ArticleEuropean journal of public health2021
Exploratory comparison of Healthcare costs and benefits of the UK's Covid-19 response with four European countries.
Article in European journal of public health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cost of the COVID-19 pandemic versus the cost-effectiveness of mitigation strategies in EU/UK/OECD: a systematic review.BMJ open · 2023Pooled it
- Cost-effectiveness of interventions for the prevention and control of COVID-19: Systematic review of 85 modelling studies.Journal of global health · 2022Pooled it
- Extended Analysis of the Hospitalization Cost and Economic Burden of COVID-19 in Romania.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- The Association between COVID-19 Status and Economic Costs in the Early Stages of the COVID-19 Pandemic: Evidence from a UK Symptom Surveillance Digital Survey.PharmacoEconomics - open · 2025Article
- Phase-wise evaluation and optimization of non-pharmaceutical interventions to contain the COVID-19 pandemic in the U.S.Frontiers in public health · 2023Article
- A general framework for optimising cost-effectiveness of pandemic response under partial intervention measures.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Description of a Pharmacy COVID Champion Service in South East London to Reduce Vaccine Hesitancy.Pharmacy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Individual risk perception and empirical social structures shape the dynamics of infectious disease outbreaks.PLoS computational biology · 2022Article
- Health economic burden of COVID-19 in Saudi Arabia.Frontiers in public health · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIn responding to Covid-19, governments have tried to balance protecting health while minimizing gross domestic product (GDP) losses. We compare health-related net benefit (HRNB) and GDP losses associated with government responses of the UK, Ireland, Germany, Spain and Sweden from UK healthcare payer perspective.
methodsWe compared observed cases, hospitalizations and deaths under 'mitigation' to modelled events under 'no mitigation' to 20 July 2020. We thus calculated healthcare costs, quality adjusted life years (QALYs), and HRNB at £20,000/QALY saved by each country. On per population (i.e. per capita) basis, we compared HRNB with forecast reductions in 2020 GDP growth (overall or compared with Sweden as minimal mitigation country) and qualitatively and quantitatively described government responses.
resultsThe UK saved 3.17 (0.32-3.65) million QALYs, £33 (8-38) billion healthcare costs and £1416 (220-1637) HRNB per capita at £20,000/QALY. Per capita, this is comparable to £1455 GDP loss using Sweden as comparator and offsets 46.1 (7.1-53.2)% of total £3075 GDP loss. Germany, Spain, and Sweden had greater HRNB per capita. These also offset a greater percentage of total GDP losses per capita. Ireland fared worst on both measures. Countries with more mask wearing, testing, and population susceptibility had better outcomes. Highest stringency responses did not appear to have best outcomes.
conclusionsOur exploratory analysis indicates the benefit of government Covid-19 responses may outweigh their economic costs. The extent that HRNB offset economic losses appears to relate to population characteristics, testing levels, and mask wearing, rather than response stringency.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.