The purpose of this article is to analyse the available literature describing the economic burden of dementia and to compare costs between studies examining cost drivers. To shed light on this field, a systematic review is performed using PubMed, the Cochrane Library and Web of Science. An eight-year retrospective horizon was considered until 25 May 2018. Several papers were obtained from the database search (n = 23), being others (n = 3) identified through other sources (hand-searching) because we did not detect it through the three databases. The cost estimates were compared between three perspectives: state/publicly funded health services, third-party/private sector/not-for-profit organisations and patient and family and/or societal. The estimated total annual cost per person with dementia in Europe is on average €32,506.73 (n = 10), whereas for the United States, it gets €42,898.65 (n = 2). Furthermore, differences are appreciated by type of costs. Besides, differences by severity groups are also considered. Overall, the higher the severity the higher the associated costs. Dementia imposes a huge economic burden. The figures here presented provide a good framework to quantify these costs for both, economic experts and researchers, and policy decision makers.

Trends in general health status are analysed in Spain.  The poverty indices show changes in the Spanish population health.  There is more poor population at the beginning of the economic crisis.  The average of the general health status improves from 2011 to 2016.  Being a woman, older and a low education level imply poor health.

This paper examines inequality and polarization in self-assessed health, contributing towards the limited research existing on health economics. We use data from the European Health Interview Survey (EHIS) to investigate the relationship between health inequality and polarization across 27 European countries in two periods: 2006-2009 and 2013-2015. As our key variable is of an ordinal nature, we employ median based measures. Our empirical results suggest that Greece is the country with the highest level of health polarization in both periods, whereas Ireland has the lowest one when we consider countries where the median category is "very good", coinciding with the findings obtained in the inequality index. Estonia, Hungary and Lithuania have the highest degree of health polarization in both periods while Malta, The Netherlands and Spain are the countries with the lowest when we focus on those countries whose median category is "good" health.

No abstract

Background Suicide is a significant cause of death worldwide. Various purposes can explain why people choose to attempt or commit suicide such as mental-health disorders, income-related-factors, quality of life or issues related to social context. This study aims to identify an updated association between ‘isolation’ and suicides. Methods In this regard, we had made a systematic review of the most recent papers, published from January 2016 to March 2022, thought the most acknowledged databases. This review was conducted using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines for systematic reviews. To the best of our knowledge, this issue is very important due to the indirect relationship between COVID-19 and suicides. Results Our analysis demonstrates that suicide and -social isolation and loneliness- have a positive and direct relationship although these findings varied slightly by areas. Moreover, most of the attention is focused on the youth during the most recent period and this is a real problem because economies cannot afford losing (young) population. Conclusions In order to prevent suicides, public policies should prevent suicidal thoughts that it could induce to terminate the lives of individuals in their most productive years and harmful outcomes to their families and friends.

Background Although mortality has decreased in recent decades and patient survival rates have increased, cardiovascular disease remains one of the leading causes of mortality and morbidity in developed countries these days. The purpose of this study is to analyze the available literature that describes the economic burden of coronary artery disease and to compare costs. The study is framed in the Horizon 2020 project “A patient-centered early risk prediction, prevention, and intervention platform to support the continuum of care in coronary artery disease (CAD) using eHealth and artificial intelligence - TIMELY”. Methods A systematic literature review has been carried out using various databases such as PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library and Scopus. Precisely, a 5-year retrospective horizon has been considered until the present (April 2021). In all databases, terms related to “Coronary artery disease” and “Cost*” were combined. Results 113 publications were primary located. After examining the titles based on the eligibility criteria, 16 articles were selected. Of these, 5 articles were excluded because they did not meet the inclusion criteria. Therefore, a final set of 11 selected studies were considered in this review. The costs included in the review correspond, mainly, to direct healthcare costs. Our results affirm that the highest costs are derived from the possible adverse effects (€41,450, approx.). Conclusions The figures presented in this literature review will provide a good framework to quantify these costs for both economic experts and researchers and political decision-makers, both nationally and internationally. Key messages The costs included in the review correspond, mainly, to direct healthcare costs. The highest costs are derived from the possible adverse effects.

Prostate cancer has huge health and societal impacts, and there is no clear consensus on the most effective and efficient treatment strategy for this disease, particularly for localized prostate cancer. We have reviewed the scientific literature describing the economic burden and cost-effectiveness of different treatment strategies for localized prostate cancer in OECD countries. We initially identified 315 articles, studying 13 of them in depth (those that met the inclusion criteria), comparing the social perspectives of cost, time period, geographical area, and severity. The economic burden arising from prostate cancer due to losses in productivity and increased caregiver load is noticeable, but clinical decision-making is carried out with more subjective variability than would be advisable. The direct cost of the intervention was the main driver for the treatment of less severe cases of prostate cancer, whereas for more severe cases, the most important determinant was the loss in productivity. Newer, more affordable radiotherapy strategies may play a crucial role in the future treatment of early prostate cancer. The interpretation of our results depends on conducting thorough sensitivity analyses. This approach may help better understand parameter uncertainty and the methodological choices discussed in health economics studies. Future results of ongoing clinical trials that are considering genetic characteristics in assessing treatment response of patients with localized prostate cancer may shed new light on important clinical and pharmacoeconomic decisions.

Background The stress and anxiety caused by COVID-19 lockdown may have changed the eating habits of the population. Our aim is to assess the eating changes that have taken place due to the pandemic. Methods Data were collected through an electronic survey created by the Health Economics Research Group of the University of Cantabria and IDIVAL and conducted between 14/01/2021 and 19/02/2021. A total of 1,417 responses were recorded, but only 507 complete observations were considered. We carried out a cross-sectional analysis through ordered probit regressions. Results The improvement in post-confinement eating habits is associated with higher income level, better self-assessed health status and more physical activity. The worsening of eating habits is associated with having a certain level of nomophobia or the fear of contagion. Conclusions Our analysis can be used for designing and implementing new strategies to overcome the negative spill overs of the COVID-19 pandemic and improve the dietary patterns.