Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 6 de 6
Filter
1.
PLoS One ; 17(2): e0263039, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1793535

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Distrust, and more broadly, public perception of government's handling of a crisis, has been a widely studied topic within health crisis research and suggests that these perceptions are significantly associated with the behavior of its citizens. PURPOSE: To understand which aspects of the public's perception of government handling of the COVID-19 pandemic predicted engagement of protective behaviors among older adults, who are the most vulnerable to COVID-19. METHODS: Participants were recruited from an ongoing biopsychosocial study on aging amongst community-dwelling older adults. There were two rounds of data collection, during the national lockdown and post-lockdown. The average length of follow-up was 5.88 months. N = 421 completed the first round of data collection and N = 318 subsequently completed the second round of questionnaires. RESULTS: During the lockdown, perceptions that pandemic-related measures in place were sufficient, effective, timely, provided a sense of safety, important information was easily accessible, and government handling of the pandemic could be trusted, were found to significantly predict engagement in protective behaviors. During post-lockdown, only perceptions that measures in place were sufficient, provided a sense of safety, and important information was easily accessible, remained significant predictors. The perception that COVID-19 measures were clear and easy to understand now became a significant predictor. CONCLUSIONS: Public perceptions of government handling of the pandemic predicted engagement in protective behaviors but were less important during post-lockdown. To effectively engage older adults in protective behavior, our findings suggest for pandemic-related information to be accessible, introducing timely safety measures, and having easy-to-understand instructions for nuanced measures.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/psychology , Crew Resource Management, Healthcare/methods , Trust/psychology , Aged , Communicable Disease Control , Female , Government , Government Programs/trends , Humans , Independent Living/psychology , Longitudinal Studies , Male , Middle Aged , Pandemics , Perception , SARS-CoV-2 , Singapore/epidemiology , Surveys and Questionnaires
4.
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
5.
PLoS One ; 16(5): e0251139, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1238763

ABSTRACT

Community water fluoridation (CWF) is the most effective and equitable approach to preventing dental caries (tooth decay). Yet millions of Americans, especially those at highest risk of caries, do not know what CWF is or its preventive benefits. State health departments are responsible for educating their respective populations. Thus, this study assessed health department websites (N = 50) to determine if CWF content existed, the ease of finding it, and if it was written in plain language and for a consumer audience. We used the web component of the HLE2: The Health Literacy Environment of Hospitals and Health Centers (HLE2) to assess how easy or difficult it was to the navigate a website and find information. Forty-one websites had CWF information; 37 states had content written for a consumer audience. HLE2 scores ranged from 0 to 54 points (60 possible). Only five states had websites with a HLE2 score of 50 or higher. SHDs with higher HLE2 scores were easy to navigate and their content was written for a consumer audience. Study findings suggest most SHDs should improve their website's CWF content and its accessibility to better promote the role of fluoridated water in preventing dental caries.


Subject(s)
Fluoridation/trends , Health Education/trends , Information Dissemination/methods , Access to Information , Government Programs/education , Government Programs/trends , Humans , Information Seeking Behavior , Internet , United States
6.
Med Leg J ; 89(2): 67-70, 2021 Jun.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1093910

ABSTRACT

The Covid-19 pandemic in the UK has been greatly worsened by the mutation of the virus, which began in the South East and was rapidly spreading and in danger of overwhelming the NHS as hospital admissions and deaths continued to rise. In consequence, the Chief Medical Officers of all four nations supported the UK government's sudden decision to delay the second dose of the Pfizer/BioNtech and Oxford/AstraZeneka vaccines for 12 weeks (instead of 3) so that more people in the most vulnerable population groups would receive a first dose and some immunity sooner. The expectation is that this strategy would reduce hospital admissions and deaths. This article considers key medical and legal issues arising from this decision and discusses inter alia rationing of scarce resources, fairness, whether it is for the greater good, consent, individual human rights, negligence and claims for potential or actual injury.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines/administration & dosage , COVID-19/prevention & control , Decision Making , Government Programs/standards , Jurisprudence , COVID-19/drug therapy , COVID-19/epidemiology , Government Programs/methods , Government Programs/trends , Humans , United Kingdom/epidemiology
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL