Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39103834›Full record

ArticleBMC public health2024

Health and non-health benefits and equity impacts of individual-level economic relief programs during epidemics/pandemics in high income settings: a scoping review.

Adeteju Ogunbameru, Gebremedhin Beedemariam Gebretekle, Adrianna Perryman, Marian Hassan, Ashley Farrell, Kuan Liu, Sharmistha Mishra, Beate Sander

Abstract readScoping Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC public health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Adeteju OgunbameruInstitute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada. adeteju.ogunbameru@mail.utoronto.ca.
Gebremedhin Beedemariam GebretekleInstitute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Adrianna PerrymanToronto Health Economics and Technology Assessment (THETA) Collaborative, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Marian HassanToronto Health Economics and Technology Assessment (THETA) Collaborative, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Ashley FarrellLibrary & Information Services, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Kuan LiuInstitute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Sharmistha MishraInstitute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Beate SanderInstitute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEconomic relief programs are strategies designed to sustain societal welfare and population health during a regional or global scale infectious disease outbreak. While economic relief programmes are considered essential during a regional or global health crisis, there is no clear consensus in the literature about their health and non-health benefits and their impact on promoting equity.

methodsWe conducted a scoping review, searching eight electronic databases from January 01, 2001, to April 3, 2023, using text words and subject headings for recent pathogens (coronavirus (COVID-19), Ebola, Influenza, Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS), severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), HIV, West Nile, and Zika), and economic relief programs; but restricted eligibility to high-income countries and selected diseases due to volume. Title and abstract screening were conducted by trained reviewers and Distiller AI software. Data were extracted in duplicates by two trained reviewers using a pretested form, and key findings were charted using a narrative approach.

resultsWe identified 27,263 de-duplicated records, of which 50 were eligible. Included studies were on COVID-19 and Influenza, published between 2014 and 2023. Zero eligible studies were on MERS, SARS, Zika, Ebola, or West Nile Virus. We identified seven program types of which cash transfer (n = 12) and vaccination or testing incentive (n = 9) were most common. Individual-level economic relief programs were reported to have varying degrees of impact on public health measures, and sometimes affected population health outcomes. Expanding paid sick leave programs had the highest number of studies reporting health-related outcomes and positively impacted public health measures (isolation, vaccination uptake) and health outcomes (case counts and the utilization of healthcare services). Equity impact was most often reported for cash transfer programs and incentive for vaccination programs. Positive effects on general well-being and non-health outcomes included improved mental well-being and quality of life, food security, financial resilience, and job security.

conclusionsOur findings suggest that individual-level economic relief programs can have significant impacts on public health measures, population health outcomes and equity. As countries prepare for future pandemics, our findings provide evidence to stakeholders to recognize health equity as a fundamental public health goal when designing pandemic preparedness policies.

Indexed as

PandemicsCOVID-19Developed CountriesEpidemicsHealth EquityHumansRelief WorkCOVID-19EpidemicsEquityInfectious diseasePandemic preparedness

Identifiers

PMID39103834
PMCPMC11299345

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.