BackgroundSchizophrenia is one of the top 25 leading causes of disability worldwide in 2013. Despite its low prevalence, its health, social, and economic burden has been tremendous, not only for patients but also for families, caregivers, and the wider society. The magnitude of disease burden investigated in an economic burden study is an important source to policymakers in decision making. This study aims to systematically identify studies focusing on the economic burden of schizophrenia, describe the methods and data sources used, and summarize the findings of economic burden of schizophrenia.MethodsA systematic review was performed for economic burden studies in schizophrenia using four electronic databases (Medline, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and EconLit) from inception to August 31, 2014.ResultsA total of 56 articles were included in this review. More than 80% of the studies were conducted in high-income countries. Most studies had undertaken a retrospective- and prevalence-based study design. The bottom-up approach was commonly employed to determine cost, while human capital method was used for indirect cost estimation. Database and literature were the most commonly used data sources in cost estimation in high-income countries, while chart review and interview were the main data sources in low and middle-income countries. Annual costs for the schizophrenia population in the country ranged from US$94 million to US$102 billion. Indirect costs contributed to 50%–85% of the total costs associated with schizophrenia. The economic burden of schizophrenia was estimated to range from 0.02% to 1.65% of the gross domestic product.ConclusionThe enormous economic burden in schizophrenia is suggestive of the inadequate provision of health care services to these patients. An informed decision is achievable with the increasing recognition among public and policymakers that schizophrenia is burdensome. This results in better resource allocation and the development of policy-oriented research for this highly disabling yet under-recognized mental health disease.

People around the world ushered in the new year 2021 with a fear of COVID-19, as family members have lost their loved ones to the disease. Millions of people have been infected, and the livelihood of many has been jeopardized due to the pandemic. Pharmaceutical companies are racing against time to develop an effective vaccine to protect against COVID-19. Researchers have developed various types of candidate vaccines with the release of the genetic sequence of the SARS-CoV-2 virus in January. These include inactivated viral vaccines, protein subunit vaccines, mRNA vaccines, and recombinant viral vector vaccines. To date, several vaccines have been authorized for emergency use and they have been administered in countries across the globe. Meanwhile, there are also vaccine candidates in Phase III clinical trials awaiting results and approval from authorities. These candidates have shown positive results in the previous stages of the trials, whereby they could induce an immune response with minimal side effects in the participants. This review aims to discuss the different vaccine platforms and the clinical trials of the candidate vaccines.

Background Task shifting is an approach to help address the shortage of healthcare workers through reallocating human resources but its impact on primary care is unclear. Objectives To provide an overview of reviews describing task shifts from physicians to allied healthcare workers in primary care and its impact on clinical outcomes. Methods Six electronic databases were searched up to 15 December 2020, to identify reviews describing task shifting in primary care. Two reviewers independently screened the references for relevant studies, extracted the data and assessed the methodological quality of included reviews using AMSTAR-2. Results Twenty-one reviews that described task shifting in primary care were included. Task shifted include provision of care for people with chronic conditions, medication prescribing, and health education. We found that task shifting could potentially improve several health outcomes such as blood pressure, HbA1c, and mental health while achieving cost savings. Key elements for successful implementation of task shifting include collaboration among all parties, a system for coordinated care, provider empowerment, patient preference, shared decision making, training and competency, supportive organisation system, clear process outcome, and financing. Conclusion Evidence suggests that allied healthcare workers such as pharmacists and nurses can potentially undertake substantially expanded roles to support physicians in primary care in response to the changing health service demand. Tasks include providing care to patients, independent prescribing, counselling and education, with comparable quality of care.

There is a high and increasing global prevalence of nutraceuticals use. This study aims to systematically review and critically appraise all available evidence to identify the factors affecting consumers' decisions in taking nutraceuticals. Questionnaire, interview or focus group studies which directly reported factors affecting consumers' decisions in using nutraceuticals were included. A thematic synthesis method was employed to synthesis the findings from the included studies. Out of the 76 studies included, the key factors identified as the most important factors motivating consumers to take nutraceuticals were the perceived health benefits and safety of nutraceuticals, as well as the advice from healthcare professionals, friends and family. The identified barriers to take nutraceuticals were a lack of belief in the health benefit of nutraceuticals, the high cost of nutraceuticals and consumers' lack of knowledge about nutraceuticals. As a chief course of recommendation for the use of nutraceuticals, healthcare professionals should strive to utilise reliable information from clinical evidence to help consumers in making an informed decision in using nutraceuticals. Future studies should explore the possible ways to improve channelling clinical evidence information of nutraceuticals to the public.

No abstract