Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41145798›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2025

Evaluating voluntary care seeking effects on COVID-19 outcomes and health system costs.

Sileshi Sintayehu Sharbayta, Jaehun Jung, Youngji Jo

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

3 authors.

Sileshi Sintayehu SharbaytaDepartment of Public Health Sciences, School of Medicine, University of Connecticut Health Center, Farmington, CT, USA.
Jaehun JungDepartment of Preventive Medicine, Korea University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea.
Youngji JoDepartment of Public Health Sciences, School of Medicine, University of Connecticut Health Center, Farmington, CT, USA. jo@uchc.edu.

Funding

Ministry of Health & Welfare, Republic of Korea HG22C0094
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In an endemic COVID-19 setting with reduced enforcement measures, intervention success increasingly depends on voluntary compliance behaviors shaped by risk perceptions and population immunity. We used a previously developed behavior adaptation model, calibrated to Omicron wave data (February 1-May 31, 2022) in South Korea, to compare health outcomes (cumulative incidence, treated cases) and costs (vaccination, testing, treatment) under two scenarios: only mandatory compliance versus a combination of mandatory and voluntary compliance. The model included constant (mandatory) rates, independent of risk perceptions, and dynamic (voluntary) rates driven by changing perceptions of prevalence and severity. Sensitivity analyses identified key drivers of cumulative incidence and total costs. Introducing voluntary compliance reduced incidence by 14% while increasing total costs by 35% compared with a mandatory-only approach (37 million COVID-19 infected cases and $1.02 billion total cost over the four months in a 52 million Korean population). Information dissemination was one of the key drivers: under high coverage, emphasizing responsiveness to prevalence reduced incidence by 46% (vs. 11% under low coverage) but increased costs by 57% (vs. 29% under low coverage) due to greater care-seeking. Under high partial immunity, enhanced testing responsiveness reduced cases by 18% yet raised costs up to 40%, whereas improved vaccination responsiveness lowered incidence by 5% with only up to 10% cost increase. From the cost-effectiveness perspective, however, enhanced vaccination responsiveness outperformed testing alone (ICER $51, 95% Confidence Interval, CI 35-81, vs. $64, 95% CI 42-96, per case averted). Maximizing both testing and vaccination responsiveness provided the largest reduction in cases (-23%) at a 46% increase in total costs, leading to an ICER of $57, 95% CI 42-80, per case averted compared to the mandatory-only scenario. Voluntary testing plays a larger role in reducing disease burden than voluntary vaccination but incurs significantly higher costs. Strategies to improve cost-effectiveness could include lowering testing costs while encouraging voluntary vaccination. Given uncertainties around risk perceptions and voluntary behaviors, more detailed behavioral data and adaptive modeling can guide sustainable and cost-effective public health strategies.

Indexed as

COVID-19Health Care CostsPatient Acceptance of Health CareCost-Benefit AnalysisHumansIncidencePrevalenceRepublic of KoreaSARS-CoV-2Vaccination

Identifiers

PMID41145798
PMCPMC12559303

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.