Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41164832›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in public health2025

The paradox of better population health after the pandemic: what is the cause?

Marek Biernacki, Katarzyna Ostasiewicz

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in public health, 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

2 authors.

Marek BiernackiDepartment of Mathematics and Cybernetics, Wrocław University of Economics and Business, Wrocław, Poland.
Katarzyna OstasiewiczDepartment of Statistics, Wrocław University of Economics and Business, Wrocław, Poland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objectives: This study aimed to verify the hypothesis that the improvement in the subjective assessment of population health in certain European countries after the COVID-19 pandemic was driven by the mortality of the majority of vulnerable citizens with the worst health status. Methods: We extended the trend of the share of the oldest age group and compared it with the observed fraction, thereby identifying the "missing population." Results: We observed a substantial deficit in the population of the oldest age group, especially in countries where people tend not to age well. Conclusion: The temporary improvement in population health indicators, as measured by Healthy Life Years (HLY), during the pandemic in some countries was most likely an artifact resulting from the mortality of the majority of vulnerable individuals with poor health status. It is unlikely that this apparent improvement reflects healthier lifestyles or genuine gains in the efficiency or resilience of health systems during the pandemic. Therefore, the interpretation and use of HLY values from the COVID-19 period in Europe should be carefully reconsidered and further validated.

Indexed as

COVID-19Health StatusHealth Status IndicatorsPandemicsPopulation HealthAdultAgedAged, 80 and overEuropeFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedSARS-CoV-2COVID-19excess deathHLYolder peoplepublic health

Identifiers

PMID41164832
PMCPMC12558791

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.