Explore the vast range of titles available.

Background Preliminary evidence from the COVID-19 pandemic shows the presence of health disparities, especially in terms of morbidity and mortality. This study aimed to systematically review the evidence on the association of racial/ethnic and socioeconomic status (SES) with health outcomes and access to healthcare services during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods We retrieved published evidence from late December 2019 through March 1, 2021. The target population was the population of the countries during the COVID-19 pandemic. The exposures were defined as belonging to racial/ethnic minority groups and/or low SES. The primary outcomes of interest include (1) death from COVID-19, (2) COVID-19 incidence/infection, (3) COVID-19 hospitalization, (4) ICU admission, (5) need for mechanical ventilation, (6) confirmed diagnosis, and (7) access to testing. We systematically synthesized the findings from different studies and provided a narrative explanation of the results. Results After removing the duplicate results and screening for relevant titles and abstracts, 77 studies were selected for full-text review. Finally, 52 studies were included in the review. The majority of the studies were from the United States (37 studies). Despite the significant incongruity among the studies, most of them showed that racial/ethnic minority groups had higher risks of COVID-19 infection and hospitalization, confirmed diagnosis, and death. Additionally, most of the studies cited factors such as low level of education, poverty, poor housing conditions, low household income, speaking in a language other than the national language in a country, and living in overcrowded households as risk factors of COVID-19 incidence/infection, death, and confirmed diagnosis. However, findings in terms of the association of lack of health insurance coverage and unemployment with the outcome measures as well as the association of requiring mechanical ventilation, ICU admission, and access to testing for COVID-19 with race/ethnicity were limited and inconsistent. Conclusion It is evident that racial/ethnic minority groups and those from low SES are more vulnerable to COVID-19; therefore, public health policymakers, practitioners, and clinicians should be aware of these inequalities and strive to narrow the gap by focusing on vulnerable populations. This systematic review also revealed a major incongruity in the definition of the racial/ethnic minority groups and SES among the studies. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42020190105.

Non-Pharmaceutical Public Health Interventions (NPHIs) have been used by different countries to control the spread of the COVID-19. Despite available evidence regarding the effectiveness of NPHSs, there is still no consensus about how policymakers can trust these results. Studies on the effectiveness of NPHSs are single studies conducted in specific communities. Therefore, they cannot individually prove if these interventions have been effective in reducing the spread of the infection and its adverse health outcomes. In this systematic review, we aimed to examine the effects of NPHIs on the COVID-19 case growth rate, death growth rate, Intensive Care Unit (ICU) admission, and reproduction number in countries, where NPHIs have been implemented. We searched relevant electronic databases, including Medline (via PubMed), Scopus, CINAHL, Web of Science, etc. from late December 2019 to February 1, 2021. The key terms were primarily drawn from Medical Subject Heading (MeSh and Emtree), literature review, and opinions of experts. Peer-reviewed quasi-experimental studies were included in the review. The PROSPERO registration number is CRD42020186855. Interventions were NPHIs categorized as lockdown, stay-at-home orders, social distancing, and other interventions (mask-wearing, contact tracing, and school closure). We used PRISMA 2020 guidance for abstracting the data and used Cochrane Effective Practice and Organization of Practice (EPOC) Risk of Bias Tool for quality appraisal of the studies. Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman random-effects model was performed. Main outcomes included COVID-19 case growth rate (percentage daily changes), COVID-19 mortality growth rate (percentage daily changes), COVID-19 ICU admission (percentage daily changes), and COVID-19 reproduction number changes. Our search strategies in major databases yielded 12,523 results, which decreased to 7,540 articles after eliminating duplicates. Finally, 35 articles qualified to be included in the systematic review among which 23 studies were included in the meta-analysis. Although studies were from both low-income and high-income countries, the majority of them were from the United States (13 studies) and China (five studies). Results of the meta-analysis showed that adoption of NPHIs has resulted in a 4.68% (95% CI, -6.94 to -2.78) decrease in daily case growth rates, 4.8% (95 CI, -8.34 to -1.40) decrease in daily death growth rates, 1.90 (95% CI, -2.23 to -1.58) decrease in the COVID-19 reproduction number, and 16.5% (95% CI, -19.68 to -13.32) decrease in COVID-19 daily ICU admission. A few studies showed that, early enforcement of lockdown, when the incidence rate is not high, contributed to a shorter duration of lockdown and a lower increase of the case growth rate in the post-lockdown era. The majority of NPHIs had positive effects on restraining the COVID-19 spread. With the problems that remain regarding universal access to vaccines and their effectiveness and considering the drastic impact of the nationwide lockdown and other harsh restrictions on the economy and people’s life, such interventions should be mitigated by adopting other NPHIs such as mass mask-wearing, patient/suspected case isolation strategies, and contact tracing. Studies need to address the impact of NPHIs on the population’s other health problems than COVID-19.

Objective To identify the costs of hospital care for patients with COVID-19 and the amount of out-of-pocket payments. Methods We conducted a systematic review using Scopus and WEB OF SCIENCE and PubMed databases in April 5, 2022 and then updated in January 15, 2023. English articles with no publication year restrictions were included with study designs of cost-of-illness (COI) studies, cost analyses, and observational reports (cross-sectional studies and prospective and retrospective cohorts) that calculated the patient-level cost of care for COVID-19. Costs are reported in USD with purchasing power parity (PPP) conversion in 2020. The PROSPERO registration number is CRD42022334337. Results The results showed that the highest total cost of hospitalization in intensive care per patient was 100789 USD, which was reported in Germany, and the lowest cost was 5436.77 USD, which was reported in Romania. In the present study, in the special care department, the highest percentage of total expenses is related to treatment expenses (42.23 percent), while in the inpatient department, the highest percentage of total expenses is related to the costs of hospital beds/day of routine services (39.07 percent). The highest percentage of out-of-pocket payments was 30.65 percent, reported in China, and the lowest percentage of out-of-pocket payments was 1.12 percent, reported in Iran. The highest indirect cost per hospitalization was 16049 USD, reported in USA, and the lowest was 449.07 USD, reported in India. Conclusion The results show that the COVID-19 disease imposed a high cost of hospitalization, mainly the cost of hospital beds/day of routine services. Studies have used different methods for calculating the costs, and this has negatively impacted the comparability costs across studies. Therefore, it would be beneficial for researchers to use a similar cost calculation model to increase the compatibility of different studies. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO CRD42022334337

Without any pharmaceutical intervention and vaccination, the only way to combat Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) is to slow down the spread of the disease by adopting non-pharmaceutical public health interventions (PHIs). Patient isolation, lockdown, quarantine, social distancing, changes in health care provision, and mass screening are the most common non-pharmaceutical PHIs to cope with the epidemic. However, there is neither systematic evidence on the effectiveness of non-pharmaceutical PHIs in controlling the COVID-19 nor on how these interventions work in different contexts. Therefore, in this study we will address two main objectives: 1) to assess the effectiveness of the non-pharmaceutical PHIs in controlling the spread of COVID-19 using a systematic review and meta-analyses; 2) to explore why, how, and for whom these interventions work using a realist review. This review study has two main phases. In the first phase of this study, we will extract data from two main types of studies including quasi-experimental studies (such as quasi-randomized trials, controlled before-after studies (CBAs) and interrupted time series studies (ITSs)) and observational studies (such as cohort, case-control, and cross-sectional studies), written in the English language. We will explore effectiveness of the non-pharmaceutical PHIs targeted either suppression or mitigation strategies (or a combination of both) in controlling the COVID-19 epidemics in the community level. Effectiveness will be considered as the changes in mortality rate, incidence rate, basic reproduction number rate, morbidity rate, rates of hospitalization, rates of intensive care unit (ICU) hospitalization, and other health outcomes where possible. We will perform random-effects meta-analyses, if possible, using CMA software. In the second phase, we will conduct a realist review to find out how, why, for whom, and in what circumstances the non-pharmaceutical PHIs work. At the realist review, we will identify and explore Context-Mechanism-Outcome configurations to provide a robust explanation on the effectiveness of the interventions in different contexts using Pawson's 5-step realist review template including: \"clarify scope; search for evidence; appraise primary studies and extract data; synthesize evidence and draw conclusions; and disseminate, implement and evaluate\". Although the steps are presented in a linear manner, in practice, we will follow them in iterative stages to fill any potential overlap. The findings of this research will provide a crucial insight into how and in which context the non-pharmaceutical PHIs work in controlling the spread of COVID-19. Conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis in line with a realist review will allow us to draw a robust conclusion on the effects and the way in which the interventions work. Understanding the role of contextual factors in the effectiveness of non-pharmaceutical PHIs and the mechanism of this process could enable policymakers to implement appropriate policies and manage the COVID-19 epidemics more efficiently. CRD42020186855.

Objective This study aimed to assess the service quality (SQ) for Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and hypertension in primary healthcare settings from the perspective of service users in Iran. Methods The Cross-sectional study was conducted from January to March 2020 in urban and rural public health centers in the East Azerbaijan province of Iran. A total of 561 individuals aged 18 or above with either or both conditions of T2DM and hypertension were eligible to participate in the study. The study employed a two-step stratified sampling method in East Azerbaijan province, Iran. A validated questionnaire assessed SQ. Data were analyzed using One-way ANOVA and multiple linear regression statistical models in STATA-17. Results Among the 561 individuals who participated in the study 176 (31.3%) were individuals with hypertension, 165 (29.4%) with T2DM, and 220 (39.2%) with both hypertension and T2DM mutually. The participants’ anthropometric indicators and biochemical characteristics showed that the mean Fasting Blood Glucose (FBG) in individuals with T2DM was 174.4 (Standard deviation (SD) = 73.57) in patients with T2DM without hypertension and 159.4 (SD = 65.46) in patients with both T2DM and hypertension. The total SQ scores were 82.37 (SD = 12.19), 82.48 (SD = 12.45), and 81.69 (SD = 11.75) for hypertension, T2DM, and both conditions, respectively. Among people with hypertension and without diabetes, those who had specific service providers had higher SQ scores (b = 7.03; p  = 0.001) compared to their peers who did not have specific service providers. Those who resided in rural areas had lower SQ scores (b = -6.07; p  = 0.020) compared to their counterparts in urban areas. In the group of patients with T2DM and without hypertension, those who were living in non-metropolitan cities reported greater SQ scores compared to patients in metropolitan areas (b = 5.09; p  = 0.038). Additionally, a one-point increase in self-management total score was related with a 0.13-point decrease in SQ score ( P  = 0.018). In the group of people with both hypertension and T2DM, those who had specific service providers had higher SQ scores (b = 8.32; p  < 0.001) compared to the group without specific service providers. Conclusion Study reveals gaps in T2DM and hypertension care quality despite routine check-ups. Higher SQ correlates with better self-care. Improving service quality in primary healthcare settings necessitates a comprehensive approach that prioritizes patient empowerment, continuity of care, and equitable access to services, particularly for vulnerable populations in rural areas.

Among individuals with hypertension and without diabetes, those with specific service providers demonstrated higher SQ scores (b = 7.03; p < 0.001) compared to those without specific service providers. [...]individuals in rural areas with hypertension and without diabetes exhibited lower SQ scores (b = -6.07; p < 0.05) than their urban counterparts. Conclusion The results of the current study revealed that even though the primary health system has initiated delivering routine check-ups for patients with T2DM and/or hypertension in primary health centers a decade ago, there is a gap in the quality of services provided. Addressing these disparities requires targeted interventions such as patient and clinician education initiatives, as well as health system reforms to improve access to medication and disease management services in rural areas. Tabriz Health Services Management Research Center, Department of Health Policy and Management, School of Management and Medical Informatics, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran Shabnam Iezadi & Kamal Gholipour 2.

Domestic violence (DV) is a universal issue and an important public health priority. Establishing a DV Registry System (DVRS) can help to systematically integrate data from several sources and provide valid and reliable information on the scope and severity of harms. The main objective of this study was to develop, validate, and pilot-test a minimum datasheet for a DVRS to register DV victims in medical facilities. This study was conducted in two main phases. Phase one includes developing the datasheet for registration of DV in the DVRS. In phase two, the datasheet designed in the previous step was used in a pilot implementation of the DVRS for 12 months to find practical challenges. The preliminary datasheet was first developed using information on similar registry programs and guidelines of the World Health Organization (WHO) and then reviewed by four expert panels. Through a two-round Delphi technique, experts evaluated the instrument using the Content Validity Index (CVI) and Content Validity Ratio (CVR). The consistency of the responses was evaluated by test-retest analysis. Finally, two physicians in two forensic medical clinics registered the victims of physical and/or sexual violence perpetrated by a family member. Preliminary datasheet consisted of 31 items. In the first round of Delphi, fifteen items had good content validity (I-CVI and CVR) and were kept, and seven items were moved to the next round. Also, in the first round of Delphi, experts suggested adding three items, including history of the violence, custody of the child, and custody of the elderly. All items evaluated in the second round were kept due to good CVR and CVI scores. As a result of Test-retest correlation coefficients for self-reprted items, two items including perpetrator's alcohol and drug use status were excluded (r(30) = +.43, and +.38, p< .01, two-tailed, respectively). Finally, 24 items were included in the datasheet including 15 items for individuals' characteristics (victims' characteristics and perpetrators' characteristics), eight items for incidents' characteristics, and one item for past history of violence experience. A total of 369 cases were registered from September 23, 2019, to July 21, 2020. The majority of the reported cases were female (82%) and were 19-40 years old. No physical and/or sexual violence was reported from rural areas, which calls upon researchers to explore how services for detecting and treating the victims can be made accessible to these areas. DVRS can show trends in DV by age, sex, the context of the violence, and incidence characteristics at every point in time. This is particularly valuable in planning and prioritizing research areas and interventions for DV prevention. Additionally, DVRS can be linked to other disease registry programs which can contribute to continuity and coordination of care, and major research in the future. Although a DVRS can be a promising initiative in identifying the areas in need of urgent interventions, there is no guarantee for its proper implementation due to limited resources and other challenges.

Background The aim of this study was to examine the quality of care by age and gender in oesophageal cancer using Global Burden of Disease (GBD) database. Methods Patients aged 20 and over with oesophageal cancer were included in this longitudinal study using GBD 1990-2019 data. We used the Socio-Demographic Index (SDI) to classify the regions. We used Principal Component Analysis (PCA) method to calculate the Quality of Care Index (QCI). The QCI was rescaled into a 0-100 single index, demonstrating that the higher the score, the better the QC. Results The age-standardized QCI for oesophageal cancer dramatically increased from 23.5 in 1990 to 41.1 in 2019 for both sexes, globally. The high SDI regions showed higher QCI than the rest of the regions (45.1 in 1990 and 65.7 in 2019) whereas the low SDI regions had the lowest QCI, which showed a 4.5% decrease through the years (from 13.3 in 1990 to 12.7 in 2019). Globally, in 2019, the QCI showed the highest scores for patients aged 80-84, reported 48.2, and the lowest score for patients aged 25-29 reported 31.5, for both sexes. Globally, in 2019, age-standardized Gender Disparity Ratio (GDR) was 1.2, showing higher QCI in females than males. Conclusion There were fundamental differences in the QCI both globally and regionally between different age groups as well as between males and females. To achieve the goal of providing high-quality services equally to people in need in all over the world, health systems need to invest in effective diagnostic services, treatments, facilities, and equipment and to plan for screening and surveillance of high-risk individuals.

Background This study aimed to systematically review and synthesize the evidence on the relationship between race/ethnicity and COVID-19 vaccine uptake in the general population. Methods A comprehensive search of relevant electronic databases was conducted in May 2024 and updated in December 2024. Original research studies comparing COVID-19 vaccine uptake or vaccination rates in racial and ethnic minority populations with those of non-Hispanic White populations were eligible for inclusion. A descriptive synthesis of findings was presented in both narrative and tabular formats. Bayesian random-effects meta-analysis was performed to estimate pooled adjusted relative risk ratios (RRs) and their 95% credible intervals (CrIs) for COVID-19 vaccine uptake across racial and ethnic groups. Posterior distributions were also examined to explore patterns of disparities. Results A total of 30 studies (21 cross-sectional and 9 cohort) were included in the systematic review, of which 10 studies were eligible for meta-analysis. Most studies were conducted in the United States and the United Kingdom. The majority of the studies reported that racial and ethnic minority groups, including Black, Hispanic, and Other/Mixed racial groups, had lower COVID-19 vaccination rates compared to White populations. Meta-analysis results showed that Black individuals were 13% less likely to be vaccinated (RR: 0.87, 95% CrI: 0.81–0.93), and those of Mixed race were 7% less likely (RR: 0.93, 95% CrI: 0.90–0.97), compared to White individuals. For single-dose uptake, Black individuals were 16% less likely to be vaccinated than White individuals (RR: 0.84, 95% CrI: 0.76–0.92), representing the lowest pooled RR among all groups. Posterior distributions confirmed consistent disparities in vaccine uptake for Black and Mixed race populations across dose categories. Conclusion Most of the studies reported that racial and ethnic minority groups had lower rates of COVID-19 vaccination compared to White populations. Bayesian effect estimates reinforced these disparities for Black and Mixed race minority groups. While no significant differences were found for Asian, Hispanic, and Other race groups, wide credible intervals in some subgroups suggest the need for further research to explore potential contextual and regional variations not captured in the studies.

Background The aims of this study were to explore to explore the viewpoints of parents of children with Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASD) and professionals regarding the implementation of screening programs for ASD, to explore the challenges of the implementation of a universal screening program for ASD in Iran from their viewpoints, and, to explore their recommendations to overcome the potential challenges. Method This qualitative study was conducted using an inductive content analysis, between June 2018 and December 2018, in East-Azerbaijan province of Iran. Data was collected through in-depth interviews and focus group discussions. The participants were purposively selected among two groups: representatives of health system and representatives of children with ASD. A sample of 32 parents and 30 professionals were recruited in this study. Results Totally, 9 main themes and 23 sub-themes were extracted in three main areas including: viewpoints of the participants about universal screening for ASD, challenges in implementation of the universal screening program, and participants’ recommendations about how to overcome the potential challenges. Main challenges in implementation of the universal screening program included: shortages of ASD screening tools, weakness of the health system, lack of coordination among the ASD service providers, and social and ethical issues. Conclusion The parents and the professionals had different viewpoints about the implementation of ASD universal screening program in Iran. According to the professionals, there is not enough rational to implement ASD screening program for all children. However, the parents believed that universal screening program is inevitable, and it should be implemented in primary health centers during the early child-care visits. The results of this study open up unspoken issues that could help in initiating the screening program not only in Iran but also in other low- and middle-income countries as well.