Number | Average Age | SI Puberty |
SI Birth |
Average SI Years | |||
Number | % | Number | % | ||||
Cases | 923 | 66 | 463 | 50 | 324 | 35 | 45 |
Controls | 10722 | 75 | 4235 | 39 | 3226 | 30 | 49 |
Total | 11645 | 74 | 4698 | 40 | 3550 | 30 | 49 |
The investigation goal here was to analyze how the level of public debt affects preparedness of health systems to face emergencies. In particular, this study examined the negative effects of high public debt on health systems of European countries in the presence of the COVID-19 pandemic crisis. Empirical evidence revealed that European countries with a lower level of government debt as a percentage of GDP both in 2009 and 2019 (the period before the arrival of the pandemic) had lower COVID-19 fatality rates compared to countries with higher levels of public debt. The explanation is that high levels of public debt in countries trigger budget constraints that limit their ability to allocate resources to healthcare systems (e.g., health expenditures and investments), weakening health system performance and causing systemic vulnerability and lower preparedness during emergencies, such as with the COVID-19 pandemic. Implications of health policies are suggested to improve strategies of crisis management.
Citation: Mario Coccia, Igor Benati. Negative effects of high public debt on health systems facing pandemic crisis: Lessons from COVID-19 in Europe to prepare for future emergencies[J]. AIMS Public Health, 2024, 11(2): 477-498. doi: 10.3934/publichealth.2024024
[1] | Kai Cheng, Jiangtao Wang, Jian Liu, Xiangsheng Zhang, Yuanyuan Shen, Hang Su . Public health implications of computer-aided diagnosis and treatment technologies in breast cancer care. AIMS Public Health, 2023, 10(4): 867-895. doi: 10.3934/publichealth.2023057 |
[2] | Yan Lin, Xi Gong, Richard Mousseau . Barriers of Female Breast, Colorectal, and Cervical Cancer Screening Among American Indians—Where to Intervene?. AIMS Public Health, 2016, 3(4): 891-906. doi: 10.3934/publichealth.2016.4.891 |
[3] | Erin Linnenbringer, Sarah Gehlert, Arline T. Geronimus . Black-White Disparities in Breast Cancer Subtype: The Intersection of Socially Patterned Stress and Genetic Expression. AIMS Public Health, 2017, 4(5): 526-556. doi: 10.3934/publichealth.2017.5.526 |
[4] | Lee R Mobley, Tzy-Mey (May) Kuo . Geographic and Demographic Disparities in Late-stage Breast and Colorectal Cancer Diagnoses Across the US. AIMS Public Health, 2015, 2(3): 583-600. doi: 10.3934/publichealth.2015.3.583 |
[5] | Soo-Foon Moey, Norfariha Che Mohamed, Bee-Chiu Lim . A path analytic model of health beliefs on the behavioral adoption of breast self-examination. AIMS Public Health, 2021, 8(1): 15-31. doi: 10.3934/publichealth.2021002 |
[6] | Karent Zorogastua, Pathu Sriphanlop, Alyssa Reich, Sarah Aly, Aminata Cisse, Lina Jandorf . Breast and Cervical Cancer Screening among US and non US Born African American Muslim Women in New York City. AIMS Public Health, 2017, 4(1): 78-93. doi: 10.3934/publichealth.2017.1.78 |
[7] | Soo-Foon Moey, Aaina Mardhiah Abdul Mutalib, Norfariha Che Mohamed, Nursyahirah Saidin . The relationship of socio-demographic characteristics and knowledge of breast cancer on stage of behavioral adoption of breast self-examination. AIMS Public Health, 2020, 7(3): 620-633. doi: 10.3934/publichealth.2020049 |
[8] |
Wedad Saeed Alqahtani, Nawaf Abdulrahman Almufareh, Dalia Mostafa Domiaty, Gadah Albasher, Manal Abduallah Alduwish, Huda Alkhalaf, Bader Almuzzaini, Salma Sanhaat AL-marshidy, Rgya Alfraihi, Abdelbaset Mohamed Elasbali, Hussain Gadelkarim Ahmed, Bassam Ahmed Almutlaq .
Epidemiology of cancer in Saudi Arabia thru 2010–2019: a systematic review with constrained meta-analysis . AIMS Public Health, 2020, 7(3): 679-696. doi: 10.3934/publichealth.2020053 |
[9] | Eleni L. Tolma, Kimberly Engelman, Julie A. Stoner, Cara Thomas, Stephanie Joseph, Ji Li, Cecily Blackwater, J. Neil Henderson, L. D. Carson, Norma Neely, Tewanna Edwards . The Design of a Multi-component Intervention to Promote Screening Mammography in an American Indian Community: The Native Women’s Health Project. AIMS Public Health, 2016, 3(4): 933-955. doi: 10.3934/publichealth.2016.4.933 |
[10] | Maria C Mariani, Osei K Tweneboah, Md Al Masum Bhuiyan . Supervised machine learning models applied to disease diagnosis and prognosis. AIMS Public Health, 2019, 6(4): 405-423. doi: 10.3934/publichealth.2019.4.405 |
The investigation goal here was to analyze how the level of public debt affects preparedness of health systems to face emergencies. In particular, this study examined the negative effects of high public debt on health systems of European countries in the presence of the COVID-19 pandemic crisis. Empirical evidence revealed that European countries with a lower level of government debt as a percentage of GDP both in 2009 and 2019 (the period before the arrival of the pandemic) had lower COVID-19 fatality rates compared to countries with higher levels of public debt. The explanation is that high levels of public debt in countries trigger budget constraints that limit their ability to allocate resources to healthcare systems (e.g., health expenditures and investments), weakening health system performance and causing systemic vulnerability and lower preparedness during emergencies, such as with the COVID-19 pandemic. Implications of health policies are suggested to improve strategies of crisis management.
Staten Island (SI), Richmond County, NY, is one of the five boroughs of New York City (NYC). It is 153 square kilometers in area, located at the southern tip of New York State, approximately 8 kilometers from the borough of Manhattan [1] and has a population of approximately one-half million people [2].
Environmental exposures have been a topic of conversation on Staten Island since 1882 [3]–[7]. SI is downwind from the New Jersey petrochemical industry [8], home to the former Brookfield Landfill [9] and, for more than 50 years, contained the Fresh Kills Landfill, an open dump that received most of NYC's garbage [10],[11]. To address concerns about drinking water quality, an underground storage tank was completed in 1970 [12] and a chlorination facility was opened in 1974 [13].
The New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene (DOHMH) has responded to the concerns of the SI community with three studies examining health consequences of environmental exposures [14]–[16]. DOHMH “determined that breast cancer rates on Staten Island have been about 8% to 13% higher than the rest of NYC for many years” [16]. Comparing the five boroughs of NYC, SI had the highest average breast cancer incidence and mortality rates for the period of our study (1985–2006) (See Appendix 1 in the supplementary materials) [17].
While the risk for breast cancer increases with age and the majority are diagnosed after age 50 [18], the most consequential environmental exposures may occur in earlier stages of a woman's life. Indeed, “the breast is especially sensitive to environmental exposures during fetal development (when the organ is formed), and during puberty and pregnancy” [19]. Breast cancer studies have begun to look at these critical stages during a woman's life and how environmental exposures may determine breast cancer outcomes [20]–[32]. In 2019, the International Premenopausal Breast Cancer Collaborative Group published a study analyzing breast cancer risk after recent childbirth [33]. They found that breast cancer risk peaked 5 years after childbirth, before decreasing 34 years after childbirth. The overall pattern was driven by estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer [33].
To address the “burden of breast cancer” in the United States, Congress passed Public Law Section 110–354 (Breast Cancer and Environmental Research Act-BCERA) in 2008 [34]. BCERA established the Interagency Breast Cancer and Environmental Research Coordinating Committee (IBCERCC) to compile past environmental and genomic factors as they relate to breast cancer and make suggestions for future research where there are gaps. The committee suggested researchers “recognize that the timing of exposure to lifestyle and risk factors matters” [19]. In particular, the report “discusses “windows of susceptibility” during the life course when specific exposure(s) might have their greatest influence on lifetime breast cancer risk (e.g., in utero, puberty)” [19].
The Center for Environmental Science at the College of Staten Island/CUNY, an outgrowth of the Master of Science in Environmental Science, has a mission to serve as a university and community focus for scientific, educational, and legal solutions to environmental problems. Inspired by the recommendations of the IBCERCC and responding to the concerns of the SI community and government about the high breast cancer rates on SI, the Center established the Staten Island Breast Cancer Research Initiative (SIBCRI).
Puberty is a complex process with great variability in timing [35]. For the purpose of this paper, the age of puberty was defined as ages 9 through 19 [35]. The aim of this paper was to investigate breast cancer mortality risk associated with exposures during puberty on SI.
A retrospective study investigating the risk of SI female breast cancer mortality during the years 1985–2006, using a case-control design, combined life history information from DOHMH death certificates with the Staten Island Advance [38] obituaries. Life history information for this paper was defined as an individual's attributes (e.g., sex, date of birth, date of death, cause of death, SI residence history) and was obtained for 923 cases and 10,722 controls.
Cases and controls were determined from death certificates by the NYC Department of Health and Mental Hygiene. Cases were identified as SI females with an International Classification of Disease (ICD) designation of malignant neoplasm of breast, either ICD 9 code 174 [36] or ICD 10 code C50.9 [37]. Controls were SI females who died from causes other than malignant neoplasms. For both cases and controls, the year of birth was 1895 through 1974, and the year of death was 1985 through 2006. Age, defined as the difference between year of death and birth, varied from 25 through 90 inclusive. Cases and controls had to live on SI for at least one year.
Additional life history information was obtained from obituaries in the Staten Island Advance, a local newspaper providing information to the SI community since 1886 [38]. A death notice interview was conducted using a pre-established, questionnaire that remained unaltered for decades. The person interviewed, most commonly a surviving spouse or family member, was contacted by a reporter within 24 to 48 hours of an individual's death. The interview was done by an individual trained as a reporter to minimize bias. An analysis of the reliability of obituary data has been published in a previous paper [39].
database. Comparisons were made, and all discrepancies were corrected by referring to the source material. To ensure quality control, all data were double entered by independent staff in a relational.
To examine “windows of susceptibility”, data were analyzed for risk using the following attributes: age, length of residence on SI (SI Years), born on SI (SI Birth = yes/no), and puberty on SI (SI Puberty = yes/no). The odds ratio (OR) for each attribute was defined as the ratio of cases to controls having that attribute divided by the ratio of cases to controls not having that attribute. SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences, IBM Corporation for Windows) was used for calculating odds ratios from contingency tables. The dataset analyzed is available in Appendix 2 of the supplementary materials.
In this study, age was an important confounding variable [19]. The first approach, using EGRET statistical software for Windows, version 2.0.31, was to include all 923 cases and 10,722 controls in a statistical model in order to find the best fit to a mathematical formula (a logistic curve) that determines the likelihood of an individual dying from breast cancer. This technique (multivariate logistic regression) yields a value for both the odds ratio of cases to controls for each risk factor as well as the 95% confidence interval for the odds ratio.
A second approach to include age as a variable was to use an age-matched case-control design (MedCalc statistical software for Windows, version 17.9.7). The large number of controls in the dataset allowed for a simulation of this technique with multiple random subsets of the entire dataset. A case was selected at random and then matched to two randomly picked age-matched controls. Logistic regression was performed on every random subset. The average of the odds ratios obtained as well as the standard deviation of these ratios was calculated. Details of this technique are available in Appendix 3 of the supplementary materials.
The study received approval from the CUNY Institutional Review Board and underwent review through IRBnet.org.
Table 1 displays descriptive statistics of the individuals' life history attributes of the study dataset. The average age of cases was 66 whereas the average age for controls was 75. Thirty-five percent of cases and 30% of controls were born on SI. Fifty percent of cases and 39% of controls resided on SI during puberty. The average number of years for length of residence on SI was 45 for cases and 49 for controls.
Number | Average Age | SI Puberty |
SI Birth |
Average SI Years | |||
Number | % | Number | % | ||||
Cases | 923 | 66 | 463 | 50 | 324 | 35 | 45 |
Controls | 10722 | 75 | 4235 | 39 | 3226 | 30 | 49 |
Total | 11645 | 74 | 4698 | 40 | 3550 | 30 | 49 |
To analyze puberty risk, a 2 × 2 contingency table was formed (Table 2). The odds ratio was 1.54 (p < 0.001, 95% CI = 1.35, 1.76). X2 (1, 11645) = 40.2, p < 0.001. This analysis, however, does not include the important age differences between cases and controls.
Cases | Controls | ||
SI Puberty | 463 | 4235 | 4698 |
Not SI Puberty | 460 | 6487 | 6947 |
923 | 10722 | 11645 |
Using multivariate logistic regression on the entire dataset (first approach) with age and SI Puberty as variables, an odds ratio of 1.35 (p < 0.001, 95% CI = 1.18, 1.55) was obtained.
Table 3 displays the results obtained from fifteen random replicates of age-matched cases and controls (second approach). In all replicates every case was used and successfully matched to two random controls. Within each replicate, no control was used more than once. The odds ratios for the 15 random replicates varied from 1.33 to 1.50, with a mean value of 1.43. The standard deviation of the odds ratio was 0.041. Assuming a normal distribution, this corresponded to a 95% confidence interval of 1.35 to 1.51.
Confidence Interval |
|||
Odds ratio | Lower | Upper | |
Match 1 | 1.33 | 1.14 | 1.56 |
Match 2 | 1.39 | 1.18 | 1.63 |
Match 3 | 1.43 | 1.22 | 1.67 |
Match 4 | 1.46 | 1.25 | 1.71 |
Match 5 | 1.42 | 1.21 | 1.67 |
Match 6 | 1.44 | 1.22 | 1.68 |
Match 7 | 1.44 | 1.22 | 1.68 |
Match 8 | 1.45 | 1.24 | 1.70 |
Match 9 | 1.45 | 1.24 | 1.70 |
Match 10 | 1.47 | 1.25 | 1.72 |
Match 11 | 1.40 | 1.19 | 1.64 |
Match 12 | 1.42 | 1.21 | 1.66 |
Match 13 | 1.50 | 1.28 | 1.76 |
Match 14 | 1.46 | 1.25 | 1.71 |
Match 15 | 1.39 | 1.19 | 1.63 |
Mean | 1.43 | ||
SD | 0.041 |
The dataset included SI Years and SI Birth as well as SI Puberty. Since there may have been correlations between these variables, multivariate logistic regression was done to investigate whether SI Puberty was the major risk.
Using multivariate logistic analysis with age and SI Years, the odds ratio for length of residence on SI was 1.004 (p < 0.009, 95% CI = 1.001, 1.008). When age, SI Years and SI Puberty were included, the odds ratio for SI Years dropped to 0.997 (p < 0.20, 95% CI = 0.991, 1.002) while the odds ratio for SI Puberty increased to 1.52 (p < 0.001, 95% CI = 1.21, 1.92).
Similarly, using multivariate analysis with age and SI Birth the odds ratio for SI Birth was 1.10 (p < 0.17, 95% CI = 0.95, 1.57). However, when age, SI Puberty, and SI Birth were included the odds ratio for SI Puberty increased to 1.7 (p < 0.001, 95% CI = 1.39, 2.08) while the odds ratio for SI Birth decreased to 0.73 (p < 0.003, 95% CI = 0.59, 0.90).
This study has investigated the high rate of breast cancer mortality on SI using the variables age, length of residence on SI, born on SI, and residing on SI during puberty years. Since these attributes may not have been independent, the interactions between the variables had to be considered. The main result was that women who went through puberty on Staten Island are 35% more likely to die of breast cancer than women who went through puberty elsewhere.
Because the average age of breast cancer cases were nine years younger than controls, it was apparent that age was needed as a variable in the investigation of risk factors. Since the percentages for cases compared to controls were higher for both SI Puberty and SI Birth an analysis was needed to separate these factors in determining risk. In contrast, since the average length of residence on SI of cases was less than controls, the number of years residing on SI was unlikely to be an important breast cancer mortality risk.
Multivariate logistic regression (first approach), with age and SI Puberty as variables, determined an odds ratio for SI Puberty of 1.35. Adding either length of residence on Staten Island or birth on Staten Island did not improve the accuracy of this result. The analysis established that the 95% confidence interval for the odds ratio was 1.18 to 1.55.
Using the alternate technique (second approach) of simulating random age-matched case-control studies yielded an average odds ratio of 1.43 with a 95% confidence interval of 1.35 to 1.51 (Table 3). The odds ratio obtained was statistically equivalent to the previous result but had a narrower confidence interval. Further mathematical analysis is needed to establish the validity of the second approach, and this will be the subject of a future paper. The two independent techniques concluded that residing on Staten Island during puberty was a significant risk factor.
It is true that 70% of the cases that resided on SI during their puberty years were also born on SI. The multivariate analysis including age, SI Puberty, and SI Birth returned an odds ratio of less than one (negative risk) for SI Birth implying that the important risk was SI Puberty. Furthermore, the dataset included 65 women born on Staten Island who moved away before puberty and then returned to Staten Island. None of these women died of breast cancer. While additional study is needed, these two results suggest that the important exposure was during puberty and not in utero.
Additionally, it is necessary to study Staten Island's unique environmental risks relating to breast cancer to identify possible exposures women had during the window of susceptibility. An unusual geological feature of SI are serpentine outcroppings. This ridge of serpentine makes up approximately one-quarter of the land area [40]. Serpentine outcrops are associated with known carcinogens including asbestos, chromium, and cadmium [41],[42]. Between 1917 and 1970, SI drinking water was stored in the Silver Lake reservoir which sat on top of serpentine rock. Starting in 1970, the drinking water was stored in reinforced concrete tanks holding 100 million gallons [12],[40].
The Fresh Kills Landfill was established by the City of New York on SI [43] in 1948 and became the largest open dump [11] in the world. For over 50 years, until its closure in 2001, this landfill received most of New York City's household solid waste [43],[44]. Bordering Fresh Kills Landfill was Brookfield Landfill (a designated Superfund site), where it was determined that illegal toxic waste dumping occurred [45],[46]. Contaminants to human health included inorganics (metals), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs), pesticides and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). Recently DOHMH concluded that a “... proximity analysis did not suggest that breast cancer rates were higher near the landfill….” [16].
The authors have concluded that there are several limitations to this study. Death certificate data was obtained from DOHMH in November 2008. Due to the complex nature of the dataset, merging various attributes required unanticipated extra resources and time. This study covered breast cancer mortality between the years 1985 and 2006. The results should be confirmed with studies on more recent time periods. Additionally, there are limitations associated with using obituary data. The two main reasons for a person who died on SI with a DOHMH death certificate but no SI Advance death notice was the family's desire for privacy or funeral arrangements off Staten Island. This was true for both cases and controls. The result in this paper should be corroborated by other studies where residence during puberty can be established by an alternate approach.
This paper examined breast cancer mortality risk associated with residing on Staten Island during puberty. Two independent statistical approaches obtained equivalent results suggesting that puberty was a significant window of susceptibility. This conclusion supports the recommendation of IBCERCC that researchers study the timing of exposure to breast cancer risk factors [19]. The current analysis strongly suggests that the mechanism occurred during puberty and not in utero. Additionally, this study indicated that the location of the individual during puberty affected breast cancer mortality approximately half a century later. This confirms the conjecture that there is a long latency period between the exposure and the outcome of breast cancer [23].
While this study has identified a window of susceptibility for breast cancer risk for Staten Island, it has not identified specific environmental exposures associated with that risk. It is possible that the improvements in environmental quality over time have reduced the breast cancer mortality risk faced by current Staten Island females during puberty. The next step in studying this question is to identify other geographic areas with similar environmental perturbations that have high breast cancer incidence and mortality rates to determine if there is a commonality with Staten Island.
[1] | Amarlou A, Coccia M (2023) Estimation of diffusion modelling of unhealthy nanoparticles by using natural and safe microparticles. NCR 8: 117-121. https://doi.org/10.22036/ncr.2023.02.004 |
[2] | Kargı B, Coccia M, Uçkaç B (2023) Findings from the first wave of covid-19 on the different impacts of lockdown on public health and economic growth. Int J Econ Sci 12: 21-39. https://doi.org/10.52950/ES.2023.12.2.002 |
[3] |
Kargı B, Coccia M, Uçkaç Bekir Cihan (2023) The relation between restriction policies against Covid-19, economic growth and mortality rate in society. Migr Lett 20: 218-231. https://doi.org/10.47059/ml.v20i5.3538 ![]() |
[4] |
Kargı B, Coccia M, Uçkaç Bekir Cihan (2023) How does the wealth level of nations affect their COVID19 vaccination plans?. Econ Manag Sustai 8: 6-19. https://doi.org/10.14254/jems.2023.8-2.1 ![]() |
[5] |
Coccia M (2021) Recurring waves of COVID-19 pandemic with different effects in public health. JEB 8: 28-45. http://dx.doi.org/10.1453/jeb.v8i1.2184 ![]() |
[6] |
Uçkaç BC, Coccia M, Kargı B (2023) Diffusion COVID-19 in polluted regions: Main role of wind energy for sustainable and health. Int J Membr Sc Technol 10: 2755-2767. https://doi.org/10.15379/ijmst.v10i3.2286 ![]() |
[7] | Uçkaç BC, Coccia M, Kargı B (2023) Simultaneous encouraging effects of new technologies for socioeconomic and environmental sustainability. Bull Soc-Econo Humanit Res 19: 100-120. https://doi.org/10.52270/26585561_2023_19_21_100 |
[8] | Abel JG, Gietel-Basten S (2020) International remittance flows and the economic and social consequences of COVID-19. Environ 52: 1480-1482. |
[9] |
Akan AP, Coccia M (2022) Changes of air pollution between countries because of lockdowns to face COVID-19 pandemic. Appl Sci 12: 12806. https://doi.org/10.3390/app122412806 ![]() |
[10] |
Akan AP, Coccia M (2023) Transmission of COVID-19 in cities with weather conditions of high air humidity: Lessons learned from Turkish Black Sea region to face next pandemic crisis. COVID 3: 1648-1662. https://doi.org/10.3390/covid3110113 ![]() |
[11] |
Bontempi E, Coccia M, Vergalli S, et al. (2021) Can commercial trade represent the main indicator of the COVID-19 diffusion due to human-to-human interactions? A comparative analysis between Italy, France, and Spain. Environ Res 201: 111529. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2021.111529 ![]() |
[12] |
Coccia M (2020) Factors determining the diffusion of COVID-19 and suggested strategy to prevent future accelerated viral infectivity similar to COVID. Sci Total Environ 729: 138474. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.138474 ![]() |
[13] |
Coccia M (2021) The impact of first and second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic: comparative analysis to support control measures to cope with negative effects of future infectious diseases in society. Environ Res 197: 111099. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2021.111099 ![]() |
[14] |
Coccia M (2022) Optimal levels of vaccination to reduce COVID-19 infected individuals and deaths: A global analysis. Environ Res 204: 112314. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2021.112314 ![]() |
[15] |
Coccia M (2023) High potential of technology to face new respiratory viruses: mechanical ventilation devices for effective healthcare to next pandemic emergencies. Technol Soc 73: 102233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2023.102233 ![]() |
[16] |
Goolsbee A, Syverson C (2021) Fear, lockdown, and diversion: Comparing drivers of pandemic economic decline 2020. J Public Econ 193: 104311. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2020.104311 ![]() |
[17] |
Núñez-Delgado A, Bontempi E, Coccia M, et al. (2021) SARS-CoV-2 and other pathogenic microorganisms in the environment. Environ Res 201: 111606. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2021.111606 ![]() |
[18] |
Tisdell CA (2020) Economic, social and political issues raised by the COVID-19 pandemic. Econ Anal Policy 68: 17-28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eap.2020.08.002 ![]() |
[19] |
Huang BZ, Creekmur B, Yoo MS, et al. (2022) Healthcare utilization among patients diagnosed with COVID-19 in a large integrated health system. J Gen Intern Med 37: 830-837. ![]() |
[20] | Beaulieu M, Roy J, Rebolledo C, et al. (2022) The management of personal protective equipment during the COVID-19 pandemic: The case of the province of Quebec. HMF 35: 48-52. https://doi.org/10.1177/08404704211053996 |
[21] |
Persad G, Largent E (2022) COVID-19 vaccine refusal and fair allocation of scarce medical resources. JAMA Health Forum 3: e220356. ![]() |
[22] |
Beleche T, Kuecken M, Sassi A, et al. (2022) Characteristics of Medical Device Shortages in the US, 2006–20. Health Affair 41: 1790-1794. https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.2022.00643 ![]() |
[23] | Rajaram, Pandey AK, Saproo S, et al. (2022) A research study to understand the impact of pandemic on healthcare workers. J Inform Optim Sci 43: 1209-1220. |
[24] |
Burrowes SA, Casey SM, Pierre-Joseph N, et al. (2023) COVID-19 pandemic impacts on mental health, burnout, and longevity in the workplace among healthcare workers: A mixed methods study. J Interprofessional Educ Prac 32: 100661. ![]() |
[25] |
Jordan JA, Shannon C, Browne D, et al. (2023) Healthcare staff mental health trajectories during the COVID-19 pandemic: findings from the COVID-19 Staff Wellbeing Survey. BJPsych Open 9: e112. ![]() |
[26] |
Poon YS, Lin YP, Griffiths P, et al. (2022) A global overview of healthcare workers' turnover intention amid COVID-19 pandemic: A systematic review with future directions. Hum Resour Health 20: 1-8. ![]() |
[27] |
Lestari F, Kadir A, Puspitasari A, et al. (2023) Hospital preparedness for COVID-19 in Indonesia. Front Public Health 11: 1187698. ![]() |
[28] |
Nuzzo JB, Gostin LO (2022) COVID-19 and lessons to improve preparedness for the next pandemic—Reply. JAMA 327: 1823. ![]() |
[29] |
Coccia M (2023) Sources, diffusion, and prediction in COVID-19 pandemic: lessons learned to face next health emergency. AIMS Public Health 10: 145-168. https://doi.org/10.3934/publichealth.2023012 ![]() |
[30] |
Khan JR, Awan N, Islam MM, et al. (2020) Healthcare capacity, health expenditure, and civil society as predictors of COVID-19 case fatalities: a global analysis. Front Public Health 8: 347. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2020.00347 ![]() |
[31] |
Magazzino C, Mele M, Coccia M (2022) A machine learning algorithm to analyze the effects of vaccination on COVID-19 mortality. Epidemiol Infect 150: e168. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0950268822001418 ![]() |
[32] |
Padilla L (2023) The health resources and services administration–bureau of health workforce response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Public Health Rep 138: 6S-8S. ![]() |
[33] |
Bustamante Izquierdo JP, Puertas EB, Hernández D, et al. (2023) COVID-19 and human resources for health: analysis of planning, policy responses and actions in Latin American and Caribbean countries. Hum Resour Health 21: 21. ![]() |
[34] |
McGill N, Weller-Newton J, Lees C (2022) A new survey tool for evaluating pandemic preparedness in health services. BMC Health Serv Res 22: 708. ![]() |
[35] | Benati I, Coccia M (2022) Effective contact tracing system minimizes COVID-19 related infections and deaths: Policy lessons to reduce the impact of future pandemic diseases. J Public Admin Gov 12: 19-33. https://doi.org/10.5296/jpag.v12i3.19834 |
[36] |
Daniels RS, McCauley JW (2023) The health of influenza surveillance and pandemic preparedness in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. J Gen Virol 104: p.001822. ![]() |
[37] |
Huhtakangas M, Kihlström L, Karreinen S, et al. (2022) “A basic frame existed but was not followed” –Finnish public health system's response to COVID-19. Eur J Public Health 32: ckac131-009. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckac131.009 ![]() |
[38] |
Moussallem M, Zein-El-Din A, Hamra R, et al. (2022) Evaluating the governance and preparedness of the Lebanese health system for the COVID-19 pandemic: a qualitative study. BMJ Open 12: e058622. ![]() |
[39] |
Aristei L, D'Ambrosio F, Villani L, et al. (2022) Public health regulations and policies dealing with preparedness and emergency management: The experience of the COVID-19 pandemic in Italy. Int Environ Res Public Health 19: 1091. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19031091 ![]() |
[40] |
Parrado S, Galli D (2021) Intergovernmental veto points in crisis management: Italy and Spain facing the COVID-19 pandemic. Int Re Adm Sci 87: 576-592. ![]() |
[41] |
Marginean S, Orastean R (2022) Health spending patterns and COVID-19 crisis in European Union: A cross-country analysis. Systems 10: 238. ![]() |
[42] |
Gupta I (2022) Financing for a resilient health system in India: Lessons from the COVID Pandemic. Health dimensions of COVID-19 in India and beyond 2022: 245. ![]() |
[43] | Ovsiannikova MA (2022) The impact of health expenditure on COVID-19 mortality. Управленческое консультирование 7: 163-184. |
[44] |
Oshinubi K, Rachdi M, Demongeot J (2022) Analysis of reproduction number R0 of COVID-19 using current health expenditure as gross domestic product percentage (CHE/GDP) across countries. Healthcare 9: 1247. ![]() |
[45] |
Godshall CE, Banach DB (2021) Pandemic Preparedness. Infect Dis Clin N Am 35: 1077-1089. ![]() |
[46] |
Armstrong D, Moore J, Fraher EP, et al. (2021) COVID-19 and the health workforce. Med Care Res Rev 78: 4S-6S. ![]() |
[47] | Roehr B (2022) Rise in US spending on healthcare in 2009 was twice that in UK. Brit Med J 2012: 344. |
[48] | Aba G, Ateş M (2016) The relationship between health expenditure and socioeconomic/demographic indicators: an international comparison. J Int Health Sci Manag 2: 113-118. |
[49] | Raghupathi V, Raghupathi W (2021) The association between healthcare resource allocation and health status: an empirical insight with visual analytics. J Public Health 2021: 1-23. |
[50] |
Karanikolos M, Azzopardi-Muscat N, Ricciardi W, et al. (2022) The impact of austerity policies on health systems in Southern Europe. Social Welfare Issues in Southern Europe.Routledge 119-139. ![]() |
[51] |
Levaggi R, Menoncin F (2013) Soft budget constraints in health care: evidence from Italy. Eur J Health Econ 14: 725-737. ![]() |
[52] | Crivelli E, Leive A, Stratmann MT (2010) Subnational health spending and soft budget constraints in OECD countries. International Monetary Fund . |
[53] |
Aizenman J, Ito H (2023) Post COVID-19 exit strategies and emerging markets economic challenges. Rev Int Econ 31: 1-34. ![]() |
[54] |
Agoraki MK, Kardara S, Kollintzas T, et al. (2023) Debt-to-GDP changes and the great recession: European Periphery versus European Core. Int J Finance Econ 28: 3299-3331. ![]() |
[55] |
Essers D, Cassimon D (2022) Towards HIPC 2.0? Lessons from past debt relief initiatives for addressing current debt problems. JGD 13: 187-231. ![]() |
[56] |
Bacchiocchi E, Borghi E, Missale A (2011) Public investment under fiscal constraints. Fiscal Studies 32: 11-42. ![]() |
[57] | Souliotis K, Papadonikolaki J, Papageorgiou M, et al. (2018) The impact of crisis on health and health care: Thoughts and data on the Greek case. Arch Hell Med 35: 9-16. |
[58] | Theodoropoulou S (2022) Recovery, resilience and growth regimes under overlapping EU conditionalities: the case of Greece. CEP 20: 201-219. |
[59] | Burriel Llombart P, Checherita-Westphal C, Jacquinot P, et al. (2020) Economic consequences of high public debt: evidence from three large scale DSGE models. Documentos de Trabajo/Banco de España . https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3676264 |
[60] |
Azizi H, Esmaeili ED, Fakhari A (2020) Challenges and accurate estimates of mortality and case-fatality rates due to COVID-19. New Microbes New Infect 38: 100775. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nmni.2020.100775 ![]() |
[61] | Papaioannou MG, Tsetsekos G (2021) Sovereign debt, management, and restructurings during the COVID-19 pandemic. Multinatl Finance J 25: 63-71. |
[62] | Sagan A, Thomas S, McKee M, et al. (2020) COVID-19 and health systems resilience: lessons going forwards. Eurohealth 26: 20-24. |
[63] |
Coccia M (2021) Pandemic Prevention: Lessons from COVID-19. Encyclopedia 1: 433-444. https://doi.org/10.3390/encyclopedia1020036 ![]() |
[64] | Bouchet MH, Clark E, Groslambert B Country risk assessment: A guide to global investment strategy 1st Edition, Wiley (2023). |
[65] | Coccia M (2021) Comparative critical decisions in management. Global Encyclopedia of Public Administration, Public Policy, and Governance. Cham: Springer Nature. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-31816-5_3969-1 |
[66] | Nickel C, Rother P, Zimmermann L (2010) Major public debt reductions: Lessons from the past, lessons for the future. Eur Cent Bank Working Paper Series : 1241. |
[67] | Köhler-Töglhofer W, Zagler M (2004) The impact of different fiscal policy regimes on public debt dynamics. Public Debt Conference . Available from: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2070714. |
[68] |
Iwata Y, IIboshi H (2023) The nexus between public debt and the government spending multiplier: fiscal adjustments matter. Oxf Bull Econ Stat 85: 830-858. https://doi.org/10.1111/obes.12547 ![]() |
[69] | ECB.Government debt reduction strategies in the Euro area. Econ Bull (2016) 4: 1-20. |
[70] | De Soyres C, Kawai R, Wang M (2022) Public debt and real GDP: Revisiting the impact. International Monetary Fund . |
[71] |
Heimberger P (2022) Do higher public debt levels reduce economic growth?. J Econ Surv 37: 1061-1089. https://doi.org/10.1111/joes.12536 ![]() |
[72] |
Panizza U, Presbitero AF (2014) Public debt and economic growth: is there a causal effect?. J Macroecon 41: 21-41. ![]() |
[73] | Fan RY, Lederman D, Nguyen H, et al. (2023) Calamities, debt, and growth in developing countries. IMF Econ Rev : 1-21. |
[74] |
Georgantas G, Kasselaki M, Tagkalakis A (2023) Τhe effects of fiscal consolidation in OECD countries. Econ Model 118: 106099. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2022.106099 ![]() |
[75] | CBO.Consequences of a growing national debt. Budgets & Projections (2014) . Available from: https://www.crfb.org/blogs/cbo-consequences-growing-national-debt. |
[76] | Coccia M (2018) National debts and government deficits within European Monetary Union: Statistical evidence of economic issues. arXiv . Available from: http://arxiv.org/abs/1806.07830. |
[77] |
McKee M, Karanikolos M, Belcher P, et al. (2012) Austerity: a failed experiment on the people of Europe. J Clin Med 12: 346. https://doi.org/10.7861/clinmedicine.12-4-346 ![]() |
[78] | Global Burden of Disease 2021 Health Financing Collaborator Network.Global investments in pandemic preparedness and COVID-19: development assistance and domestic spending on health between 1990 and 2026. Lancet Glob Health (2023) 11: e385-e413. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2214-109X(23)00007-4 |
[79] | Alesina A, Favero C, Giavazzi F (2019) Austerity: When it works and when it doesn't.Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvc77f4b |
[80] | Coccia M, Benati I (2023) How healthcare expenditures affect covid-19 fatality rate across European countries?. medRxiv . https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.06.23.23291808 |
[81] |
Coccia M (2021) The relation between length of lockdown, numbers of infected people and deaths of COVID-19, and economic growth of countries: Lessons learned to cope with future pandemics similar to COVID-19. Sci Total Environ 775: 145801. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.145801 ![]() |
[82] |
Coccia M (2022) Improving preparedness for next pandemics: Max level of COVID-19 vaccinations without social impositions to design effective health policy and avoid flawed democracies. Environ Res 213: 113566. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2022.113566 ![]() |
[83] |
Coccia M (2022) Meta-analysis to explain unknown causes of the origins of SARS-COV-2. Environ Res 111: 113062. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2022.113062 ![]() |
[84] |
Coccia M (2022) Preparedness of countries to face COVID-19 pandemic crisis: Strategic positioning and underlying structural factors to support strategies of prevention of pandemic threats. Environ Res 203: 111678. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2021.111678 ![]() |
[85] | Benati I, Coccia M (2022) Global analysis of timely COVID-19 vaccinations: Improving governance to reinforce response policies for pandemic crises. Int J Health Gov 27: 240-253. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJHG-07-2021-0072 |
[86] | Kluge HHP, Nitzan D, Azzopardi-Muscat N (2020) COVID-19: reflecting on experience and anticipating the next steps. A perspective from the WHO Regional Office for Europe. Eurohealth 26: 13-15. |
[87] |
Legido-Quigley H, Asgari N, Teo YY, et al. (2020) Are high-performing health systems resilient against the COVID-19 epidemic?. Lancet 395: 848-850. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(20)30551-1 ![]() |
[88] | Coccia M (2019) Comparative institutional changes. Global Encyclopedia of Public Administration, Public Policy, and Governance.Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-31816-5_1277-1 |
[89] | Coccia M (2019) Theories of development. Global Encyclopedia of Public Administration, Public Policy, and Governance.Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-31816-5_939-1 |
[90] |
Penkler M, Müller R, Kenney M, et al. (2020) Back to normal? Building community resilience after COVID-19. Lancet Diabetes Endo 8: 664-665. https://doi.org/10.1016/s2213-8587(20)30237-0 ![]() |
[91] |
Allen Douglas W (2022) Covid-19 lockdown cost/benefits: A critical assessment of the literature. Int J Econ Bus 29: 1-32. https://doi.org/13571516.2021.1976051 ![]() |
[92] |
Barro RJ (2020) Non-pharmaceutical interventions and mortality in U.S. cities during the great influenza pandemic, 1918–1919. Res Econ 76: 93-106. https://doi.org/10.3386/w27049 ![]() |
[93] | McKee MA (2020) European roadmap out of the covid-19 pandemic. Brit Med J 369. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.m1556 |
[94] |
Coccia M (2022) COVID-19 vaccination is not a sufficient public policy to face crisis management of next pandemic threats. Public Organ Rev 23: 1353-1367. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11115-022-00661-6 ![]() |
[95] |
Coccia M (2022) COVID-19 pandemic over 2020 (with lockdowns) and 2021 (with vaccinations): similar effects for seasonality and environmental factors. Environ Res 208: 112711. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2022.112711 ![]() |
[96] |
Kapitsinis N (2020) The underlying factors of the COVID-19 spatially uneven spread. Initial evidence from regions in nine EU countries. Reg Sci Policy Pract 12: 1027-1045. https://doi.org/10.1111/rsp3.12340 ![]() |
[97] | EurostatGeneral government gross debt (2023). Available from: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/sdg_17_40/default/table?lang=en |
[98] | EurostatGovernment deficit/surplus, debt and associated data (2024). Available from: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/gov_10dd_edpt1/default/table?lang=en&category=gov.gov_gfs10.gov_10dd |
[99] | JHUCOVID-19 Dashboard by the Center for Systems Science and Engineering (CSSE) at Johns Hopkins University (JHU) (2023). Available from: https://www.arcgis.com/apps/dashboards/bda7594740fd40299423467b48e9ecf6 |
[100] | WHOGlobal health expenditure database: current health expenditure by financing schemes (2023). Available from: https://apps.who.int/nha/database/Select/Indicators/en |
[101] |
Coccia M (2017) Asymmetric paths of public debts and of general government deficits across countries within and outside the European monetary unification and economic policy of debt dissolution. The Journal of Economic Asymmetries 15: 17-31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeca.2016.10.003 ![]() |
Number | Average Age | SI Puberty |
SI Birth |
Average SI Years | |||
Number | % | Number | % | ||||
Cases | 923 | 66 | 463 | 50 | 324 | 35 | 45 |
Controls | 10722 | 75 | 4235 | 39 | 3226 | 30 | 49 |
Total | 11645 | 74 | 4698 | 40 | 3550 | 30 | 49 |
Cases | Controls | ||
SI Puberty | 463 | 4235 | 4698 |
Not SI Puberty | 460 | 6487 | 6947 |
923 | 10722 | 11645 |
Confidence Interval |
|||
Odds ratio | Lower | Upper | |
Match 1 | 1.33 | 1.14 | 1.56 |
Match 2 | 1.39 | 1.18 | 1.63 |
Match 3 | 1.43 | 1.22 | 1.67 |
Match 4 | 1.46 | 1.25 | 1.71 |
Match 5 | 1.42 | 1.21 | 1.67 |
Match 6 | 1.44 | 1.22 | 1.68 |
Match 7 | 1.44 | 1.22 | 1.68 |
Match 8 | 1.45 | 1.24 | 1.70 |
Match 9 | 1.45 | 1.24 | 1.70 |
Match 10 | 1.47 | 1.25 | 1.72 |
Match 11 | 1.40 | 1.19 | 1.64 |
Match 12 | 1.42 | 1.21 | 1.66 |
Match 13 | 1.50 | 1.28 | 1.76 |
Match 14 | 1.46 | 1.25 | 1.71 |
Match 15 | 1.39 | 1.19 | 1.63 |
Mean | 1.43 | ||
SD | 0.041 |
Number | Average Age | SI Puberty |
SI Birth |
Average SI Years | |||
Number | % | Number | % | ||||
Cases | 923 | 66 | 463 | 50 | 324 | 35 | 45 |
Controls | 10722 | 75 | 4235 | 39 | 3226 | 30 | 49 |
Total | 11645 | 74 | 4698 | 40 | 3550 | 30 | 49 |
Cases | Controls | ||
SI Puberty | 463 | 4235 | 4698 |
Not SI Puberty | 460 | 6487 | 6947 |
923 | 10722 | 11645 |
Confidence Interval |
|||
Odds ratio | Lower | Upper | |
Match 1 | 1.33 | 1.14 | 1.56 |
Match 2 | 1.39 | 1.18 | 1.63 |
Match 3 | 1.43 | 1.22 | 1.67 |
Match 4 | 1.46 | 1.25 | 1.71 |
Match 5 | 1.42 | 1.21 | 1.67 |
Match 6 | 1.44 | 1.22 | 1.68 |
Match 7 | 1.44 | 1.22 | 1.68 |
Match 8 | 1.45 | 1.24 | 1.70 |
Match 9 | 1.45 | 1.24 | 1.70 |
Match 10 | 1.47 | 1.25 | 1.72 |
Match 11 | 1.40 | 1.19 | 1.64 |
Match 12 | 1.42 | 1.21 | 1.66 |
Match 13 | 1.50 | 1.28 | 1.76 |
Match 14 | 1.46 | 1.25 | 1.71 |
Match 15 | 1.39 | 1.19 | 1.63 |
Mean | 1.43 | ||
SD | 0.041 |