Background: Attempts to quantify effect sizes of non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPI) to control COVID-19 in the US have not accounted for heterogeneity in social or environmental factors that may influence NPI effectiveness. This study quantifies national and sub-national effect sizes of NPIs during the early months of the pandemic in the US.Methods: Daily county-level COVID-19 cases and deaths during the first wave (January 2020 through phased removal of interventions) were obtained. County-level cases, doubling times, and death rates were compared to four increasingly restrictive NPI levels. Socio-demographic, climate and mobility factors were analyzed to explain and evaluate NPI heterogeneity, with mobility used to approximate NPI compliance. Analyses were conducted separately for the US and for each Census regions (Pacific, Mountain, east/West North Central, East/West South Central, South Atlantic, Middle Atlantic and New England). A stepped-wedge cluster-randomized trial analysis was used, leveraging the phased implementation of policies.Results: Aggressive (level 4) NPIs were associated with slower COVID-19 propagation, particularly in high compliance counties. Longer duration of level 4 NPIs was associated with lower case rates (log beta −0.028, 95% CI −0.04 to −0.02) and longer doubling times (log beta 0.02, 95% CI 0.01–0.03). Effects varied by Census region, for example, level 4 effects on doubling time in Pacific states were opposite to those in Middle Atlantic and New England states. NPI heterogeneity can be explained by differential timing of policy initiation and by variable socio-demographic county characteristics that predict compliance, particularly poverty and racial/ethnic population. Climate exhibits relatively consistent relationships across Census regions, for example, higher minimum temperature and specific humidity were associated with lower doubling times and higher death rates for this period of analysis in South Central, South Atlantic, Middle Atlantic, and New England states.Conclusion and Relevance: Heterogeneity exists in both the effectiveness of NPIs across US Census regions and policy compliance. This county-level variability indicates that control strategies are best designed at community-levels where policies can be tuned based on knowledge of local disparities and compliance with public health ordinances.
Background Under-five malaria in Nigeria is a leading cause of global child mortality, accounting for 95,000 annual child deaths. High out-of-pocket medical expenditure contributes to under-five malaria mortality by discouraging care-seeking and use of effective anti-malarials in the poorest households. The significant inequity in child health outcomes in Nigeria stresses the need to evaluate the outcomes of potential interventions across socioeconomic lines. Methods Using a decision tree model, an extended cost-effectiveness analysis was done to determine the effects of subsidies covering the direct and indirect costs of case management of under-five malaria in Nigeria. This analysis estimates the number of child deaths averted, out-of-pocket (OOP) expenditure averted, cases of catastrophic health expenditure (CHE) averted, and cost of implementation. An optimization analysis was also done to determine how to optimally allocate money across wealth groups using different combinations of interventions. Results Fully subsidizing direct medical, non-medical, and indirect costs could annually avert over 19,000 under-five deaths, 8600 cases of CHE, and US$187 million in OOP spending. Per US$1 million invested, this corresponds to an annual reduction of 76 under-five deaths, 34 cases of CHE, and over US$730,000 in OOP expenditure. Due to low initial treatment coverage in poorer socioeconomic groups, health and financial-risk protection benefits would be pro-poor, with the poorest 40% of Nigerians accounting for 72% of all deaths averted, 55% of all OOP expenditure averted, and 74% of all cases of CHE averted. Subsidies targeted to the poor would see greater benefits per dollar spent than broad, non-targeted subsidies. In an optimization scenario, the strategy of fully subsidizing direct medical costs would be dominated by a partial subsidy of direct medical costs as well as a full subsidy of direct medical, nonmedical, and indirect costs. Conclusion Subsidizing case management of under-five malaria for the poorest and most vulnerable would reduce illness-related impoverishment and child mortality in Nigeria while preserving limited financial resources. This study is an example of how focusing a targeted policy-intervention on a single, high-burden disease can yield large health and financial-risk protection benefits in a low and middle-income country context and address equity consideration in evidence-informed policymaking.
Background Under-five malaria in Nigeria remains one of the biggest threats to global child health, accounting for 95,000 annual child deaths. Despite having the highest GDP in Africa, Nigeria's current health financing system has not succeeded in reducing high out-of-pocket medical expenditure, which discourages care-seeking and use of effective antimalarials in the poorest households. Resultingly, Nigeria has some of the worst indicators of child health equity among low and middle-income countries, stressing the need to evaluate how the benefits of health interventions are distributed across socioeconomic lines. Methods We developed a decision tree model for case management of under-five malaria in Nigeria and conducted an extended cost-effectiveness analysis of subsidies covering the direct and indirect costs of treatment. We estimated the number of under-five malaria deaths averted, out-of-pocket (OOP) expenditure averted, cases of catastrophic health expenditure (CHE) averted, and cost of implementation. Findings Fully subsidizing direct medical costs plus a voucher system to cover non-medical and indirect costs with pro-poor increase in treatment coverage would annually avert over 19,000 under-five deaths, US$205.2 million in OOP spending, and 8,600 cases of CHE. Per US$1 million invested, this corresponds to 76 under-five deaths averted, 34 cases of CHE averted, and over US$800,000 in OOP expenditure averted. Due to low current treatment coverage and high disease burden, the health and financial-risk protection benefits would be pro-poor, with the poorest 40% of Nigerians accounting for 72% of all deaths averted, 55% of all OOP expenditure averted, and 74% of all cases of CHE averted. Targeted subsidies to the poor would see significantly greater health and economic benefits per US$1 million invested than broad, non-targeted interventions. Conclusion Subsidizing case management of under-five malaria for the poorest and most vulnerable children would significantly reduce illness-related impoverishment and child mortality in Nigeria while preserving limited financial resources.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.