Given the role of human behavior in the spread of disease, it is vital to understand what drives people to engage in or refrain from health-related behaviors during a pandemic. This paper examines factors associated with the adoption of self-protective health behaviors, such as social distancing and mask wearing, at the start of the Covid-19 pandemic in the USA. These behaviors not only reduce an individual’s own risk of infection but also limit the spread of disease to others. Despite these dual benefits, universal adoption of these behaviors is not assured. We focus on the role of socioeconomic differences in explaining behavior, relying on data collected in April 2020 during the early stages of the Covid-19 pandemic. The data include information on income, gender and race along with unique variables relevant to the current pandemic, such as work arrangements and housing quality. We find that higher income is associated with larger changes in self-protective behaviors. These gradients are partially explained by the fact that people with less income are more likely to report circumstances that make adopting self-protective behaviors more difficult, such as an inability to tele-work. Both in the USA and elsewhere, policies that assume universal compliance with self-protective measures—or that otherwise do not account for socioeconomic differences in the costs of doing so—are unlikely to be effective or sustainable.

Background: Models of preferences in health services research (HSR) and Health Economics are often defined by readily available information, such as that captured in claims data and electronic health records. Yet many important questions about patient choices cannot be easily studied because of a lack of critical data elements. The objective of this review is to outline the advantages of using stated preferences (SP) data in health services research, and to outline how these methods can be used to evaluate choices that have not yet been offered or studied. Main body: This article focuses on the application of DCE’s to relevant policy and health system delivery questions currently relevant, particularly in the United States. DCE’s may be helpful to collect data from patient or consumer data that we currently do not have. The article provides examples of research questions that have been answered using SP data collected with a DCE. It outlines how to construct a DCE and how to analyze the data. It also discusses the methodological challenges and emphasizes important considerations regarding the design and estimation methods. SP data can be adopted in situations where we would like to have consumer choice data, but we currently do not. These are often hypothetical situations to analyze the decision-making process of individuals. With SP data it is possible to analyze trade-offs patients make when choosing between treatment options where these hard to measure attributes are important. Conclusion: This paper emphasizes that a carefully designed DCE and appropriate estimation methods can open up a new world of data regarding trade-offs patients and providers in healthcare are willing to make. It updates previous “how to” guide for DCE’s for health services researchers and health economists who are not familiar with these methods or have been unwilling to use them and updates previous description of these methods with timely examples.

Despite unprecedented progress in developing COVID-19 vaccines, global vaccination levels needed to reach herd immunity remain a distant target, while new variants keep emerging. Obtaining near universal vaccine uptake relies on understanding and addressing vaccine resistance. Simple questions about vaccine acceptance however ignore that the vaccines being offered vary across countries and even population subgroups, and differ in terms of efficacy and side effects. By using advanced discrete choice models estimated on stated choice data collected in 18 countries/territories across six continents, we show a substantial influence of vaccine characteristics. Uptake increases if more efficacious vaccines (95% vs 60%) are offered (mean across study areas = 3.9%, range of 0.6%–8.1%) or if vaccines offer at least 12 months of protection (mean across study areas = 2.4%, range of 0.2%–5.8%), while an increase in severe side effects (from 0.001% to 0.01%) leads to reduced uptake (mean = −1.3%, range of −0.2% to −3.9%). Additionally, a large share of individuals (mean = 55.2%, range of 28%–75.8%) would delay vaccination by 3 months to obtain a more efficacious (95% vs 60%) vaccine, where this increases further if the low efficacy vaccine has a higher risk (0.01% instead of 0.001%) of severe side effects (mean = 65.9%, range of 41.4%–86.5%). Our work highlights that careful consideration of which vaccines to offer can be beneficial. In support of this, we provide an interactive tool to predict uptake in a country as a function of the vaccines being deployed, and also depending on the levels of infectiousness and severity of circulating variants of COVID-19.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic forced many health systems to proactively reduce care delivery to prepare for an expected surge in hospitalizations. There have been concerns that care deferral may have negative health effects, but it is hoped that telemedicine can provide a viable alternative. Objective: This study aimed to understand what type of health care services were being deferred during the COVID-19 pandemic lockdown, the role played by telemedicine to fill in care gaps, and changes in attitudes toward telemedicine. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of survey responses from 1694 primary care patients in a mid-sized northeastern city. Our main outcomes were use of telemedicine and reports of care deferral during the shutdown. Results: Deferred care was widespread—48% (n=812) of respondents deferred care—but it was largely for preventive services, particularly dental and primary care, and did not cause concerns about negative health effects. In total, 30.2% (n=242) of those who delayed care were concerned about health effects, with needs centered around orthopedics and surgery. Telemedicine was viewed more positively than prior to the pandemic; it was seen as a viable option to deliver deferred care, particularly by respondents who were over 65 years of age, female, and college educated. Mental health services stood out for having high levels of deferred care. Conclusions: Temporary health system shutdowns will give rise to deferred care. However, much of the deferrals will be for preventive services. The effect of this on patient health can be moderated by prioritizing surgical and orthopedic services and delivering other services through telemedicine. Having telemedicine as an option is particularly crucial for mental health services.

Background: Since the start of the global COVID-19 pandemic, countries have been mirroring each other’s policies to mitigate the spread of the virus. Whether current measures alone will lead to behavioral change such as social distancing, washing hands, and wearing a facemask is not well understood. The objective of this study is to better understand individual variation in behavioral responses to COVID-19 by exploring the influence of beliefs, motivations and policy measures on public health behaviors. We do so by comparing The Netherlands and Flanders, the Dutch speaking part of Belgium.Methods and findings: Our final sample included 2,637 respondents from The Netherlands and 1,678 from Flanders. The data was nationally representative along three dimensions: age, gender, and household income in both countries. Our key outcome variables of interest were beliefs about policy effectiveness; stated reasons for complying with public rules; and changes in behavior. For control variables, we included a number of measures of how severe the respondent believed Covid-19 to be and a number of negative side effects that the person may have experienced: loneliness, boredom, anxiety, and conflicts with friends and neighbors. Finally, we controlled for socio-demographic factors: age, gender, income (categorical), education (categorical) and the presence of Covid-19 risk factors (diabetes, high blood pressure, heart disease, asthma, allergies). The dependent variable for each of the estimation models is dichotomous, so we used Probit models to predict the probability of engaging in a given behavior.We found that motivations, beliefs about the effectiveness of measures, and pre-pandemic behavior play an important role. The Dutch were more likely to wash their hands than the Flemish (15.4%, p<0.01), visit family (15.5%, p < .01), run errands (12.0%, p<0.05) or go to large closed spaces such as a shopping mall (21.2%, p<0.01). The Dutch were significantly less likely to wear a mask (87.6%, p<0.01). We also found that beliefs about the virus, psychological effects of the virus, as well as pre-pandemic behavior play a role in adherence to recommendations.Conclusions: Our results suggest that policymakers should consider behavioral motivations specific to their country in their COVID-19 strategies. In addition, the belief that a policy is effective significantly increased the probability of the behavior, so policy measures should be accompanied by public health campaigns to increase adherence.

Background: National efforts to control US healthcare spending are potentially undermined by changes in patient characteristics, and in particular increases in rates of obesity and overweight. The objective of this study was to provide current estimates of the effect of obesity and overweight on healthcare spending overall, by service line and by payer using the National Institutes of Health classifications for BMI. Methods: We used a quasi-experimental design and analyzed the data using generalized linear models and two-part models to estimate obesity- and overweight-attributable spending. Data was drawn from the 2006 and 2016 Medical Expenditures Panel Survey. We identified individuals in the different BMI classes based on self-reported height and weight. Results: Total medical costs attributable to obesity rose to $126 billion per year by 2016, although the marginal cost of obesity declined for all obesity classes. The overall spending increase was due to an increase in obesity prevalence and a population shift to higher obesity classes. Obesity related spending between 2006 and 2016 was relatively constant due to decreases in inpatient spending, which were only partially offset by increases in outpatient spending. Conclusions: While total obesity related spending between 2006 and 2016 was relatively constant, by examining the effect of different obesity classes and overweight, it provides insight into spend for each level of obesity and overweight across service line and payer mix. Obesity class 2 and 3 were the main factors driving spending increases, suggesting that persons over BMI of 35 should be the focus for policies focused on controlling spending, such as prevention.