Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 6 de 6
Filter
2.
BMC Health Serv Res ; 21(1): 20, 2021 Jan 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1067225

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The choices that policymakers make are shaped by how their problems are framed. At last, non-communicable diseases (NCDs) have risen high on the global policy agenda, but there are many disputed issues. First, what are they? Their name refers not to what they are but what they are not. Second, where do their boundaries lie? What diseases are included? Third, should we view their causes as mainly biomedical, behavioural, or social, or a combination? Our failure to resolve these issues has been invoked as a reason for our limited progress in developing and implementing effective remedies. In this scoping review, we ask "What is known from the existing literature about how NCDs are framed in the global policy discourses?" We answer it by reviewing the frames employed in policy and academic discourses. METHODS: We searched nine electronic databases for articles published since inception to 31 May 2019. We also reviewed websites of eight international organisations to identify global NCDs policies. We extracted data and synthesised findings to identify key thematic frames. RESULTS: We included 36 articles and nine policy documents on global NCDs policies. We identified five discursive domains that have been used and where there are differing perspectives. These are: "Expanding the NCDs frame to include mental health and air pollution"; "NCDs and their determinants"; "A rights-based approach to NCDs"; "Approaches to achieving policy coherence in NCDs globally"; and "NCDs as part of Sustainable Socio-economic Development". We further identified 12 frames within the five discursive domains. CONCLUSIONS: This scoping review identifies issues that remain unresolved and points to a need for alignment of perspectives among global health policy actors, as well as synergies with those working on mental health, maternal health, and child health. The current COVID-19 pandemic warrants greater consideration of its impact on global NCDs policies. Future global strategies for NCDs need to consider explicitly how NCDs are framed in a changing global health discourse and ensure adequate alignment with implementation and global health issues. There is a need for global strategies to recognise the pertinent role of actors in shaping policy discourses.


Subject(s)
Global Health , Health Policy , Noncommunicable Diseases , COVID-19 , Humans
3.
J Infect Public Health ; 14(3): 285-289, 2021 Mar.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1002803

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: Primary care physicians (PCP) are at a high risk of contracting COVID-19 as they manage patients with fever or respiratory symptoms, but it is intuitive that private and public practice PCPs may face different challenges during this pandemic. This study compared work- and non-work-related concerns, COVID-19's impact on personal and professional lives, and perceived pandemic preparedness between private and public PCPs in Singapore. METHODS: 216 PCPs who were a registered member of either the National University Polyclinics, National University Health System Primary Care Network or College of Family Physicians Singapore, participated in this online cross-sectional study. The data collection period lasted from 6th March 2020 to 29th March 2020. RESULTS: A final sample of 172 questionnaires were analysed. Private PCPs tended to be older and more experienced. Perceived COVID-19 exposure and overall preparedness was high in both groups. More private PCPs perceived their exposure risk as unacceptable, aOR = 3.96 (1.07, 14.62); that they should not be caring for COVID-19 patients, aOR = 3.55 (1.23, 10.24); and perceived more stigma against their loved ones, aOR = 4.27 (1.74, 10.44). Private PCPs felt less well-trained, aOR = 0.05 (0.01, 0.23); and supported, aOR = 0.14 (0.03, 0.63). CONCLUSIONS: Private PCPs are more likely to be self-employed or work in smaller practices where COVID-19 infection could mean loss of livelihood. As a healthcare system without primary care is crippled in its ability to manage outbreaks, authorities should respond appropriately to the needs of their general practitioners and family physicians.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Physicians, Primary Care , Adult , Cross-Sectional Studies , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Occupational Exposure , Private Practice , Singapore/epidemiology , Surveys and Questionnaires , Young Adult
4.
PLoS One ; 15(12): e0244417, 2020.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-978948

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Self-sampling for SARS-CoV-2 would significantly raise testing capacity and reduce healthcare worker (HCW) exposure to infectious droplets personal, and protective equipment (PPE) use. METHODS: We conducted a diagnostic accuracy study where subjects with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 (n = 401) and healthy volunteers (n = 100) were asked to self-swab from their oropharynx and mid-turbinate (OPMT), and self-collect saliva. The results of these samples were compared to an OPMT performed by a HCW in the same patient at the same session. RESULTS: In subjects confirmed to have COVID-19, the sensitivities of the HCW-swab, self-swab, saliva, and combined self-swab plus saliva samples were 82.8%, 75.1%, 74.3% and 86.5% respectively. All samples obtained from healthy volunteers were tested negative. Compared to HCW-swab, the sensitivities of a self-swab sample and saliva sample were inferior by 8.7% (95%CI: 2.4% to 15.0%, p = 0.006) and 9.5% (95%CI: 3.1% to 15.8%, p = 0.003) respectively. The combined detection rate of self-swab and saliva had a sensitivity of 2.7% (95%CI: -2.6% to 8.0%, p = 0.321). The sensitivity of both the self-collection methods are higher when the Ct value of the HCW swab is less than 30. The specificity of both the self-swab and saliva testing was 100% (95% CI 96.4% to 100%). CONCLUSION: Our study provides evidence that sensitivities of self-collected OPMT swab and saliva samples were inferior to a HCW swab, but they could still be useful testing tools in the appropriate clinical settings.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/diagnosis , Nasopharynx/virology , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Saliva/virology , Specimen Handling/methods , Turbinates/virology , Adult , Aged , COVID-19/virology , COVID-19 Testing , Female , Health Personnel , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , Sensitivity and Specificity , Young Adult
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL