Associations between the stringency of COVID-19 containment policies and health service disruptions in 10 countries.
COVID-19 restrictions
Health care disruptions
Health services
Health system resilience
Health systems
Pandemic response
Journal
BMC health services research
ISSN: 1472-6963
Titre abrégé: BMC Health Serv Res
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101088677
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
12 Apr 2023
12 Apr 2023
Historique:
received:
14
12
2022
accepted:
03
04
2023
medline:
14
4
2023
entrez:
12
4
2023
pubmed:
13
4
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Disruptions in essential health services during the COVID-19 pandemic have been reported in several countries. Yet, patterns in health service disruption according to country responses remain unclear. In this paper, we investigate associations between the stringency of COVID-19 containment policies and disruptions in 31 health services in 10 low- middle- and high-income countries in 2020. Using routine health information systems and administrative data from 10 countries (Chile, Ethiopia, Ghana, Haiti, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Mexico, Nepal, South Africa, South Korea, and Thailand) we estimated health service disruptions for the period of April to December 2020 by dividing monthly service provision at national levels by the average service provision in the 15 months pre-COVID (January 2019-March 2020). We used the Oxford COVID-19 Government Response Tracker (OxCGRT) index and multi-level linear regression analyses to assess associations between the stringency of restrictions and health service disruptions over nine months. We extended the analysis by examining associations between 11 individual containment or closure policies and health service disruptions. Models were adjusted for COVID caseload, health service category and country GDP and included robust standard errors. Chronic disease care was among the most affected services. Regression analyses revealed that a 10% increase in the mean stringency index was associated with a 3.3 percentage-point (95% CI -3.9, -2.7) reduction in relative service volumes. Among individual policies, curfews, and the presence of a state of emergency, had the largest coefficients and were associated with 14.1 (95% CI -19.6, 8.7) and 10.7 (95% CI -12.7, -8.7) percentage-point lower relative service volumes, respectively. In contrast, number of COVID-19 cases in 2020 was not associated with health service disruptions in any model. Although containment policies were crucial in reducing COVID-19 mortality in many contexts, it is important to consider the indirect effects of these restrictions. Strategies to improve the resilience of health systems should be designed to ensure that populations can continue accessing essential health care despite the presence of containment policies during future infectious disease outbreaks.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Disruptions in essential health services during the COVID-19 pandemic have been reported in several countries. Yet, patterns in health service disruption according to country responses remain unclear. In this paper, we investigate associations between the stringency of COVID-19 containment policies and disruptions in 31 health services in 10 low- middle- and high-income countries in 2020.
METHODS
METHODS
Using routine health information systems and administrative data from 10 countries (Chile, Ethiopia, Ghana, Haiti, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Mexico, Nepal, South Africa, South Korea, and Thailand) we estimated health service disruptions for the period of April to December 2020 by dividing monthly service provision at national levels by the average service provision in the 15 months pre-COVID (January 2019-March 2020). We used the Oxford COVID-19 Government Response Tracker (OxCGRT) index and multi-level linear regression analyses to assess associations between the stringency of restrictions and health service disruptions over nine months. We extended the analysis by examining associations between 11 individual containment or closure policies and health service disruptions. Models were adjusted for COVID caseload, health service category and country GDP and included robust standard errors.
FINDINGS
RESULTS
Chronic disease care was among the most affected services. Regression analyses revealed that a 10% increase in the mean stringency index was associated with a 3.3 percentage-point (95% CI -3.9, -2.7) reduction in relative service volumes. Among individual policies, curfews, and the presence of a state of emergency, had the largest coefficients and were associated with 14.1 (95% CI -19.6, 8.7) and 10.7 (95% CI -12.7, -8.7) percentage-point lower relative service volumes, respectively. In contrast, number of COVID-19 cases in 2020 was not associated with health service disruptions in any model.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Although containment policies were crucial in reducing COVID-19 mortality in many contexts, it is important to consider the indirect effects of these restrictions. Strategies to improve the resilience of health systems should be designed to ensure that populations can continue accessing essential health care despite the presence of containment policies during future infectious disease outbreaks.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37046260
doi: 10.1186/s12913-023-09363-1
pii: 10.1186/s12913-023-09363-1
pmc: PMC10096103
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
363Subventions
Organisme : World Health Organization
ID : 001
Pays : International
Organisme : Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
ID : INV-017293
Pays : United States
Organisme : Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
ID : INV-005254
Pays : United States
Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s).
Références
BMJ Glob Health. 2021 Jun;6(6):
pubmed: 34112648
Asia Pac J Public Health. 2021 Nov;33(8):968-971
pubmed: 33870725
Int J Health Policy Manag. 2017 Apr 04;6(8):431-435
pubmed: 28812842
J Int AIDS Soc. 2021 Oct;24 Suppl 6:e25794
pubmed: 34713578
Bull World Health Organ. 2022 Feb 1;100(2):168-170
pubmed: 35125542
BMJ Open. 2022 Jun 3;12(6):e059408
pubmed: 36437538
BMJ Open. 2022 Feb 3;12(2):e056342
pubmed: 35115356
Lancet HIV. 2021 Mar;8(3):e158-e165
pubmed: 33549166
BMJ Open. 2022 Apr 12;12(4):e055790
pubmed: 35414554
Lancet Infect Dis. 2020 May;20(5):533-534
pubmed: 32087114
BMJ Glob Health. 2022 Jan;7(1):
pubmed: 35012970
BMC Health Serv Res. 2021 May 17;21(1):463
pubmed: 34001123
Glob Heart. 2021 Jun 10;16(1):44
pubmed: 34211830
BMJ Glob Health. 2021 Aug;6(8):
pubmed: 34452941
Nat Med. 2022 Jun;28(6):1314-1324
pubmed: 35288697
Lancet Public Health. 2022 May;7(5):e417-e426
pubmed: 35461592
BMJ Glob Health. 2021 Jul;6(7):
pubmed: 34315776
BMJ Open. 2021 Mar 16;11(3):e045343
pubmed: 33727273
BMJ Case Rep. 2021 Sep 14;14(9):
pubmed: 34521739
Diabetes Metab Syndr. 2020 Nov-Dec;14(6):1621-1623
pubmed: 32889403
Heart. 2022 Oct 13;108(21):1716-1721
pubmed: 35105666
World Dev. 2021 Apr;140:105318
pubmed: 34548741
Lancet. 2020 May 30;395(10238):1687-1688
pubmed: 32539939
Health Policy Plan. 2021 Aug 12;36(7):1140-1151
pubmed: 34146394
PLoS One. 2021 Jul 26;16(7):e0254825
pubmed: 34310639
PLoS One. 2021 Feb 1;16(2):e0245886
pubmed: 33524042
Curr Dev Nutr. 2021 Mar 18;5(4):nzab024
pubmed: 33884343
Nat Hum Behav. 2021 Apr;5(4):529-538
pubmed: 33686204
Lancet Glob Health. 2020 Oct;8(10):e1273-e1281
pubmed: 32791117
EClinicalMedicine. 2022 Mar;45:101305
pubmed: 35224471
Ann Glob Health. 2021 Nov 15;87(1):109
pubmed: 34824990
BMJ Open. 2021 Mar 18;11(3):e045813
pubmed: 33737441
BMJ Glob Health. 2021 Sep;6(9):
pubmed: 34470746
BMJ Open. 2020 Oct 5;10(10):e043763
pubmed: 33020109
Eur J Public Health. 2021 Jul 13;31(3):634-640
pubmed: 33755130
BMJ Glob Health. 2022 May;7(5):
pubmed: 35501068
BMJ Open. 2022 Nov 29;12(11):e061849
pubmed: 36446449
Lancet Glob Health. 2021 Jun;9(6):e793-e801
pubmed: 34019835
BMC Health Serv Res. 2021 Feb 24;21(1):174
pubmed: 33627115