PDF(Pubmed)
Abstract：
BACKGROUND: Economic relief programs are strategies designed to sustain societal welfare and population health during a regional or global scale infectious disease outbreak. While economic relief programmes are considered essential during a regional or global health crisis, there is no clear consensus in the literature about their health and non-health benefits and their impact on promoting equity.
METHODS: We conducted a scoping review, searching eight electronic databases from January 01, 2001, to April 3, 2023, using text words and subject headings for recent pathogens (coronavirus (COVID-19), Ebola, Influenza, Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS), severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), HIV, West Nile, and Zika), and economic relief programs; but restricted eligibility to high-income countries and selected diseases due to volume. Title and abstract screening were conducted by trained reviewers and Distiller AI software. Data were extracted in duplicates by two trained reviewers using a pretested form, and key findings were charted using a narrative approach.
RESULTS: We identified 27,263 de-duplicated records, of which 50 were eligible. Included studies were on COVID-19 and Influenza, published between 2014 and 2023. Zero eligible studies were on MERS, SARS, Zika, Ebola, or West Nile Virus. We identified seven program types of which cash transfer (n = 12) and vaccination or testing incentive (n = 9) were most common. Individual-level economic relief programs were reported to have varying degrees of impact on public health measures, and sometimes affected population health outcomes. Expanding paid sick leave programs had the highest number of studies reporting health-related outcomes and positively impacted public health measures (isolation, vaccination uptake) and health outcomes (case counts and the utilization of healthcare services). Equity impact was most often reported for cash transfer programs and incentive for vaccination programs. Positive effects on general well-being and non-health outcomes included improved mental well-being and quality of life, food security, financial resilience, and job security.
CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that individual-level economic relief programs can have significant impacts on public health measures, population health outcomes and equity. As countries prepare for future pandemics, our findings provide evidence to stakeholders to recognize health equity as a fundamental public health goal when designing pandemic preparedness policies.
METHODS: We conducted a scoping review, searching eight electronic databases from January 01, 2001, to April 3, 2023, using text words and subject headings for recent pathogens (coronavirus (COVID-19), Ebola, Influenza, Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS), severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), HIV, West Nile, and Zika), and economic relief programs; but restricted eligibility to high-income countries and selected diseases due to volume. Title and abstract screening were conducted by trained reviewers and Distiller AI software. Data were extracted in duplicates by two trained reviewers using a pretested form, and key findings were charted using a narrative approach.
RESULTS: We identified 27,263 de-duplicated records, of which 50 were eligible. Included studies were on COVID-19 and Influenza, published between 2014 and 2023. Zero eligible studies were on MERS, SARS, Zika, Ebola, or West Nile Virus. We identified seven program types of which cash transfer (n = 12) and vaccination or testing incentive (n = 9) were most common. Individual-level economic relief programs were reported to have varying degrees of impact on public health measures, and sometimes affected population health outcomes. Expanding paid sick leave programs had the highest number of studies reporting health-related outcomes and positively impacted public health measures (isolation, vaccination uptake) and health outcomes (case counts and the utilization of healthcare services). Equity impact was most often reported for cash transfer programs and incentive for vaccination programs. Positive effects on general well-being and non-health outcomes included improved mental well-being and quality of life, food security, financial resilience, and job security.
CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that individual-level economic relief programs can have significant impacts on public health measures, population health outcomes and equity. As countries prepare for future pandemics, our findings provide evidence to stakeholders to recognize health equity as a fundamental public health goal when designing pandemic preparedness policies.
摘要：
背景：经济救济计划是旨在在区域或全球规模的传染病爆发期间维持社会福利和人口健康的策略。虽然在区域或全球卫生危机期间，经济救济计划被认为是必不可少的，关于它们的健康和非健康益处以及它们对促进公平的影响，文献中没有明确的共识。
方法：我们进行了范围审查，从2001年1月1日至2023年4月3日，使用文本单词和主题词搜索8个电子数据库中的近期病原体(冠状病毒(COVID-19)，埃博拉病毒,流感,中东呼吸综合征（MERS）严重急性呼吸综合征（SARS）艾滋病毒,西尼罗河,和Zika），和经济救济计划；但由于数量限制了高收入国家和选定疾病的资格。标题和摘要筛选由训练有素的审稿人和DistillerAI软件进行。数据由两名经过训练的审阅者使用预先测试的表格重复提取，并使用叙事方法绘制了关键发现。
结果：我们确定了27,263个去重复的记录，其中50人符合资格。纳入的研究涉及COVID-19和流感，2014年至2023年出版。MERS的合格研究为零，SARS,Zika,埃博拉病毒,或西尼罗河病毒。我们确定了七种项目类型，其中现金转移（n=12）和疫苗接种或测试激励（n=9）是最常见的。据报道，个人层面的经济救济计划对公共卫生措施产生了不同程度的影响，有时会影响人群的健康结果。扩大带薪病假计划的研究报告了与健康相关的结果，并对公共卫生措施产生了积极影响（隔离，接种疫苗的吸收)和健康结果(病例数和医疗服务的利用)。最常报告的股权影响是现金转移计划和疫苗接种计划的激励措施。对总体福祉和非健康结果的积极影响包括改善心理健康和生活质量，粮食安全,财务弹性，和工作保障。
结论：我们的研究结果表明，个人层面的经济救济计划可以对公共卫生措施产生重大影响，人口健康结果和公平。随着各国为未来的流行病做准备，我们的研究结果为利益相关者提供了证据,让他们在设计大流行防范政策时将卫生公平视为基本公共卫生目标.
方法：我们进行了范围审查，从2001年1月1日至2023年4月3日，使用文本单词和主题词搜索8个电子数据库中的近期病原体(冠状病毒(COVID-19)，埃博拉病毒,流感,中东呼吸综合征（MERS）严重急性呼吸综合征（SARS）艾滋病毒,西尼罗河,和Zika），和经济救济计划；但由于数量限制了高收入国家和选定疾病的资格。标题和摘要筛选由训练有素的审稿人和DistillerAI软件进行。数据由两名经过训练的审阅者使用预先测试的表格重复提取，并使用叙事方法绘制了关键发现。
结果：我们确定了27,263个去重复的记录，其中50人符合资格。纳入的研究涉及COVID-19和流感，2014年至2023年出版。MERS的合格研究为零，SARS,Zika,埃博拉病毒,或西尼罗河病毒。我们确定了七种项目类型，其中现金转移（n=12）和疫苗接种或测试激励（n=9）是最常见的。据报道，个人层面的经济救济计划对公共卫生措施产生了不同程度的影响，有时会影响人群的健康结果。扩大带薪病假计划的研究报告了与健康相关的结果，并对公共卫生措施产生了积极影响（隔离，接种疫苗的吸收)和健康结果(病例数和医疗服务的利用)。最常报告的股权影响是现金转移计划和疫苗接种计划的激励措施。对总体福祉和非健康结果的积极影响包括改善心理健康和生活质量，粮食安全,财务弹性，和工作保障。
结论：我们的研究结果表明，个人层面的经济救济计划可以对公共卫生措施产生重大影响，人口健康结果和公平。随着各国为未来的流行病做准备，我们的研究结果为利益相关者提供了证据,让他们在设计大流行防范政策时将卫生公平视为基本公共卫生目标.
