Objective The study sought to review the different assessment items that have been used within existing health app evaluation frameworks aimed at individual, clinician, or organizational users, and to analyze the scoring and evaluation methods used in these frameworks. Materials and Methods We searched multiple bibliographic databases and conducted backward searches of reference lists, using search terms that were synonyms of “health apps,” “evaluation,” and “frameworks.” The review covered publications from 2011 to April 2020. Studies on health app evaluation frameworks and studies that elaborated on the scaling and scoring mechanisms applied in such frameworks were included. Results Ten common domains were identified across general health app evaluation frameworks. A list of 430 assessment criteria was compiled across 97 identified studies. The most frequently used scaling mechanism was a 5-point Likert scale. Most studies have adopted summary statistics to generate the total scoring of each app, and the most popular approach taken was the calculation of mean or average scores. Other frameworks did not use any scaling or scoring mechanism and adopted criteria-based, pictorial, or descriptive approaches, or “threshold” filter. Discussion There is wide variance in the approaches to evaluating health apps within published frameworks, and this variance leads to ongoing uncertainty in how to evaluate health apps. Conclusions A new evaluation framework is needed that can integrate the full range of evaluative criteria within one structure, and provide summative guidance on health app rating, to support individual app users, clinicians, and health organizations in choosing or recommending the best health app.

Background Concerns have grown that post-acute sequelae of COVID-19 may affect significant numbers of survivors. However, the analyses used to guide policy-making for Australia’s national and state re-opening plans have not incorporated non-acute illness in their modelling. We, therefore, develop a model by which to estimate the potential acute and post-acute COVID-19 burden using disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) associated with the re-opening of Australian borders and the easing of other public health measures, with particular attention to longer-term, post-acute consequences and the potential impact of permanent functional impairment following COVID-19. Methods A model was developed based on the European Burden of Disease Network protocol guideline and consensus model to estimate the burden of COVID-19 using DALYs. Data inputs were based on publicly available sources. COVID-19 infection and different scenarios were drawn from the Doherty Institute’s modelling report to estimate the likely DALY losses under the Australian national re-opening plan. Long COVID prevalence, post-intensive care syndrome (PICS) and potential permanent functional impairment incidences were drawn from the literature. DALYs were calculated for the following health states: the symptomatic phase, Long COVID, PICS and potential permanent functional impairment (e.g., diabetes, Parkinson’s disease, dementia, anxiety disorders, ischemic stroke). Uncertainty and sensitivity analysis were performed to examine the robustness of the results. Results Mortality was responsible for 72-74% of the total base case COVID-19 burden. Long COVID and post-intensive care syndrome accounted for at least 19 and 3% of the total base case DALYs respectively. When included in the analysis, potential permanent impairment could contribute to 51-55% of total DALYs lost. Conclusions The impact of Long COVID and potential long-term post-COVID disabilities could contribute substantially to the COVID-19 burden in Australia’s post-vaccination setting. As vaccination coverage increases, the share of COVID-19 burden driven by longer-term morbidity rises relative to mortality. As Australia re-opens, better estimates of the COVID-19 burden can assist with decision-making on pandemic control measures and planning for the healthcare needs of COVID-19 survivors. Our estimates highlight the importance of valuing the morbidity of post-COVID-19 sequelae, above and beyond simple mortality and case statistics.

In 2021, the overall performance of the Australian health care system was ranked third of eleven high income countries by the Commonwealth Fund (New York), but only eighth for providing affordable, timely access to care. 1 As in other countries, the Australian health care system has been challenged by coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), leading to the establishment of a major taskforce for improving access to primary health care. 2 The publicly funded universal health care scheme introduced in 1984, Medicare, is underpinned by principles of simple, fair, and affordable health care. 3 But Medicare is a complex system comprising multiple financial schemes at the federal and state levels and subsidies to the private sector (Box 1).In this review, we identify the financing and policy challenges for Medicare and universal health care in Australia, as well as opportunities for whole-of-system strengthening. In particular: What have been the major challenges and problems for the Australian universal health care system since 2000? What policy reforms have been proposed to improve the system? MethodsWe searched the MEDLINE Complete, Health Policy Reference Centre, and Global Health databases (all via EBSCO) for publications to 14 August 2021 on Medicare, the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, and the universal health care system in Australia. For further studies and grey literature we searched the Analysis & Policy Observatory (APO; https://apo.org.au), the Australian Indigenous HealthInfoNet (https://healt hinfo net.ecu.edu.au), the Australian Public Affairs Information Service (APAIS; https://search.infor mit.org/ourco llect ions/ index es/APAIS), Google, Google Scholar, and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) websites (https://data.oecd.org/healt hres/health-spend ing.htm). The major search term concepts were "Medicare", "Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme", "health financing", "out-of-pocket costs", "universal healthcare", and "public-private sector partnership" (Supporting Information, part 1). Study selection, data extractionFor this review, we included articles on the Australian health care system published since 2000 that reported quantitative or qualitative research or data analyses; we also included opinion articles, debates, commentaries, editorials, perspectives, and news reports published from 1 January 2015. We excluded articles in languages other than English, program-, interventionor provider-specific articles, publications regarding groups not fully covered by Medicare (eg, asylum seekers, prisoners), and search results for which full text was not available (eg, conference abstracts).Author MA screened the titles and abstracts of retrieved items for relevance; authors MA, PC, and MH independently reviewed the full text of articles for eligibility. The included articles were grouped by emergent themes for our analysis. ResultsOur database search identified 940 potentially relevant publications; after screening and full text review, 28 study reports were deemed eligible for our rev...

Introduction The prevalence of obesity is increasing in developed countries, including Australia. There is evidence that bariatric surgery is effective in losing weight and reducing risk of chronic diseases. However, access to bariatric surgery remains limited in the public health sector. Method We modelled population-based estimates of the likely numbers of people eligible for bariatric surgery in Australia using the recent Australian New Zealand Metabolic and Obesity Surgery Society (ANZMOSS) framework and estimated the potential costs that would be incurred from primary and subsequent reoperations in both public and private sector. Results The annual number of newly eligible patients is expected to rise, and hence the gap in demand is increasing relative to current baseline supply. If a 5-year program to treat all currently eligible patients was implemented, the maximum yearly demand is projected to be 341,343 primary surgeries, more than eight times the existing capacity of public and private sector, which can only offer 41,534 surgeries/year. A nine-fold increase is expected if we treat currently eligible patients over a 5-year program and all newly eligible patients as they occur each year. Conclusion Our results highlighted the currently highly skewed distribution of bariatric surgeries between the private and public sectors. Improving access would bring substantial benefits to many Australians, given the demonstrated cost-effectiveness and cost savings. This requires a major increase in resourcing for publicly-funded access to bariatric surgery in the first instance. A national review of priorities and resourcing for all modes of obesity treatment is required in Australia. Graphical abstract

Background Chronic diseases contribute to a significant proportion (71%) of all deaths each year worldwide. Governments and other stakeholders worldwide have taken various actions to tackle the key risk factors contributing to the prevalence and impact of chronic diseases. Private health insurers (PHI) are one key stakeholders, particularly in Australian health system, and their engagement in chronic disease prevention is growing. Therefore, we investigated the impacts of chronic disease prevention interventions implemented by PHI both in Australia and internationally. Method We searched multiple databases (Business Source Complete, CINAHL, Global Health, Health Business Elite, Medline, PsycINFO, and Scopus) and grey literature for studies/reports published in English until September 2020 using search terms on the impacts of chronic disease prevention interventions delivered by PHIs. Two reviewers assessed the risk of bias using a quality assessment tool developed by Effective Public Healthcare Panacea Project. After data extraction, the literature was synthesised thematically based on the types of the interventions reported across studies. The study protocol was registered in PROSPERO, CRD42020145644. Results Of 7789 records, 29 studies were eligible for inclusion. There were predominantly four types of interventions implemented by PHIs: Financial incentives, health coaching, wellness programs, and group medical appointments. Outcome measures across studies were varied, making it challenging to compare the difference between the effectiveness of different intervention types. Most studies reported that the impacts of interventions, such as increase in healthy eating, physical activity, and lower hospital admissions, last for a shorter term if the length of the intervention is shorter. Interpretation Although it is challenging to conclude which intervention type was the most effective, it appeared that, regardless of the intervention types, PHI interventions of longer duration (at least 2 years) were more beneficial and outcomes were more sustained than those PHI interventions that lasted for a shorter period. Funding Primary source of funding was Geelong Medical and Hospital Benefits Association (GMHBA), an Australian private health insurer.