Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 19 de 19
Filter
1.
PLoS Negl Trop Dis ; 15(12): e0009904, 2021 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1724768

ABSTRACT

Since its early spread in early 2020, the disease caused by the novel Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) has caused mass disruptions to health services. These have included interruptions to programs that aimed to prevent, control, and eliminate neglected tropical diseases (NTDs). In March 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) released interim guidelines recommending the temporary cessation of mass drug administration (MDA), community-based surveys, and case detection, while encouraging continuation of morbidity management and vector control where possible. Over the course of the following months, national programs and implementing partners contributed to COVID-19 response efforts, while also beginning to plan for resumption of NTD control activities. To understand the challenges, opportunities, and recommendations for maximizing continuity of disease control during public health emergencies, we sought perspectives from Nigeria and Guinea on the process of restarting NTD control efforts during the COVID-19 pandemic. Through semistructured interviews with individuals involved with NTD control at the local and national levels, we identified key themes and common perspectives between the 2 countries, as well as observations that were specific to each. Overall, interviewees stressed the challenges posed by COVID-19 interruptions, particularly with respect to delays to activities and related knock-on impacts, such as drug expiry and prolonged elimination timelines, as well as concerns related to funding. However, respondents in both countries also highlighted the benefits of a formal risk assessment approach, particularly in terms of encouraging information sharing and increasing coordination and advocacy. Recommendations included ensuring greater availability of historical data to allow better monitoring of how future emergencies affect NTD control progress; continuing to use risk assessment approaches in the future; and identifying mechanisms for sharing lessons learned and innovations between countries as a means of advancing postpandemic health systems and disease control capacity strengthening.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Communicable Disease Control/organization & administration , Neglected Diseases/prevention & control , Communicable Disease Control/economics , Government Programs/economics , Government Programs/organization & administration , Guinea , Humans , Mass Drug Administration , Nigeria , SARS-CoV-2 , Tropical Medicine/methods
3.
PLoS One ; 16(12): e0261339, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1636932

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Gauteng province, with 26.3% of South Africa's population, is the commercial and industrial powerhouse of the country. During the first epidemic wave in 2020, Gauteng accounted for 32.0% of South Africa's reported COVID-19 cases. AIM: The aim of this study was to describe the health system response to the COVID-19 pandemic during the first epidemic wave in Gauteng province and to explore the perspectives of key informants on the provincial response. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Using an adapted Pandemic Emergency Response Conceptual Framework, this was a qualitative case study design consisting of 36 key informant interviews and a document analysis. We used thematic analysis to identify themes and sub-themes from the qualitative data. RESULTS: Our case study found that Gauteng developed an innovative, multi-sectoral and comprehensive provincial COVID-19 response that aimed to address the dual challenge of saving lives and the economy. However, the interviews revealed multiple perspectives, experiences, contestations and contradictions in the pandemic response. The COVID-19 pandemic exposed and amplified the fragilities of existing systems, reflected in the corruption on personal protective equipment, poor data quality and inappropriate decisions on self-standing field hospitals. Rooted in a chronic under-investment and insufficient focus on the health workforce, the response failed to take into account or deal with their fears, and to incorporate strategies for psychosocial support, and safe working environments. The single-minded focus on COVID-19 exacerbated these fragilities, resulting in a de facto health system lockdown and reported collateral damage. The key informants identified missed opportunities to invest in primary health care, partner with communities and to include the private health sector in the pandemic response. CONCLUSION: Gauteng province should build on the innovations of the multi-sectoral response to the COVID-19 pandemic, while addressing the contested areas and health system fragilities.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Pandemics , Primary Health Care/statistics & numerical data , Adult , Female , Government Programs/organization & administration , Humans , Male , Qualitative Research , South Africa/epidemiology , Surveys and Questionnaires
4.
Acad Med ; 96(11): 1546-1552, 2021 11 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1493981

ABSTRACT

Racially and ethnically diverse and socioeconomically disadvantaged communities have historically been disproportionately affected by disasters and public health emergencies in the United States. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' Office of Minority Health established the National Consensus Panel on Emergency Preparedness and Cultural Diversity to provide guidance to agencies and organizations on developing effective strategies to advance emergency preparedness and eliminate disparities among racially and ethnically diverse communities during these crises. Adopting the National Consensus Panel recommendations, the Johns Hopkins Medicine Office of Diversity, Inclusion, and Health Equity; Language Services; and academic-community partnerships used existing health equity resources and expertise to develop an operational framework to support the organization's COVID-19 response and to provide a framework of health equity initiatives for other academic medical centers. This operational framework addressed policies to support health equity patient care and clinical operations, accessible COVID-19 communication, and staff and community support and engagement, which also supported the National Standards for Culturally and Linguistically Appropriate Services in Health and Health Care. Johns Hopkins Medicine identified expanded recommendations for addressing institutional policy making and capacity building, including unconscious bias training for resource allocation teams and staff training in accurate race, ethnicity, and language data collection, that should be considered in future updates to the National Consensus Panel's recommendations.


Subject(s)
Academic Medical Centers/organization & administration , COVID-19/ethnology , Disasters/prevention & control , Health Equity/standards , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/virology , Civil Defense/organization & administration , Consensus , Cultural Diversity , Government Programs/organization & administration , Government Programs/standards , Healthcare Disparities/ethnology , Humans , Minority Groups/statistics & numerical data , Policy Making , Public Health/standards , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , Social Participation , Socioeconomic Factors , United States/epidemiology
6.
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
11.
Patient ; 14(3): 347-358, 2021 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1174045

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess the extent to which public support for outbreak containment policies varies with respect to the severity of an infectious disease outbreak. METHODS: A web-enabled survey was administered to 1017 residents of Singapore during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, and was quota-sampled based on age, sex, and ethnicity. A fractional-factorial design was used to create hypothetical outbreak vignettes characterised by morbidity and fatality rates, and local and global spread of an infectious disease. Each respondent was asked to indicate which response policies (among five policies restricting local movement and four border control policies) they would support in five randomly assigned vignettes. Binomial logistic regressions were used to predict the probabilities of support as a function of outbreak attributes, personal characteristics, and perceived policy effectiveness. RESULTS: Likelihood of support varied across government response policies but was generally higher for border control policies compared with internal policies. The fatality rate was the most important factor for internal policies, while the degree of global spread was the most important for border control policies. In general, individuals who were less healthy, had higher-income, and were older were more likely to support these policies. Perceived effectiveness of a policy was a consistent and positive predictor of public support. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that campaigns to promote public support should be designed specifically to each policy and tailored to different segments of the population. They should also be adapted based on the evolving conditions of the outbreak in order to receive continued public support.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Communicable Disease Control/organization & administration , Government Programs/organization & administration , Public Opinion , Adult , Age Factors , COVID-19/mortality , Emigration and Immigration/legislation & jurisprudence , Female , Health Status , Humans , Intensive Care Units/statistics & numerical data , Logistic Models , Male , Middle Aged , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2 , Sex Factors , Singapore/epidemiology , Socioeconomic Factors
12.
Cancer Discov ; 11(3): 527-528, 2021 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1119343

ABSTRACT

As vice president, Joe Biden was the cancer advocate-in-chief. As president, he has a different public health crisis to deal with-COVID-19-but given Biden's passion for cancer research, many expect he will build on the previous Moonshot initiative with another push to accelerate the pace of progress in cancer control.


Subject(s)
Biomedical Research/economics , Biomedical Research/legislation & jurisprudence , Health Policy , Neoplasms/epidemiology , Neoplasms/therapy , Politics , COVID-19/economics , Financing, Government , Government Programs/organization & administration , Humans , Organizational Objectives , Pandemics , Research Support as Topic , United States
13.
Community Ment Health J ; 57(3): 442-445, 2021 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1032747

ABSTRACT

COVID 19 pandemic has posed challenges for public mental healthcare delivery, particularly in LAMI countries such as India. However, this unique situation has also brought in opportunities to revisit the health system and optimally utilize the available resources. In this brief report, we report one such new initiative in which existing community health workers (CHWs), known as ASHAs (Accredited Social Health Activist) acted as a bridge between patients with mental illness and the District Mental Health Program (DMHP) of Ramanagara district of Karnataka State, India. They maintained continuity of care of 76 patients by delivering mental healthcare services to the patients' doorstep. This has paved the way to rethink and revisit their role in public mental healthcare delivery not only during COVID 19 times, but also beyond.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Community Health Services/organization & administration , Community Health Workers/psychology , Mental Health , Patient Advocacy , Accreditation , Community Health Workers/standards , Delivery of Health Care/organization & administration , Female , Government Programs/organization & administration , Humans , India , Pandemics , Program Evaluation , SARS-CoV-2
17.
Am J Manag Care ; 26(10): 421-422, 2020 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-891083

ABSTRACT

To mark the 25th anniversary of the journal, each issue in 2020 will include an interview with a health care thought leader. The October issue features a conversation with Kavita K. Patel, MD, MS, nonresident fellow at The Brookings Institution and editorial board member of AJMC®.


Subject(s)
Betacoronavirus , Coronavirus Infections/therapy , Health Policy , Infection Control/organization & administration , Pneumonia, Viral/therapy , COVID-19 , Government Programs/organization & administration , Humans , Infection Control/legislation & jurisprudence , Pandemics/legislation & jurisprudence , Quality of Health Care/organization & administration , SARS-CoV-2
18.
J Am Med Dir Assoc ; 21(9): 1186-1190, 2020 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-625907

ABSTRACT

The COVID-19 pandemic has disproportionately affected residents and staff at long-term care (LTC) and other residential facilities in the United States. The high morbidity and mortality at these facilities has been attributed to a combination of a particularly vulnerable population and a lack of resources to mitigate the risk. During the first wave of the pandemic, the federal and state governments received urgent calls for help from LTC and residential care facilities; between March and early June of 2020, policymakers responded with dozens of regulatory and policy changes. In this article, we provide an overview of these responses by first summarizing federal regulatory changes and then reviewing state-level executive orders. The policy and regulatory changes implemented at the federal and state levels can be categorized into the following 4 classes: (1) preventing virus transmission, which includes policies relating to visitation restrictions, personal protective equipment guidance, and testing requirements; (2) expanding facilities' capacities, which includes both the expansion of physical space for isolation purposes and the expansion of workforce to combat COVID-19; (3) relaxing administrative requirements, which includes measures enacted to shift the attention of caretakers and administrators from administrative requirements to residents' care; and (4) reporting COVID-19 data, which includes the reporting of cases and deaths to residents, families, and administrative bodies (such as state health departments). These policies represent a snapshot of the initial efforts to mitigate damage inflicted by the pandemic. Looking ahead, empirical evaluation of the consequences of these policies-including potential unintended effects-is urgently needed. The recent availability of publicly reported COVID-19 LTC data can be used to inform the development of evidence-based regulations, though there are concerns of reporting inaccuracies. Importantly, these data should also be used to systematically identify hot spots and help direct resources to struggling facilities.


Subject(s)
Coronavirus Infections/prevention & control , Long-Term Care/organization & administration , Pandemics/prevention & control , Pneumonia, Viral/prevention & control , Residential Facilities/legislation & jurisprudence , Residential Facilities/organization & administration , Assisted Living Facilities/organization & administration , Betacoronavirus , COVID-19 , Federal Government , Government Programs/organization & administration , Humans , Long-Term Care/legislation & jurisprudence , Nursing Homes/organization & administration , Quality of Health Care , SARS-CoV-2 , United States
19.
Nat Med ; 26(7): 1005-1008, 2020 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-595980
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL