@article{SinghShaikhHaucketal., author = {Singh, Surya and Shaikh, Mujaheed and Hauck, Katharina and Miraldo, Marisa}, title = {Impacts of introducing and lifting nonpharmaceutical interventions on COVID-19 daily growth rate and compliance in the United States}, series = {PNAS}, journal = {PNAS}, doi = {10.1073/pnas.2021359118}, abstract = {We evaluate the impacts of implementing and lifting nonpharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) in US counties on the daily growth rate of COVID-19 cases and compliance, measured through the percentage of devices staying home, and evaluate whether introducing and lifting NPIs protecting selective populations is an effective strategy. We use difference-in-differences methods, leveraging on daily county-level data and exploit the staggered introduction and lifting of policies across counties over time. We also assess heterogenous impacts due to counties' population characteristics, namely ethnicity and household income. Results show that introducing NPIs led to a reduction in cases through the percentage of devices staying home. When counties lifted NPIs, they benefited from reduced mobility outside of the home during the lockdown, but only for a short period. In the long term, counties experienced diminished health and mobility gains accrued from previously implemented policies. Notably, we find heterogenous impacts due to population characteristics implying that measures can mitigate the disproportionate burden of COVID-19 on marginalized populations and find that selectively targeting populations may not be effective.}, language = {en} } @article{NicodemoBarzinCavallietal., author = {Nicodemo, Catia and Barzin, Samira and Cavalli, Nicol{\`o} and Lasserson, Daniel and Moscone, Francesco and Redding, Stuart and Shaikh, Mujaheed}, title = {Measuring geographical disparities in England at the time of COVID-19: results using a composite indicator of population vulnerability}, series = {BMJ Open}, volume = {10}, journal = {BMJ Open}, number = {9}, doi = {10.1136/bmjopen-2020-039749}, abstract = {Objectives: The growth of COVID-19 infections in England raises questions about system vulnerability. Several factors that vary across geographies, such as age, existing disease prevalence, medical resource availability and deprivation, can trigger adverse effects on the National Health System during a pandemic. In this paper, we present data on these factors and combine them to create an index to show which areas are more exposed. This technique can help policy makers to moderate the impact of similar pandemics. Design: We combine several sources of data, which describe specific risk factors linked with the outbreak of a respiratory pathogen, that could leave local areas vulnerable to the harmful consequences of large-scale outbreaks of contagious diseases. We combine these measures to generate an index of community-level vulnerability. Setting: 91 Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs) in England. Main outcome: measures We merge 15 measures spatially to generate an index of community-level vulnerability. These measures cover prevalence rates of high-risk diseases; proxies for the at-risk population density; availability of staff and quality of healthcare facilities. Results: We find that 80\% of CCGs that score in the highest quartile of vulnerability are located in the North of England (24 out of 30). Here, vulnerability stems from a faster rate of population ageing and from the widespread presence of underlying at-risk diseases. These same areas, especially the North-East Coast areas of Lancashire, also appear vulnerable to adverse shocks to healthcare supply due to tighter labour markets for healthcare personnel. Importantly, our index correlates with a measure of social deprivation, indicating that these communities suffer from long-standing lack of economic opportunities and are characterised by low public and private resource endowments. Conclusions: Evidence-based policy is crucial to mitigate the health impact of pandemics such as COVID-19. While current attention focuses on curbing rates of contagion, we introduce a vulnerability index combining data that can help policy makers identify the most vulnerable communities. We find that this index is positively correlated with COVID-19 deaths and it can thus be used to guide targeted capacity building. These results suggest that a stronger focus on deprived and vulnerable communities is needed to tackle future threats from emerging and re-emerging infectious disease.}, language = {en} } @techreport{SpitzerShaikh, type = {Working Paper}, author = {Spitzer, Sonja and Shaikh, Mujaheed}, title = {Health Misperception and Healthcare Utilisation among Older Europeans}, abstract = {Health perception biases can have serious consequences on health. Despite their relevance,the role of such biases in determining healthcare utilisation is severely underexplored. Herewe study the relationship between health misperception, doctor visits, and concomitant out-of-pocket expenditures for the population 50+ in Europe. We conceptualise health misper-ception as arising from either overconfidence or underconfidence, where overconfidence ismeasured as overestimation of health and underconfidence is measured as underestimationof health. Comparing objective performance measures and their self-reported equivalentsfrom the Survey of Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe, we find that individuals whooverestimate their health visit the doctor 14\% less often than individuals who correctly as-sess their health, which is crucial for preventive care such as screenings. Lower healthcareutilisation is accompanied by lower out-of-pocket spending (38\% less). In contrast, indi-viduals who underestimate their health visit the doctor more often (28\% more) and havehigher out-of-pocket spending (17\% more). We project that underestimating health of thepopulation 50+ will cost the average European country Intl\$ 71 million in 2020 and Intl\$ 81million by 2060. Country-specific estimates based on population and demographic projec-tions show that countries such as Germany, Denmark and The Netherlands will experiencesignificantly large costs of such misperception. The results are robust to several sensitivitytests and, more important, to various conceptualisations of the misperception measure.}, language = {en} } @incollection{HurrelmannShaikhWendt, author = {Hurrelmann, Klaus and Shaikh, Mujaheed and Wendt, Claus}, title = {Health Policy and Health Governance}, series = {The Governance Report 2019}, booktitle = {The Governance Report 2019}, publisher = {Oxford University Press}, isbn = {9780198821502}, publisher = {Hertie School}, language = {en} } @techreport{ShaikhBlankart, type = {Working Paper}, author = {Shaikh, Mujaheed and Blankart, Katharina}, title = {Finanzierung und Ver­g{\"u}tung eines nachhaltigen Gesundheitssystems - Ans{\"a}tze und M{\"o}glichkeiten}, language = {de} } @techreport{ShaikhHaarmann, type = {Working Paper}, author = {Shaikh, Mujaheed and Haarmann, Alexander}, title = {Die Leistungserbringung im Gesundheitssystem der Zukunft}, language = {de} } @techreport{ShaikhHaarmannKlapper, type = {Working Paper}, author = {Shaikh, Mujaheed and Haarmann, Alexander and Klapper, Bernadette}, title = {Patienten-Typologien im Gesundheitssystem von morgen}, language = {de} } @techreport{ShaikhHaarmannKlapper, type = {Working Paper}, author = {Shaikh, Mujaheed and Haarmann, Alexander and Klapper, Bernadette}, title = {Megatrends - wie sie die Zukunft der Gesundheitsversorgung beeinflussen}, language = {de} } @inproceedings{ShaikhHaarmannSchmitt, author = {Shaikh, Mujaheed and Haarmann, Alexander and Schmitt, Tugce}, title = {Die Governance des zuk{\"u}nftigen Gesundheitssystems}, edition = {Diskussionspapier - Think Lab 6}, abstract = {Die hier genannten Punkte stellen eine kurze Zusammenfassung an Themen dar, die sich wie rote F{\"a}den in allen unten beschriebenen Feldern der Governance entdecken lassen. Sie k{\"o}nnen als die Quintessenz, Leitbilder oder Prinzipien der Governance f{\"u}r das Gesundheitssystem der Zukunft angesehen werden. Die einzelnen Felder der Governance werden in den nachfolgenden Kapiteln n{\"a}her beschrieben und basieren auf den Expertengespr{\"a}chen im Rahmen der Initiative „Neustart! Reformwerkstatt f{\"u}r unser Gesundheitswesen" und der existierenden Literatur. • Notwendigkeit erh{\"o}hter Transparenz - Transparenz {\"u}ber die Entscheidungen ist das A und O f{\"u}r Governance, wenn gegenseitiges Vertrauen zwischen Stakeholdern und bei B{\"u}rgern und Patienten geschaffen werden soll. Transparenz ist Voraussetzung, dass sich letztere ein eigenes Bild machen k{\"o}nnen und auf die eine oder andere Art sinnvoll an der Governance beteiligt werden k{\"o}nnen. • Etablierte Standards mit lokaler Erg{\"a}nzung - Neben der Anpassung der Versorgung an lokal-regionale Bedarfe sollten (Qualit{\"a}ts-)Standards und (Behandlungs-)Leitlinien auf {\"u}bergeordneter, nationaler (oder internationaler) Ebene erstellt werden und Anwendung finden, um landesweit einen hohen Qualit{\"a}tsstandard sicherzustellen. • Governance vom regionalen Bedarf herdenken - Ein Verst{\"a}ndnis f{\"u}r den regionalen Bedarf einer Bev{\"o}lkerung und deren spezifischen Bed{\"u}rfnisse sollte entwickelt werden als Handlungsorientierung f{\"u}r die Governance vor Ort. Die nationalen Standards k{\"o}nnen dar{\"u}ber hinaus durch regional entwickelte Praktiken erg{\"a}nzt werden. Nur auf diese Weise kann die regional beste Passung zwischen angemessener Versorgung und Gesundheitssystem erreicht werden. • Bedarf f{\"u}r geeignete Daten in hoher Qualit{\"a}t - Trotz einer Vielzahl vorhandener Daten fehlt es h{\"a}ufig noch an geeigneten Daten, auf denen Governance-Entscheidungen verl{\"a}sslich fußen k{\"o}nnen. Hierzu m{\"u}ssen relevante und geeignete Daten identifiziert werden, die m{\"o}glichst ohne großen Aufwand im Prozess erhoben werden und dennoch die Realit{\"a}t der Versorgung und der Lebensqualit{\"a}t von Patienten abbilden k{\"o}nnen.}, language = {de} } @article{ShaikhTymoszukWilliamonetal., author = {Shaikh, Mujaheed and Tymoszuk, Urszula and Williamon, Aaron and Miraldo, Marisa}, title = {Socio-economic inequalities in arts engagement and depression among older adults in the United Kingdom: evidence from the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing}, series = {Public Health}, volume = {198}, journal = {Public Health}, issn = {0033-3506}, doi = {10.1016/j.puhe.2021.07.044}, pages = {307 -- 314}, abstract = {Objectives Arts engagement has been positively linked with mental health and well-being; however, socio-economic inequalities may be prevalent in access to and uptake of arts engagement reflecting on inequalities in mental health. This study estimated socio-economic inequality and horizontal inequity (unfair inequality) in arts engagement and depression symptoms of older adults in England. Trends in inequality and inequity were measured over a period of ten years. Study design This is a repeated cross-sectional study. Methods In this analysis, we used data from six waves (waves 2 to 7) of the nationally representative English Longitudinal Study of Ageing. We estimated socio-economic inequality using concentration curves that plot the distribution of arts engagement and depression symptoms against the distribution of wealth. A concentration index was used to measure the magnitude of the inequality. Unfair inequality was then calculated for need-standardised arts engagement using a horizontal inequity index (HII). Results The study sample included adults aged 50 years and older from waves 2 (2004/2005, n = 6620) to 7 (2014/2015, n = 3329). Engagement with cinema, galleries and theatre was pro-rich unequal, i.e. concentrated among the wealthier, but inequality in depression was pro-poor unequal, i.e. concentrated more among the less wealthy. While pro-rich inequality in arts engagement decreased from wave 2 (conc. index: 0·291, 95\% confidence interval 0·27 to 0·31) to wave 7 (conc. index: 0·275, 95\% confidence interval 0·24 to 0·30), pro-poor inequality in depression increased from wave 2 (conc. index: -0·164, 95\% confidence interval -0·18 to -0·14) to wave 7 (conc. index: -0·189, 95\% confidence interval -0·21 to -0·16). Depression-standardised arts engagement showed horizontal inequity that increased from wave 2 (HII: 0·455, 95\% confidence interval 0·42 to 0·48) to wave 7 (HII: 0·464, 95\% confidence interval 0·42 to 0·50). Conclusions Our findings suggest that while socio-economic inequality in arts engagement might appear to have reduced over time, once arts engagement is standardised for need, inequality has actually worsened over time and can be interpreted as inequitable (unfair). Relying on need-unstandardised estimates of inequality might thus provide a false sense of achievement to policy makers and lead to improper social prescribing interventions being emplaced.}, language = {en} }