COVID-19 misinformation, 42 for COVID-19 vaccine, 36 for COVID-19 as an act of bioterrorism, and 27 for mode of COVID-transmission. CONCLUSION: Our findings confirm the existence of groups with unique characteristics that believe in different types of COVID-19 misinformation. Findings are readily applicable by policymakers to inform careful targeting of misinformation mitigation strategies.

Universal healthcare coverage and health service delivery before and during the COVID-19 pandemic: A difference-in-difference study of childhood immunization coverage from 195 countries.

BACKGROUND: Several studies have indicated that universal health coverage (UHC) improves health service utilization and outcomes in countries. These studies, however, have primarily assessed UHC's peacetime impact, limiting our understanding of UHC's potential protective effects during public health crises such as the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. We empirically explored whether countries' progress toward UHC is associated with differential COVID-19 impacts on childhood immunization coverage. METHODS AND FINDINGS: Using a quasi-experimental difference-in-difference (DiD) methodology, we quantified the relationship between UHC and childhood immunization coverage before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. The analysis considered 195 World Health Organization (WHO) member states and their ability to provision 12 out of 14 childhood vaccines between 2010 and 2020 as an outcome. We used the 2019 UHC Service Coverage Index (UHC SCI) to divide countries into a "high UHC index" group (UHC SCI ≥80) and the rest. All analyses included potential confounders including the calendar year, countries' income group per the World Bank classification, countries' geographical region as defined by WHO, and countries' preparedness for an epidemic/pandemic as represented by the Global Health Security Index 2019. For robustness, we replicated the analysis using a lower cutoff value of 50 for the UHC index. A total of 20,230 country-year observations were included in the study. The DiD estimators indicated that countries with a high UHC index (UHC SCI ≥80, n = 35) had a 2.70% smaller reduction in childhood immunization coverage during the pandemic year of 2020 as compared to the countries with UHC index less than 80 (DiD coefficient 2.70; 95% CI: 0.75, 4.65; p-value = 0.007). This relationship, however, became statistically nonsignificant at the lower cutoff value of UHC SCI <50 (n = 60). The study's primary limitation was scarce data availability, which restricted our ability to account for confounders and to test our hypothesis for other relevant outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: We observed that countries with greater progress toward UHC were associated with significantly smaller declines in childhood immunization coverage during the pandemic. This identified association may potentially provide support for the importance of UHC in building health system resilience. Our findings strongly suggest that policymakers should continue to advocate for achieving UHC in coming years.

Household and Hospitalization Costs of Pediatric Dengue Illness in Colombo, Sri Lanka.

Dengue, a mosquito-borne viral infection that affects millions around the world, poses a substantial economic burden in endemic countries. We conducted a prospective costing study in hospitalized pediatric dengue patients at the Lady Ridgeway Hospital for Children (LRHC), a public pediatric hospital in Colombo district, Sri Lanka, to assess household out-of-pocket and hospitalization costs of dengue in pediatric patients during peak dengue transmission season. Between August and October 2013, we recruited 216 hospitalized patients (aged 0-3 years, 27%; 4-7 years, 29%; 8-12 years, 42%) who were clinically or laboratory diagnosed with dengue. Using 2013 US dollars, household out-of-pocket spending, on average, was US$59 (SD 49) per episode and increased with disease severity (DF, US$52; DHF/DSS, US$78). Pediatric dengue patients received free-of-charge medical care during hospitalization at LRHC, and this places a high financial burden on hospitals. The direct medical cost of hospitalization was US$68 (SD 31.4) for DF episode, and US$122.7 (SD 65.2) for DHF/DSS episode. Yet a hospitalized dengue illness episode still accounted for 20% to 35% of household monthly income due to direct and indirect costs. Additionally, a majority of caregivers (70%) sought outpatient care before hospitalization, most of whom (81%) visited private health facilities. Our findings indicate that hospitalized pediatric dengue illness poses a nontrivial cost burden to households and healthcare systems, emphasizing the importance of preventing and controlling the transmission of dengue in endemic countries.

A Prospective Study on the Impact and Out-of-Pocket Costs of Dengue Illness in International Travelers.

Although the costs of dengue illness to patients and households have been extensively studied in endemic populations, international travelers have not been the focus of costing studies. As globalization and human travel activities intensify, travelers are increasingly at risk for emerging and reemerging infectious diseases, such as dengue. This exploratory study aims to investigate the impact and out-of-pocket costs of dengue illness among travelers. We conducted a prospective study in adult travelers with laboratory-confirmed dengue and recruited patients at travel medicine clinics in eight different countries from December 2013 to December 2015. Using a structured questionnaire, we collected information on patients and their health-care utilization and out-of-pocket expenditures, as well as income and other financial losses they incurred because of dengue illness. A total of 90 patients participated in the study, most of whom traveled for tourism (74%) and visited countries in Asia (82%). Although 22% reported hospitalization and 32% receiving ambulatory care while traveling, these percentages were higher at 39% and 71%, respectively, after returning home. The out-of-pocket direct and indirect costs of dengue illness were US$421 (SD 744) and US$571 (SD 1,913) per episode, respectively, averaging to a total out-of-pocket cost of US$992 (SD 2,052) per episode. The study findings suggest that international travelers incur important direct and indirect costs because of dengue-related illness. This study is the first to date to investigate the impact and out-of-pocket costs of travel-related dengue illness from the patient's perspective and paves the way for future economic burden studies in this population.