ImportanceCancers are a leading cause of mortality, accounting for nearly 10 million annual deaths worldwide, or 1 in 6 deaths. Cancers also negatively affect countries’ economic growth. However, the global economic cost of cancers and its worldwide distribution have yet to be studied.ObjectiveTo estimate and project the economic cost of 29 cancers in 204 countries and territories.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsA decision analytical model that incorporates economic feedback in assessing health outcomes associated with the labor force and investment. A macroeconomic model was used to account for (1) the association of cancer-related mortality and morbidity with labor supply; (2) age-sex-specific differences in education, experience, and labor market participation of those who are affected by cancers; and (3) the diversion of cancer treatment expenses from savings and investments. Data were collected on April 25, 2022.Main Outcomes and MeasuresEconomic cost of 29 cancers across countries and territories. Costs are presented in international dollars at constant 2017 prices.ResultsThe estimated global economic cost of cancers from 2020 to 2050 is $25.2 trillion in international dollars (at constant 2017 prices), equivalent to an annual tax of 0.55% on global gross domestic product. The 5 cancers with the highest economic costs are tracheal, bronchus, and lung cancer (15.4%); colon and rectum cancer (10.9%); breast cancer (7.7%); liver cancer (6.5%); and leukemia (6.3%). China and the US face the largest economic costs of cancers in absolute terms, accounting for 24.1% and 20.8% of the total global burden, respectively. Although 75.1% of cancer deaths occur in low- and middle-income countries, their share of the economic cost of cancers is lower at 49.5%. The relative contribution of treatment costs to the total economic cost of cancers is greater in high-income countries than in low-income countries.Conclusions and RelevanceIn this decision analytical modeling study, the macroeconomic cost of cancers was found to be substantial and distributed heterogeneously across cancer types, countries, and world regions. The findings suggest that global efforts to curb the ongoing burden of cancers are warranted.

Background In many countries, patients with mild coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are told to self-isolate at home, but imperfect compliance and shared living space with uninfected people limit the effectiveness of home-based isolation. We aim to examine the impact of facility-based isolation compared to self-isolation at home on the continuing epidemic in the United States. Methods We developed a compartment model to simulate the dynamic transmission of COVID-19 and calibrated it to key epidemic measures in the United States from March to September. We simulated facility-based isolation strategies with various capacities and starting times under different diagnosis rates. The primary model outcomes included the reduction of new infections and deaths over two months from October onwards. We further explored different effects of facility-based isolation under different epidemic burdens by major US Census Regions, and performed sensitivity analyses by varying key model assumptions and parameters. Results We projected that facility-based isolation with moderate capacity of 5 beds per 10 000 total population could avert 4.17 (95% Credible Interval 1.65–7.11) million new infections and 16 000 (8000-23 000) deaths in two months compared with home-based isolation, equivalent to relative reductions of 57% (44–61%) in new infections and 37% (27–40%) in deaths. Facility-based isolation with high capacity of 10 beds per 10 000 population would achieve greater reduction of 76% (62–84%) in new infections and 52% (37–64%) in deaths when supported by the expanded testing with a 20% daily diagnosis rate. Delays in implementation would substantially reduce the impact of facility-based isolation. The effective capacity and the impact of facility-based isolation varied by epidemic stage across regions. Conclusion Timely facility-based isolation for mild COVID-19 cases could substantially reduce the number of new infections and effectively curb the continuing epidemic compared to home-based isolation. The local epidemic burden should determine the effective scale of facility-based isolation strategies.

Background A detailed understanding of the public’s knowledge and perceptions of COVID-19 could inform governments’ public health actions in response to the pandemic. Objective The aim of this study was to determine the knowledge and perceptions of COVID-19 among adults in China and its variation among provinces and by sociodemographic characteristics. Methods Between May 8 and June 8, 2020, we conducted a cross-sectional online survey among adults in China who were registered with the private survey company KuRunData. We set a target sample size of 10,000 adults, aiming to sample 300-360 adults from each province in China. Participants were asked 25 questions that tested their knowledge about COVID-19, including measures to prevent infection, common symptoms, and recommended care-seeking behavior. We disaggregated responses by age; sex; education; province; household income; rural–urban residency; and whether or not a participant had a family member, friend, or acquaintance who they know to have been infected with SARS-CoV-2. All analyses used survey sampling weights. Results There were 5079 men and 4921 women who completed the questionnaire and were included in the analysis. Out of 25 knowledge questions, participants answered a mean and median of 21.4 (95% CI 21.3-21.4) and 22 (IQR 20-23) questions correctly, respectively. A total of 83.4% (95% CI 82.7%-84.1%) of participants answered four-fifths or more of the questions correctly. For at least one of four ineffective prevention measures (using a hand dryer, regular nasal irrigation, gargling mouthwash, and taking antibiotics), 68.9% (95% CI 68.0%-69.8%) of participants answered that it was an effective method to prevent a SARS-CoV-2 infection. Although knowledge overall was similar across provinces, the percent of participants who answered the question on recommended care-seeking behavior correctly varied from 47.0% (95% CI 41.4%-52.7%) in Tibet to 87.5% (95% CI 84.1%-91.0%) in Beijing. Within provinces, participants who were male, were middle-aged, were residing in urban areas, and had higher household income tended to answer a higher proportion of the knowledge questions correctly. Conclusions This online study of individuals across China suggests that the majority of the population has good knowledge of COVID-19. However, a substantial proportion still holds misconceptions or incorrect beliefs about prevention methods and recommended health care–seeking behaviors, especially in rural areas and some less wealthy provinces in Western China. This study can inform the development of tailored public health policies and promotion campaigns by identifying knowledge areas for which misconceptions are comparatively common and provinces that have relatively low knowledge.

Background China’s long-term care insurance (LTCI) policy has been minimally evaluated. This systematic review aimed to assess the impact of China’s LTCI pilot on beneficiaries and their caregivers. Methods This review is based on a search of peer-reviewed studies in English (Embase, MEDLINE, Web of Science) and Chinese (China National Knowledge Infrastructure [CNKI], VIP, Wanfang) databases from January 2016 through July 2020, with all studies published in English or Chinese included. We included quantitative analyses of beneficiary-level data that assessed the impact of LTCI on beneficiaries and their caregivers, with no restriction placed on the outcomes studied. Results Nine studies met our inclusion criteria. One study was a randomised trial and two used quasi-experimental approaches. Four studies examined LTCI’s effect on beneficiaries’ quality of life, physical pain, and health service utilisation; one study reported the effect on beneficiaries’ healthcare expenditures; and one study evaluated the impact on caregivers’ care tasks. These studies generally found LTCI to be associated with an improvement in patients’ quality of life (including decreased physical pain), a reduction in the number of outpatient visits and hospitalisations, decreased patient-level health expenditures (e.g. one study reported a reduction in the length of stay, inpatient expenditures, and health insurance expenditures in tertiary hospitals by 41.0%, 17.7%, and 11.4%, respectively), and reduced informal care tasks for caregivers. In addition, four out of four studies that evaluated this outcome found that beneficiaries’ overall satisfaction with LTCI was high. Conclusion The current evidence base for the effects of LTCI in China on beneficiaries and their caregivers is sparse. Nonetheless, the existing studies suggest that LTCI has positive effects on beneficiaries and their caregivers. Further rigorous research on the impacts of LTCI in China is needed to inform the future expansion of the program.

Background Science-driven storytelling and entertainment-education (E-E) media demonstrate potential for promoting improved attitudes and behavioral intent towards health-related practices. Months after the outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), emerging research highlights the essential role of interventions to improve public confidence in the COVID-19 vaccine. To improve vaccine confidence, we designed three short, animated videos employing three research-informed pedagogical strategies. These can be distributed globally through social media platforms, because of their wordless and culturally accessible design. However, the effectiveness of short, animated storytelling videos, deploying various pedagogic strategies, needs to be explored across different global regions. Methods/design The present study is a multi-site, parallel group, randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing the effectiveness of (i) a storytelling-instructional-humor approach, (ii) a storytelling-analogy approach, (iii) a storytelling-emotion-focused approach, and (iv) no video. For our primary outcomes, we will measure vaccine hesitancy, and for secondary outcomes, we will measure behavioral intent to seek vaccination and hope. Using online platforms, we will recruit 12,000 participants (aged 18–59 years) from the USA and China, respectively, yielding a total sample size of 24,000. Discussion This trial uses innovative online technology, reliable randomization algorithms, validated survey instruments, and list experiments to establish the effectiveness of three short, animated videos employing various research-informed pedagogical strategies. Results will be used to scientifically support the broader distribution of these short, animated video as well as informing the design of future videos for rapid, global public health communication. Trial registration German Clinical Trials Register DRKS #00023650. Date of registration: 2021/02/09.