Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 5 de 5
Filter
1.
Prim Care Diabetes ; 2023 May 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2314239

ABSTRACT

In this population-based cohort study on diabetes care, self-reported quality indicators measured just before (2019) and during (2021) the COVID-19 pandemic were comparable, apart from a modest increase in seasonal influenza immunization and a small decline in patient-centeredness of care in 2021.

2.
Int J Public Health ; 66: 1604223, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1725465

ABSTRACT

Objectives: To explore how perceived disease threat and trust in institutions relate to vaccination intent, perceived effectiveness of official recommendations, and to othering strategies. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional survey of Swiss adults in July 2020. Outcome variables were vaccination intent, perceived effectiveness of official recommendations and othering strategies (labelling a given social group as responsible for the disease and distancing from it). Independent variables were perceived disease threat, trust in various institutions, perceived health-related measures, and sociodemographic variables. Linear and logistic regressions were performed. Results: The response rate was 20.2% (1518/7500). Perceived disease threat and trust in medical/scientific institutions were positively associated with vaccination intent and perceived effectiveness of official recommendations for coronavirus mitigation measures. Only disease threat was associated with a perception of effectiveness among othering strategies. Age and education levels were associated with vaccination intent. Conclusion: Reinforcing trust in medical/scientific institutions can help strengthen the perceived effectiveness of official recommendations and vaccination. It however does not prevent adherence to ineffective protecting measures such as othering strategies, where decreasing perceptions of epidemic threat appears to be more efficient.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Trust , Adult , Cross-Sectional Studies , Humans , Public Opinion , SARS-CoV-2 , Switzerland
3.
BMJ Open ; 12(3): e056086, 2022 03 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1723809

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: To quantitatively assess the early impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on in-person outpatient care utilisation worldwide, as well as across categories of services, types of care and medical specialties. DESIGN: Rapid review. METHOD: A search of MEDLINE and Embase was conducted to identify studies published from 1 January 2020 to 12 February 2021, which quantitatively reported the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the amount of outpatient care services delivered (in-person visits, diagnostic/screening procedures and treatments). There was no restriction on the type of medical care (emergency/primary/specialty care) or target population (adult/paediatric). All articles presenting primary data from studies reporting on outpatient care utilisation were included. Studies describing conditions requiring hospitalisation or limited to telehealth services were excluded. RESULTS: A total of 517 articles reporting 1011 outpatient care utilisation measures in 49 countries worldwide were eligible for inclusion. Of those, 93% focused on the first semester of 2020 (January to June). The reported results showed an almost universal decline in in-person outpatient care utilisation, with a 56% overall median relative decrease. Heterogeneity across countries was high, with median decreases ranging from 10% to 91%. Diagnostic and screening procedures (-63%), as well as in-person visits (-56%), were more affected than treatments (-36%). Emergency care showed a smaller relative decline (-49%) than primary (-60%) and specialty care (-58%). CONCLUSIONS: The provision of in-person outpatient care services has been strongly impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic, but heterogeneously across countries. The long-term population health consequences of the disruption of outpatient care service delivery remain currently unknown and need to be studied. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021237366.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Pandemics , Adult , Ambulatory Care , COVID-19/epidemiology , Child , Delivery of Health Care , Humans , SARS-CoV-2
4.
Int J Environ Res Public Health ; 18(17)2021 08 26.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1374390

ABSTRACT

Our study aimed at investigating the way not having the choice to be reassigned was associated to a poorer experience of reassignment among health care workers (HCWs) during the first wave of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), and indirectly to a lower workplace well-being and reduced intent to stay at the hospital. We also investigated the moderating role of the perceived hospital management responsiveness on these associations. A cross sectional survey was sent to all professionals from 11 hospitals and clinics in the French-speaking part of Switzerland, in July 2020. Out of 2811 professionals who completed the survey, 436 were HCWs reassigned to COVID-19 units during the first wave of the pandemic and constituted our analysis sample. Results indicated that hospital management responsiveness moderated the association between lack of choice and reassignment experience, indicating that the more HCWs perceived responsiveness, the less the lack of choice affected their experience of reassignment and thus their intent to stay and workplace well-being. Lack of choice during reassignments can reduce intent to stay and workplace well-being, in particular if hospital management is not perceived to be responsive during the crisis. Attempts by hospital management to find solutions, such as flexibility in working hours or extraordinary leaves, can alleviate the perceived constraints of reassignment and be considered signs of responsiveness from hospital management.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Workplace , Cross-Sectional Studies , Health Personnel , Humans , SARS-CoV-2 , Switzerland
5.
BMJ Glob Health ; 6(8)2021 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1346060

ABSTRACT

Health system resilience, known as the ability for health systems to absorb, adapt or transform to maintain essential functions when stressed or shocked, has quickly gained popularity following shocks like COVID-19. The concept is relatively new in health policy and systems research and the existing research remains mostly theoretical. Research to date has viewed resilience as an outcome that can be measured through performance outcomes, as an ability of complex adaptive systems that is derived from dynamic behaviour and interactions, or as both. However, there is little congruence on the theory and the existing frameworks have not been widely used, which as diluted the research applications for health system resilience. A global group of health system researchers were convened in March 2021 to discuss and identify priorities for health system resilience research and implementation based on lessons from COVID-19 and other health emergencies. Five research priority areas were identified: (1) measuring and managing systems dynamic performance, (2) the linkages between societal resilience and health system resilience, (3) the effect of governance on the capacity for resilience, (4) creating legitimacy and (5) the influence of the private sector on health system resilience. A key to filling these research gaps will be longitudinal and comparative case studies that use cocreation and coproduction approaches that go beyond researchers to include policy-makers, practitioners and the public.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Emergencies , Government Programs , Health Policy , Humans , SARS-CoV-2
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL