Exploring the Trade-Off Between Economic and Health Outcomes During a Pandemic: A Discrete Choice Experiment of Lockdown Policies in Australia.
Adolescent
Adult
Age Factors
Aged
Australia
/ epidemiology
COVID-19
/ epidemiology
Cell Phone
Choice Behavior
Communicable Disease Control
/ methods
Decision Support Techniques
Economics
/ statistics & numerical data
Female
Humans
Male
Middle Aged
Physical Distancing
Policy
Quarantine
/ psychology
SARS-CoV-2
Sex Factors
Socioeconomic Factors
Unemployment
/ statistics & numerical data
Young Adult
Journal
The patient
ISSN: 1178-1661
Titre abrégé: Patient
Pays: New Zealand
ID NLM: 101309314
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
05 2021
05 2021
Historique:
accepted:
20
02
2021
pubmed:
12
3
2021
medline:
13
5
2021
entrez:
11
3
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
All countries experienced social and economic disruption and threats to health security from the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, but the responses in terms of control measures varied considerably. While control measures, such as quarantine, lockdown and social distancing, reduce infections and infection-related deaths, they have severe negative economic and social consequences. The objective of this study was to explore the acceptability of different infectious disease control measures, and examine how respondents trade off between economic and health outcomes. A discrete choice experiment was developed, with attributes covering: control restrictions, duration of restrictions, tracking, number of infections and of deaths, unemployment, government expenditure and additional personal tax. A representative sample of Australians (n = 1046) completed the survey, which included eight choice tasks. Data were analysed using mixed logit regression to identify heterogeneity and latent class models to examine heterogeneity. In general, respondents had strong preferences for policies that avoided high infection-related deaths, although lower unemployment and government expenditure were also considered important. Respondents preferred a shorter duration for restrictions, but their preferences did not vary significantly for the differing levels of control measures. In terms of tracking, respondents preferred mobile phone tracking or bracelets when compared to no tracking. Significant differences in preferences was identified, with two distinct classes: Class 1 (57%) preferred the economy to remain open with some control measures, whereas Class 2 (43%), had stronger preferences for policies that reduced avoidable deaths. This study found that the Australian population is willing to relinquish some freedom, in the short term, and trade off the negative social and economic impacts of the pandemic, to avoid the negative health consequences.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
All countries experienced social and economic disruption and threats to health security from the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, but the responses in terms of control measures varied considerably. While control measures, such as quarantine, lockdown and social distancing, reduce infections and infection-related deaths, they have severe negative economic and social consequences.
OBJECTIVES
The objective of this study was to explore the acceptability of different infectious disease control measures, and examine how respondents trade off between economic and health outcomes.
METHODS
A discrete choice experiment was developed, with attributes covering: control restrictions, duration of restrictions, tracking, number of infections and of deaths, unemployment, government expenditure and additional personal tax. A representative sample of Australians (n = 1046) completed the survey, which included eight choice tasks. Data were analysed using mixed logit regression to identify heterogeneity and latent class models to examine heterogeneity.
RESULTS
In general, respondents had strong preferences for policies that avoided high infection-related deaths, although lower unemployment and government expenditure were also considered important. Respondents preferred a shorter duration for restrictions, but their preferences did not vary significantly for the differing levels of control measures. In terms of tracking, respondents preferred mobile phone tracking or bracelets when compared to no tracking. Significant differences in preferences was identified, with two distinct classes: Class 1 (57%) preferred the economy to remain open with some control measures, whereas Class 2 (43%), had stronger preferences for policies that reduced avoidable deaths.
CONCLUSIONS
This study found that the Australian population is willing to relinquish some freedom, in the short term, and trade off the negative social and economic impacts of the pandemic, to avoid the negative health consequences.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33694076
doi: 10.1007/s40271-021-00503-5
pii: 10.1007/s40271-021-00503-5
pmc: PMC7946575
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
359-371Références
Madhav N, OB, Gallivan M, et al. Pandemics: risks, impacts, and mitigation. In: Jamison DT, Gelband H, Horton S, et al., editors. Disease control priorities: improving health and reducing poverty. 3rd edition. Washington (DC): The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank; 2017.
Heywood AE, Macintyre CR. Elimination of COVID-19: what would it look like and is it possible? Lancet Infect Dis. 2020;20(9):1005–7.
doi: 10.1016/S1473-3099(20)30633-2
Sabat I, et al. United but divided: policy responses and people’s perceptions in the EU during the COVID-19 outbreak. Health Policy. 2020;124(9):909–18.
doi: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2020.06.009
Anderson RM, et al. How will country-based mitigation measures influence the course of the COVID-19 epidemic? Lancet. 2020;395(10228):931–4.
doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30567-5
Orlowski EJW, Goldsmith DJA. Four months into the COVID-19 pandemic, Sweden’s prized herd immunity is nowhere in sight. J R Soc Med. 2020;113(8):292–8.
doi: 10.1177/0141076820945282
Australian Government. Australian Health Protection Principal Committee (AHPPC) coronavirus (COVID-19) statement on 17 March 2020. 2020. https://www.health.gov.au/news/australian-health-protection-principal-committee-ahppc-coronavirus-covid-19-statement-on-17-march-2020-0 . Accessed 26 Jun 2020.
Anderson E. Victoria may have eliminated COVID-19, but eradication is a distant dream. 2020. https://theconversation.com/victoria-may-have-eliminated-covid-19-but-eradication-is-a-distant-dream-150736 . Accessed 27 Nov 2020.
Duckett S, Mackey W, Chen T. Go for zero: how Australia can get to zero COVID-19 cases. 2020. https://grattan.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Go-for-zero-how-Australia-can-get-to-zero-COVID-19-cases-Grattan-Report.pdf . Accessed 24 Nov 2020.
Atkinson J, CY, Pessoa-Silva CL, et al., editors. Natural ventilation for infection control in health-care settings. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2009.
Australian Government. COVID-19 and the border. 2020. https://covid19.homeaffairs.gov.au/ . Accessed 24 Nov 2020.
Macartney K, et al. Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in Australian educational settings: a prospective cohort study. Lancet Child Adolesc Health. 2020;4(11):807–16.
doi: 10.1016/S2352-4642(20)30251-0
Australian Government. Restrictions on services during COVID-19. 2020. https://business.gov.au/risk-management/emergency-management/coronavirus-information-and-support-for-business/restrictions-on-non-essential-services . Accessed 24 Nov 2020.
NSW Government. Four square metre rule. 2020. https://www.nsw.gov.au/covid-19/what-you-can-and-cant-do-under-rules/four-square-metre-rule . Accessed 24 Nov 2020.
Worldometer. COVID-19 coronavirus pandemic. 2020. https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/ . Accessed 24 Nov 2020.
VIC Government. COVID normal: coronavirus roadmap for reopening. 2020. https://www.coronavirus.vic.gov.au/COVID-normal-coronavirus-road-to-recovery . Accessed 24 Nov 2020.
Covid Live. 2020. https://covidlive.com.au/ . Accessed 26 Jun 2020.
John Hopkins University & Medicine. Coronavirus Resource Center. 2020. https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/ . Accessed 26 Jun 2020.
Australian Government. Roadmap to a COVIDSafe Australia; a three-step pathway for easing restrictions. 2020. https://www.pm.gov.au/sites/default/files/files/covid-safe-australia-roadmap.pdf . Accessed 14 Jun 2020.
Chang SL, et al. Modelling transmission and control of the COVID-19 pandemic in Australia. Sydney (NSW): The University of Sydney; 2020.
doi: 10.1038/s41467-020-19393-6
Australian Bureau of Statistics. 6202.0 Labour force, Australia. April 2020. https://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/6202.0 . Accessed 26 Feb 2021.
Australian Bureau of Statistics. 6291.0.55.001 Labour force, Australia, detailed. May 2020. https://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/0/16CF9AD7C2477BA5CA257F630014C8C0?Opendocument . Accessed 31 May 2020.
Janda M. Almost a million Australians out of work due to coronavirus; RBA tips economy to take 10pc hit. ABC News; 2020.
Coates B, et al. Shutdown: estimating the COVID-19 employment shock. 2020. https://grattan.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Shutdown-estimating-the-COVID-19-employment-shock-Grattan-Institute.pdf . Accessed 26 Feb 2021.
Australian Government. Flood levy. 2012. Last modified: 21 Sep 2016. https://www.ato.gov.au/Individuals/Dealing-with-disasters/Previous-years/Flood-levy/Flood-levy/ . Accessed 26 June 2020.
Australian Government. Medicare levy surcharge. 2019. Last modified: 19 Jun 2019. https://www.ato.gov.au/Individuals/Medicare-levy/Medicare-levy-surcharge/ . Accessed 26 Feb 2021.
Kuhfeld W. Orthogonal arrays technical report. SAS Institute; 2006. http://support.sas.com/techsup/technote/ts723_Designs.txt . Accessed 14 June 2020.
Hole AR. Fitting mixed logit models by using maximum simulated likelihood. Stata J. 2007;7(3):388–401.
doi: 10.1177/1536867X0700700306
Train KE. Discrete choice methods with simulation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2003.
doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511753930
Hess S, BAM, Gopinath D, Walker J. Advantages of latent class over continuous mixture of Logit models. Working paper. Institute for Transport Studies. Leeds: University of Leeds; 2011.
Yoo HI. lclogit2: an enhanced command to fit latent class conditional logit models. Stata J. 2020;20(2):405–25.
doi: 10.1177/1536867X20931003
Dziak JJ, et al. Sensitivity and specificity of information criteria. Brief Bioinform. 2019;21(2):553–65.
doi: 10.1093/bib/bbz016
StataCorp. Stata 15 base reference manual. College Station (TX): Stata Press; 2017.
Covid in Australia: Melbourne to exit 112-day lockdown. BBC News; 2020.
de Montjoye Y-A, Houssiau F. Blogpost: can we fight COVID-19 without resorting to mass surveillance? Computational Privacy Group, 2020. https://cpg.doc.ic.ac.uk/blog/fighting-covid-19/ . Accessed 24 Nov 2020.
Babones S. Countries rolling out coronavirus tracking apps show why they can’t work. FP Insider; 2020.
Bogle A. COVIDSafe has been downloaded by millions, but yet to identify contacts (and authorities say that’s a good thing). ABC News; 2020.
Haggan M. Why aren’t we downloading COVIDSafe? AJP e-mag; 2020.
Fernandez A. Electronic tracking devices among new coronavirus powers for WA security agencies. SBS News; 2020.
WA Government. Emergency Management Amendment (COVID-19 Response) Bill 2020. https://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/Parliament/Bills.nsf/5924018EEA598B994825853B001C0B08/$File/Bill179-1.pdf . Accessed 24 Nov 2020.
Romano A, et al. The scale of COVID-19 graphs affects understanding, attitudes, and policy preferences. Health Econ. 2020;29(11):1482–94.
doi: 10.1002/hec.4143
Chorus C, Sandorf ED, Mouter N. Diabolical dilemmas of COVID-19: an empirical study into Dutch society’s trade-offs between health impacts and other effects of the lockdown. PLoS One. 2020;15(9):e0238683.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0238683
Reed S, Gonzalez JM, Johnson FR. Willingness to accept trade-offs among COVID-19 cases, social-distancing restrictions, and economic impact: a nationwide US study. Value Health. 2020;23(11):1438–43.
doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2020.07.003
Jonker M, et al. COVID-19 contact tracing Apps: predicted uptake in the Netherlands based on a discrete choice experiment. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2020;8(10):e20741.
doi: 10.2196/20741
Office for National Statistics. Coronavirus (COVID-19) infection survey, UK: 8 January 2021. https://www.ons.gov.uk/releases/coronaviruscovid19infectionsurveyuk . Accessed 26 Feb 2020.
Australian Bureau of Statistics. Population by age and sex, regions of Australia, 2016 (cat. no. 3235.0). 2016. https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/population/regional-population-age-and-sex/latest-release . Accessed 23 Sep 2020.
Australian Bureau of Statistics. Australian demographic statistics (cat. no. 3101.0). December 2019. https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/population/national-state-and-territory-population/latest-release . Accessed 23 Sep 2020.
Australian Bureau of Statistics. 2071.0 Census of population and housing: reflecting Australia: stories from the Census, 2016: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Population (cat. no. 2071.0). 2016. https://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/2071.0main+features102016 . Accessed 23 Sep 2020.
Australian Bureau of Statistics. Education and work, Australia (cat. no. 6227.0). May 2019. http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/6227.0 . Accessed 23 Sep 2020.