Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 95
Filter
1.
J Med Internet Res ; 23(2): e23957, 2021 02 23.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1576022

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: During the COVID-19 pandemic in Canada, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau provided updates on the novel coronavirus and the government's responses to the pandemic in his daily briefings from March 13 to May 22, 2020, delivered on the official Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) YouTube channel. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to examine comments on Canadian Prime Minister Trudeau's COVID-19 daily briefings by YouTube users and track these comments to extract the changing dynamics of the opinions and concerns of the public over time. METHODS: We used machine learning techniques to longitudinally analyze a total of 46,732 English YouTube comments that were retrieved from 57 videos of Prime Minister Trudeau's COVID-19 daily briefings from March 13 to May 22, 2020. A natural language processing model, latent Dirichlet allocation, was used to choose salient topics among the sampled comments for each of the 57 videos. Thematic analysis was used to classify and summarize these salient topics into different prominent themes. RESULTS: We found 11 prominent themes, including strict border measures, public responses to Prime Minister Trudeau's policies, essential work and frontline workers, individuals' financial challenges, rental and mortgage subsidies, quarantine, government financial aid for enterprises and individuals, personal protective equipment, Canada and China's relationship, vaccines, and reopening. CONCLUSIONS: This study is the first to longitudinally investigate public discourse and concerns related to Prime Minister Trudeau's daily COVID-19 briefings in Canada. This study contributes to establishing a real-time feedback loop between the public and public health officials on social media. Hearing and reacting to real concerns from the public can enhance trust between the government and the public to prepare for future health emergencies.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Federal Government , Natural Language Processing , Public Health , Public Opinion , Social Media , COVID-19 Vaccines , Canada , Emigration and Immigration , Financial Stress , Financing, Government , Government , Humans , Longitudinal Studies , Pandemics , Personal Protective Equipment , Public Policy , Quarantine , SARS-CoV-2 , Unsupervised Machine Learning
6.
J Public Health Manag Pract ; 27(5): 492-500, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1501235

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: To examine levels of expenditure and needed investment in public health at the local level in the state of Ohio pre-COVID-19. DESIGN: Using detailed financial reporting from fiscal year (FY) 2018 from Ohio's local health departments (LHDs), we characterize spending by Foundational Public Health Services (FPHS). We also constructed estimates of the gap in public health spending in the state using self-reported gaps in service provision and a microsimulation approach. Data were collected between January and June 2019 and analyzed between June and September 2019. PARTICIPANTS: Eighty-four of the 113 LHDs in the state of Ohio covering a population of almost 9 million Ohioans. RESULTS: In FY2018, Ohio LHDs spent an average of $37 per capita on protecting and promoting the public's health. Approximately one-third of this investment supported the Foundational Areas (communicable disease control; chronic disease and injury prevention; environmental public health; maternal, child, and family health; and access to and linkages with health care). Another third supported the Foundational Capabilities, that is, the crosscutting skills and capacities needed to support all LHD activities. The remaining third supported programs and activities that are responsive to local needs and vary from community to community. To fully meet identified LHD needs in the state pre-COVID-19, Ohio would require an additional annual investment of $20 per capita on top of the current $37 spent per capita, or approximately $240 million for the state. CONCLUSIONS: A better understanding of the cost and value of public health services can educate policy makers so that they can make informed trade-offs when balancing health care, public health, and social services investments. The current environment of COVID-19 may dramatically increase need, making understanding and growing public health investment critical.


Subject(s)
Health Care Costs/statistics & numerical data , Health Services Needs and Demand/economics , Public Health Practice/economics , Public Health/economics , COVID-19/economics , Financing, Government/economics , Humans , Local Government , Ohio
11.
Lancet ; 398(10308): 1317-1343, 2021 10 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1433921

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The rapid spread of COVID-19 renewed the focus on how health systems across the globe are financed, especially during public health emergencies. Development assistance is an important source of health financing in many low-income countries, yet little is known about how much of this funding was disbursed for COVID-19. We aimed to put development assistance for health for COVID-19 in the context of broader trends in global health financing, and to estimate total health spending from 1995 to 2050 and development assistance for COVID-19 in 2020. METHODS: We estimated domestic health spending and development assistance for health to generate total health-sector spending estimates for 204 countries and territories. We leveraged data from the WHO Global Health Expenditure Database to produce estimates of domestic health spending. To generate estimates for development assistance for health, we relied on project-level disbursement data from the major international development agencies' online databases and annual financial statements and reports for information on income sources. To adjust our estimates for 2020 to include disbursements related to COVID-19, we extracted project data on commitments and disbursements from a broader set of databases (because not all of the data sources used to estimate the historical series extend to 2020), including the UN Office of Humanitarian Assistance Financial Tracking Service and the International Aid Transparency Initiative. We reported all the historic and future spending estimates in inflation-adjusted 2020 US$, 2020 US$ per capita, purchasing-power parity-adjusted US$ per capita, and as a proportion of gross domestic product. We used various models to generate future health spending to 2050. FINDINGS: In 2019, health spending globally reached $8·8 trillion (95% uncertainty interval [UI] 8·7-8·8) or $1132 (1119-1143) per person. Spending on health varied within and across income groups and geographical regions. Of this total, $40·4 billion (0·5%, 95% UI 0·5-0·5) was development assistance for health provided to low-income and middle-income countries, which made up 24·6% (UI 24·0-25·1) of total spending in low-income countries. We estimate that $54·8 billion in development assistance for health was disbursed in 2020. Of this, $13·7 billion was targeted toward the COVID-19 health response. $12·3 billion was newly committed and $1·4 billion was repurposed from existing health projects. $3·1 billion (22·4%) of the funds focused on country-level coordination and $2·4 billion (17·9%) was for supply chain and logistics. Only $714·4 million (7·7%) of COVID-19 development assistance for health went to Latin America, despite this region reporting 34·3% of total recorded COVID-19 deaths in low-income or middle-income countries in 2020. Spending on health is expected to rise to $1519 (1448-1591) per person in 2050, although spending across countries is expected to remain varied. INTERPRETATION: Global health spending is expected to continue to grow, but remain unequally distributed between countries. We estimate that development organisations substantially increased the amount of development assistance for health provided in 2020. Continued efforts are needed to raise sufficient resources to mitigate the pandemic for the most vulnerable, and to help curtail the pandemic for all. FUNDING: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/prevention & control , Developing Countries/economics , Economic Development , Healthcare Financing , International Agencies/economics , COVID-19/economics , COVID-19/epidemiology , Financing, Government/economics , Financing, Government/organization & administration , Global Health/economics , Government Programs/economics , Government Programs/organization & administration , Government Programs/statistics & numerical data , Government Programs/trends , Gross Domestic Product , Health Expenditures/statistics & numerical data , Health Expenditures/trends , Humans , International Agencies/organization & administration , International Cooperation
15.
Soc Sci Med ; 287: 114354, 2021 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1377839

ABSTRACT

Collective action between international donors is central to the mobilisation of global solidarity in global health. This is especially important in mental health where resources remain extremely limited. In this paper I investigate global collective action in mental health financing, looking at the responsiveness of international donors to mental health needs in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). I analyse factors at the level of recipient countries (needs, interests, policy environment) associated with allocation of development assistance for mental health (DAMH) using a two-part regression model applied to a time series cross-sectional dataset of 142 LMICs between 2000 and 2015. Findings reveal that international donors' disbursements are not well aligned with mental health needs of recipient countries, and, moreover, contextual factors might be playing more prominent roles in resource allocation. Countries are more likely to receive DAMH if they experience significant outbreaks of infectious diseases or have lower gross domestic product (GDP) per capita and lower market openness. Selected recipient countries are more likely to receive higher DAMH amounts per capita if they have lower GDP per capita, higher government health expenditure, or higher mortality rates due to conflicts or natural disasters. Past DAMH recipients are more likely to be selected and, when selected, to receive higher DAMH amounts per capita. My results demonstrate that more holistic collective action amongst international donors is required to address mental health needs in LMICs. Investments should better reflect needs, particularly during and after emergencies such as COVID-19, and could be amplified by leveraging synergies across other health conditions and sectors.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Healthcare Financing , Cross-Sectional Studies , Developing Countries , Financing, Government , Global Health , Health Expenditures , Humans , Mental Health , SARS-CoV-2
18.
BMC Med ; 19(1): 127, 2021 06 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1249556

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Reducing poverty and improving access to health care are two of the most effective actions to decrease maternal mortality, and conditional cash transfer (CCT) programmes act on both. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of one of the world's largest CCT (the Brazilian Bolsa Familia Programme (BFP)) on maternal mortality during a period of 11 years. METHODS: The study had an ecological longitudinal design and used all 2548 Brazilian municipalities with vital statistics of adequate quality during 2004-2014. BFP municipal coverage was classified into four levels, from low to consolidated, and its duration effects were measured using the average municipal coverage of previous years. We used negative binomial multivariable regression models with fixed-effects specifications, adjusted for all relevant demographic, socioeconomic, and healthcare variables. RESULTS: BFP was significantly associated with reductions of maternal mortality proportionally to its levels of coverage and years of implementation, with a rate ratio (RR) reaching 0.88 (95%CI 0.81-0.95), 0.84 (0.75-0.96) and 0.83 (0.71-0.99) for intermediate, high and consolidated BFP coverage over the previous 11 years. The BFP duration effect was stronger among young mothers (RR 0.77; 95%CI 0.67-0.96). BFP was also associated with reductions in the proportion of pregnant women with no prenatal visits (RR 0.73; 95%CI 0.69-0.77), reductions in hospital case-fatality rate for delivery (RR 0.78; 95%CI 0.66-0.94) and increases in the proportion of deliveries in hospital (RR 1.05; 95%CI 1.04-1.07). CONCLUSION: Our findings show that a consolidated and durable CCT coverage could decrease maternal mortality, and these long-term effects are stronger among poor mothers exposed to CCT during their childhood and adolescence, suggesting a CCT inter-generational effect. Sustained CCT coverage could reduce health inequalities and contribute to the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goal 3.1, and should be preserved during the current global economic crisis due to the COVID-19 pandemic.


Subject(s)
Maternal Mortality/trends , Prenatal Care/economics , Primary Health Care/economics , Public Assistance/economics , Adolescent , Adult , Brazil , COVID-19/economics , Female , Financing, Government , Humans , Poverty/economics , Pregnancy , SARS-CoV-2
20.
Vaccine ; 39(25): 3410-3418, 2021 06 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1233627

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Coverage rates for immunization have dropped in lower income countries during the COVID-19 pandemic, raising concerns regarding potential outbreaks and premature death. In order to re-invigorate immunization service delivery, sufficient financing must be made available from all sources, and particularly from government resources. This study utilizes the most recent data available to provide an updated comparison of available data sources on government spending on immunization. METHODS: We examined data from WHO/UNICEF's Joint Reporting Form (JRF), country Comprehensive Multi-Year Plan (cMYP), country co-financing data for Gavi, and WHO National Health Accounts (NHA) on government spending on immunization for consistency by comparing routine and vaccine spending where both values were reported. We also examined spending trends across time, quantified underreporting and utilized concordance analyses to assess the magnitude of difference between the data sources. RESULTS: Routine immunization spending reported through the cMYP was nearly double that reported through the JRF (rho = 0.64, 95% 0.53 to 0.77) and almost four times higher than that reported through the NHA on average (rho = 3.71, 95% 1.00 to 13.87). Routine immunization spending from the JRF was comparable to spending reported in the NHA (rho = 1.30, 95% 0.97 to 1.75) and vaccine spending from the JRF was comparable to that from the cMYP data (rho = 0.97, 95% 0.84 to 1.12). Vaccine spending from both the JRF and cMYP was higher than Gavi co-financing by a at least two (rho = 2.66, 95% 2.45 to 2.89) and (rho = 2.66, 95% 2.15 to 3.30), respectively. IMPLICATIONS: Overall, our comparative analysis provides a degree of confidence in the validity of existing reporting mechanisms for immunization spending while highlighting areas for potential improvements. Users of these data sources should factor these into consideration when utilizing the data. Additionally, partners should work with governments to encourage more reliable, comprehensive, and accurate reporting of vaccine and immunization spending.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Pandemics , Developing Countries , Financing, Government , Government , Humans , Immunization , Immunization Programs , SARS-CoV-2
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...