Analysis 4.3. Comparison 4 Subgroup analyses for primary outcomes, Outcome 3 Frequency of favourable conclusions: recoding favourable conclusions.

Background Researchers worldwide are actively engaging in research activities to search for preventive and therapeutic interventions against COVID-19. Our aim was to describe the planning of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in terms of timing related to the course of the COVID-19 epidemic and research question evaluated. Method We performed a living mapping of RCTs registered in the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. We systematically search the platform every week for all RCTs evaluating preventive interventions and treatments for COVID-19 and created a publicly available interactive mapping tool at https://covid-nma.com to visualize all trials registered. Results By August 12, 2020, 1,568 trials for COVID-19 were registered worldwide. Overall, the median ([Q1-Q3]; range) delay between the first case recorded in each country and the first RCT registered was 47 days ([33-67]; 15-163). For the 9 countries with the highest number of trials registered, most trials were registered after the peak of the epidemic (from 100% trials in Italy to 38% in the United States). Most trials evaluated treatments (1,333 trials; 85%); only 223 (14%) evaluated preventive strategies and 12 post-acute period intervention. A total of 254 trials were planned to assess different regimens of hydroxychloroquine with an expected sample size of 110,883 patients. Conclusion This living mapping analysis showed that COVID-19 trials have relatively small sample size with certain redundancy in research questions. Most trials were registered when the first peak of the pandemic have passed.

The presence of supportive relatives was found to be associated with lower occurrence of anxiety and depression. Health professionals should focus on including relatives in the treatment and rehabilitation of heart patients.

BackgroundThe increasing health expenditure for general practitioners (GPs) in Denmark requires that other ways of financing the health system are investigated. This study aims to analyse possibilities for implementing out-of-pocket payments to GPs in Denmark.MethodsThe study was conducted as a literature review with 11 articles included. The Health Policy Triangle and the Kingdon Model were used in analysing and discussing the implementation of a cost-sharing policy with an emphasis on the out-of-pocket payments method.ResultsThe Danish Parliament has expressed mixed opinions about out-of-pocket payments, whereas the Danish population, the GPs and the media are against introducing payments. The public debate and the fact that Danes are used to healthcare being free of charge both work against introducing co-payments. However, experiences from Sweden, Norway and OECD countries serve to promote implementation, but at the expense of decreased accessibility for the most vulnerable population groups.ConclusionsIntroducing out-of-pocket payments in Denmark may lead to decreased health expenditure, but also increased inequalities. Due to a lack of support from the relevant policy actors in the country, in addition to a lack of a policy window, it may not be possible to introduce out-of-pocket payments for GPs in Denmark in the short term.