Introduction Coronavirus disease (Covid-19) has led to a global pandemic since its emergence in December 2019. The majority of research into Covid-19 has focused on transmission, and mortality and morbidity associated with the virus. However, less attention has been given to its impact on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of patients with Covid-19. Methods We searched for original studies published between December 2019 and Jan 2021 in PubMed, Scopus and Medline databases using a specific search strategy. We also explored literature on websites of distinguished public health organisations and hand-searched reference lists of eligible studies. The studies were screened by two reviewers according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) flowchart using pre-determined eligibility criteria. Data were synthesised, analysed descriptively and reported in line with PRISMA guidelines. Results In total, 1276 studies were identified through the search strategy. Of these, 77 studies were selected for full-text reading after screening the studies. After reading full-text, 12 eligible studies were included in this review. The majority of the studies used a generic HRQoL assessment tool; five studies used SF-36, five studies used EQ-5D-5L, and three used pulmonary disease-specific HRQoL tools (two studies used two tools each). The impact of Covid-19 on HRQoL was found to be considerable in both Acute Covid and Long Covid patients. Higher impact on HRQoL was reported in Acute Covid, females, older ages, patients with more severe disease and patients from low-income countries. Conclusion The impact of Covid-19 on HRQoL of Acute and Long Covid patients is substantial. There was disproportional impact on patients by gender, age, severity of illness and study country. The long-term impact of Covid-19 is still in its initial stage. The findings of the review may be useful to researchers, policymakers, and clinicians caring for people following Covid-19 infection.

This scoping review provides new evidence on the prevalence and patterns of global antimicrobial use in the treatment of COVID-19 patients; identifies the most commonly used antibiotics and clinical scenarios associated with antibiotic prescribing in the first phase of the pandemic; and explores the impact of documented antibiotic prescribing on treatment outcomes in COVID-19 patients. The review complies with PRISMA guidelines for Scoping Reviews and the protocol is registered with the Open Science Framework. In the first six months of the pandemic, there was a similar mean antibiotic prescribing rate between patients with severe or critical illness (75.4%) and patients with mild or moderate illness (75.1%). The proportion of patients prescribed antibiotics without clinical justification was 51.5% vs. 41.9% for patients with mild or moderate illness and those with severe or critical illness. Comparison of patients who were provided antibiotics with a clinical justification with those who were given antibiotics without clinical justification showed lower mortality rates (9.5% vs. 13.1%), higher discharge rates (80.9% vs. 69.3%), and shorter length of hospital stay (9.3 days vs. 12.2 days). In the first 6 months of the pandemic, antibiotics were prescribed for COVID-19 patients regardless of severity of illness. A large proportion of antibiotic prescribing for mild and moderate COVID-19 patients did not have clinical evidence of a bacterial co-infection. Antibiotics may not be beneficial to COVID-19 patients without clinical evidence of a bacterial co-infection.

BackgroundThere have been only limited studies assessing the economic burden of HIV/AIDS in terms of direct costs, and there has been no published study related to productivity costs in Nepal. Therefore, this study explores in detail the economic burden of HIV/AIDS, including direct costs and productivity costs. This paper focuses on the direct costs of seeking treatment, productivity costs, and related factors affecting direct costs, and productivity costs.MethodsThis study was a cross-sectional, quantitative study. The primary data were collected through a structured face-to-face survey from 415 people living with HIV/AIDS (PLHIV). The study was conducted in six representative treatment centres of six districts of Nepal. The data analysis regarding the economic burden (direct costs and productivity costs) was performed from the household’s perspective. Descriptive statistics have been used, and regression analyses were applied to examine the extent, nature and determinants of the burden of the disease, and its correlations.ResultsAverage total costs due to HIV/AIDS (the sum of average total direct and average productivity costs before adjustment for coping strategies) were Nepalese Rupees (NRs) 2233 per month (US$ 30.2/month), which was 28.5% of the sample households’ average monthly income. The average total direct costs for seeking HIV/AIDS treatment were NRs 1512 (US$ 20.4), and average productivity costs (before adjustment for coping strategies) were NRs 721 (US$ 9.7). The average monthly productivity losses (before adjustment for coping strategies) were 5.05 days per person. The major determinants for the direct costs were household income, occupation, health status of respondents, respondents accompanied or not, and study district. Health status of respondents, ethnicity, sexual orientation and study district were important determinants for productivity costs.ConclusionsThe study concluded that HIV/AIDS has caused a significant economic burden for PLHIV and their families in Nepal. The study has a number of policy implications for different stakeholders. Provision of social support and income generating programmes to HIV-affected individuals and their families, and decentralising treatment services in each district seem to be viable solutions to reduce the economic burden of HIV-affected individuals and households.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12913-017-1976-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

IntroductionAs rapid urbanisation transforms the sociodemographic structures within cities, standard survey methods, which have remained unchanged for many years, under-represent the urban poorest. This leads to an overly positive picture of urban health, distorting appropriate allocation of resources between rural and urban and within urban areas. Here, we present a protocol for our study which (i) tests novel methods to improve representation of urban populations in household surveys and measure mental health and injuries, (ii) explores urban poverty and compares measures of poverty and ‘slumness’ and (iii) works with city authorities to understand, and potentially improve, utilisation of data on urban health for planning more equitable services.Methods and analysisWe will conduct household surveys in Kathmandu, Hanoi and Dhaka to test novel methods: (i) gridded population sampling; (ii) enumeration using open-access online maps and (iii) one-stage versus two-stage cluster sampling. We will test reliability of an observational tool to categorise neighbourhoods as slum areas. Within the survey, we will assess the appropriateness of a short set of questions to measure depression and injuries. Questionnaire data will also be used to compare asset-based, consumption-based and income-based measures of poverty. Participatory methods will identify perceptions of wealth in two communities in each city. The analysis will combine quantitative and qualitative findings to recommend appropriate measures of poverty in urban areas. We will conduct qualitative interviews and establish communities of practice with government staff in each city on use of data for planning. Framework approach will be used to analyse qualitative data allowing comparison across city settings.Ethics and disseminationEthical approvals have been granted by ethics committees from the UK, Nepal, Bangladesh and Vietnam. Findings will be disseminated through conference papers, peer-reviewed open access articles and workshops with policy-makers and survey experts in Kathmandu, Hanoi and Dhaka.

Thousands of people are infected with HIV/AIDS in Nepal and most of them are adults of working age. Therefore, HIV/AIDS is a big burden in Nepal. This review was conducted to find the existing knowledge gap about the economic burden of HIV/AIDS at the household level in Nepal, the extent of economic burden exerted by the disease, and to provide policy recommendations. It is concluded that there was a considerable knowledge gap about the issue, and the economic burden exerted by HIV/AIDS was big enough to push the affected households into poverty. It is suggested that more studies need to be conducted to fill the knowledge gap. Similarly, Government of Nepal and other organisations working in the field of HIV/AIDS need to provide economic supports (e.g.- support for travel costs) to the HIV positive people and need to increase the awareness level among general population for reducing stigma and discrimination, and reducing economic burden on them.