Impact of new cardiovascular events on quality of life and hospital costs in people with cardiovascular disease in the United Kingdom and United States

Background Despite optimized risk factor control, people with prior cardiovascular disease remain at high cardiovascular disease risk. We assess the immediate‐ and longer‐term impacts of new vascular and nonvascular events on quality of life (QoL) and hospital costs among participants in the REVEAL (Randomized Evaluation of the Effects of Anacetrapib Through Lipid Modification) trial in secondary prevention. Methods and Results Data on demographic and clinical characteristics, health‐related quality of life (QoL: EuroQoL 5‐Dimension‐5‐Level), adverse events, and hospital admissions during the 4‐year follow‐up of the 21 820 participants recruited in Europe and North America informed assessments of the impacts of new adverse events on QoL and hospital costs from the UK and US health systems' perspectives using generalized linear regression models. Reductions in QoL were estimated in the years of event occurrence for nonhemorrhagic stroke (−0.067 [United Kingdom], −0.069 [US]), heart failure admission (−0.072 [United Kingdom], −0.103 [US]), incident cancer (−0.064 [United Kingdom], −0.068 [US]), and noncoronary revascularization (−0.071 [United Kingdom], −0.061 [US]), as well as in subsequent years following these events. Myocardial infarction and coronary revascularization (CRV) procedures were not found to affect QoL. All adverse events were associated with additional hospital costs in the years of events and in subsequent years, with the highest additional costs in the years of noncoronary revascularization (£5830 [United Kingdom], US dollars 14 133 [US Medicare]), of myocardial infarction with urgent CRV procedure (£5614, US dollars 24722), and of urgent/nonurgent CRV procedure without myocardial infarction (£4674/£4651 and US dollars 15 251/US dollars 17 539). Conclusions Stroke, heart failure, and noncoronary revascularization procedures substantially reduce QoL, and all cardiovascular disease events increase hospital costs. These estimates are useful in informing cost‐effectiveness of interventions to reduce cardiovascular disease risk in secondary prevention. Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01252953; https://www.Isrctn.com. Unique identifier: ISRCTN48678192; https://www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu. Unique identifier: 2010‐023467‐18

Factors influencing risk perception during Public Health Emergencies of International Concern (PHEIC): a scoping review

Abstract The unknownness and dread potential of a risk event shapes its perceived risk. A public health emergency of international concern (PHEIC) declaration by the World Health Organisation (WHO) is a signal for such an event. Understanding perceived risk then shapes risk-avoiding behaviours, important for health prevention. The review aims to consolidate the determinants of risk perception during a PHEIC, underscoring the need for grounding in context and theory. Studies published from 2010 until end-2020, searching PubMed, PsycINFO, MedlinePlus, PubPsych, and CINAHL, were included. Studies with only biological conceptualisations of risk, or no association to risk perception, were excluded. A total of 65 studies were included. Quality of the cross-sectional studies was assessed using Newcastle Ottawa Scale (NOS), yielding an average of 5.4 stars (out of 10). Factors were classified into three broad categories – individual, contextual, and media. Individual risk factors include emotions; beliefs, trust, and perceptions; immutable physical traits (sex, age, ethnicity); mutable traits (education, income, etc.); and knowledge, with no definitive correlation to risk perception. Contextual traits include pandemic experience, time, and location, with only time negatively correlated to risk perception. Media traits include exposure, attention, and framing of media, with no clear association to risk perception. One limitation is excluding a portion of COVID-19 studies due to censoring. Still, this lack of consensus highlights the need to better conceptualise “risk perception”. Specifying the context and timing is also important since jurisdictions experience different outbreaks depending on outbreak histories. Using theories to ground risk perception research assists with these tasks

Presenteeism exposures and outcomes amongst hospital doctors and nurses: a systematic review

Abstract Background Presenteeism is a behavior in which an employee is physically present at work with reduced performance due to illness or other reasons. Hospital doctors and nurses are more inclined to exhibit presenteeism than other professional groups, resulting in diminished staff health, reduced team productivity and potentially higher indirect presenteeism-related medical costs than absenteeism. Robust presenteeism intervention programs and productivity costing studies are available in the manufacturing and business sectors but not the healthcare sector. This systematic review aims to 1) identify instruments measuring presenteeism and its exposures and outcomes; 2) appraise the related workplace theoretical frameworks; and 3) evaluate the association between presenteeism, its exposures and outcomes, and the financial costs of presenteeism as well as interventions designed to alleviate presenteeism amongst hospital doctors and nurses. Methods A systematic search was carried out in ten electronic databases from 1998 to 2017 and screened by two reviewers. Quality assessment was carried out using the Critical Appraisal Skills Program (CASP) tool. Publications meeting predefined assessment criteria were selected for data extraction. Results A total of 275 unique English publications were identified, 38 were selected for quality assessment, and 24 were retained for data extraction. Seventeen publications reported on presenteeism exposures and outcomes, four on financial costing, one on intervention program and two on economic evaluations. Eight (39%) utilized a theoretical framework, where the Job-Demands Resources (JD-R) framework was the most commonly used model. Most assessed work stressors and resources were positively and negatively associated with presenteeism respectively. Contradictory and limited comparability on findings across studies may be attributed to variability of selected scales for measuring both presenteeism and its exposures/outcomes constructs. Conclusion The heterogeneity of published research and limited quality of measurement tools yielded no conclusive evidence on the association of presenteeism with hypothesized exposures, economic costs, or interventions amongst hospital healthcare workers. This review will aid researchers in developing a standardized multi-dimensional presenteeism exposures and productivity instrument to facilitate future cohort studies in search of potential cost-effective work-place intervention targets to reduce healthcare worker presenteeism and maintain a sustainable workforce