Manipis Kathleen, Street Deborah, Cronin Paula, Viney Rosalie, Goodall Stephen
Centre for Health Economics Research and Evaluation, University of Technology Sydney, PO Box 123, Broadway, Sydney, NSW, 2007, Australia.
Patient. 2021 May;14(3):359-371. doi: 10.1007/s40271-021-00503-5. Epub 2021 Mar 11.
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.
2020年，所有国家都经历了社会和经济混乱以及新冠疫情对卫生安全的威胁，但各国在控制措施方面的应对差异很大。虽然隔离、封锁和社交距离等控制措施减少了感染及与感染相关的死亡，但它们也带来了严重的负面经济和社会后果。
本研究的目的是探讨不同传染病控制措施的可接受性，并研究受访者如何在经济和健康结果之间进行权衡。
开展了一项离散选择实验，属性涵盖：控制限制、限制持续时间、追踪、感染和死亡人数、失业、政府支出和额外的个人税收。对澳大利亚人（n = 1046）的代表性样本进行了调查，该调查包括八项选择任务。使用混合逻辑回归分析数据以识别异质性，并使用潜在类别模型检查异质性。
总体而言，受访者对避免与感染相关的高死亡人数的政策有强烈偏好，尽管较低的失业率和政府支出也被认为很重要。受访者倾向于缩短限制持续时间，但对于不同级别的控制措施，他们的偏好没有显著差异。在追踪方面，与不进行追踪相比，受访者更喜欢手机追踪或手环追踪。研究发现了偏好上的显著差异，分为两个不同的类别：第1类（57%）更喜欢在采取一些控制措施的情况下保持经济开放，而第2类（43%）则更倾向于减少可避免死亡的政策。
本研究发现，澳大利亚民众愿意在短期内放弃一些自由，权衡疫情的负面社会和经济影响，以避免负面健康后果。
