Responding to COVID-19: an exploration of EU country responses and directions for further research.

IF 2.7 3区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES BMC Health Services Research Pub Date : 2024-10-08 DOI:10.1186/s12913-024-11671-z
Gareth H Rees, Ronald Batenburg, Cris Scotter
{"title":"Responding to COVID-19: an exploration of EU country responses and directions for further research.","authors":"Gareth H Rees, Ronald Batenburg, Cris Scotter","doi":"10.1186/s12913-024-11671-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>During COVID-19, scientists advising policymakers were forced to deal with high uncertainty and risks in an environment of unknowns. Evidence on which policies and measures were effective in responding to the pandemic remains underdeveloped to answer the key question 'what worked and why?'. This study aims to provide a basis for studies to go further to answer this critical question, by starting to look efficacy or how countries ensured that health services remained available and what measures were enacted to protect and treat their populations and workers.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We applied a three-phase sequential mixed methods design. In phase one, we started with a qualitative content analysis of the EU Country Profile reports to retrieve and analyse data on COVID-19 responses taken by 29 countries in the European region. Phase two is the step of data transformation, converting qualitative data into numerical codes that can be statistically analysed, which are then used in a quantitative cross-national comparative analysis that comprises phase three. The quantifying process resulted in a numerical indicator to measure the 'response efficacy' of the 29 countries, which is used in phase three's association of the response measure with country performance indicators that were derived from European Centre for Disease Control (ECDC) COVID-19 case and death rate data.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Through comparing the frequency of COVID-19 measures taken, we found that many countries in the European region undertook similar actions but with differing effects. The cross-national analysis revealed an expected relationship: a lower COVID-19 response efficacy appeared to be related to a higher case and death rates. Still, marked variation for countries with similar response efficacy indicators was found, signalling that the combination and sequence of implementation of COVID-19 responses is possibly just as important as their efficacy in terms of which response measures were implemented.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Many European countries employed similar COVID-19 measures but still had a wide variation in their case and death rates. To unravel the question 'what worked and why?', we suggest directions from which more refined research can be designed that will eventually contribute to mitigate the impact of future pandemics and to be better prepared for their economic and human burden.</p>","PeriodicalId":9012,"journal":{"name":"BMC Health Services Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11460164/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Health Services Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-024-11671-z","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: During COVID-19, scientists advising policymakers were forced to deal with high uncertainty and risks in an environment of unknowns. Evidence on which policies and measures were effective in responding to the pandemic remains underdeveloped to answer the key question 'what worked and why?'. This study aims to provide a basis for studies to go further to answer this critical question, by starting to look efficacy or how countries ensured that health services remained available and what measures were enacted to protect and treat their populations and workers.

Methods: We applied a three-phase sequential mixed methods design. In phase one, we started with a qualitative content analysis of the EU Country Profile reports to retrieve and analyse data on COVID-19 responses taken by 29 countries in the European region. Phase two is the step of data transformation, converting qualitative data into numerical codes that can be statistically analysed, which are then used in a quantitative cross-national comparative analysis that comprises phase three. The quantifying process resulted in a numerical indicator to measure the 'response efficacy' of the 29 countries, which is used in phase three's association of the response measure with country performance indicators that were derived from European Centre for Disease Control (ECDC) COVID-19 case and death rate data.

Results: Through comparing the frequency of COVID-19 measures taken, we found that many countries in the European region undertook similar actions but with differing effects. The cross-national analysis revealed an expected relationship: a lower COVID-19 response efficacy appeared to be related to a higher case and death rates. Still, marked variation for countries with similar response efficacy indicators was found, signalling that the combination and sequence of implementation of COVID-19 responses is possibly just as important as their efficacy in terms of which response measures were implemented.

Conclusions: Many European countries employed similar COVID-19 measures but still had a wide variation in their case and death rates. To unravel the question 'what worked and why?', we suggest directions from which more refined research can be designed that will eventually contribute to mitigate the impact of future pandemics and to be better prepared for their economic and human burden.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
应对 COVID-19:探讨欧盟国家的应对措施和进一步研究的方向。
背景:在 COVID-19 期间,为决策者提供建议的科学家不得不在未知的环境中应对高度的不确定性和风险。在回答 "哪些政策和措施有效,为什么?本研究旨在为进一步回答这一关键问题的研究奠定基础,首先研究各国如何确保医疗服务的有效性,以及采取了哪些措施来保护和治疗其居民和工作人员:我们采用了三阶段顺序混合方法设计。在第一阶段,我们首先对欧盟国家概况报告进行了定性内容分析,以检索和分析欧洲地区 29 个国家对 COVID-19 所做回应的数据。第二阶段是数据转换,将定性数据转换成可进行统计分析的数字代码,然后用于第三阶段的定量跨国比较分析。量化过程产生了一个数字指标来衡量 29 个国家的 "应对效率",该指标用于第三阶段将应对措施与国家绩效指标联系起来,这些绩效指标来自欧洲疾病控制中心(ECDC)的 COVID-19 病例和死亡率数据:通过比较采取 COVID-19 措施的频率,我们发现欧洲地区的许多国家都采取了类似的行动,但效果却各不相同。跨国分析揭示了一种预期的关系:COVID-19 应对效率较低似乎与病例和死亡率较高有关。不过,在应对效果指标相似的国家中也发现了明显的差异,这表明 COVID-19 应对措施的组合和实施顺序可能与实施哪些应对措施的效果同样重要:结论:许多欧洲国家采用了类似的 COVID-19 措施,但其病例率和死亡率仍有很大差异。为了弄清 "哪些措施有效,为什么?"这个问题,我们提出了一些方向,可以据此开展更精细的研究,最终帮助减轻未来流行病的影响,并更好地应对其对经济和人类造成的负担。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
BMC Health Services Research
BMC Health Services Research 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
7.10%
发文量
1372
审稿时长
6 months
期刊介绍: BMC Health Services Research is an open access, peer-reviewed journal that considers articles on all aspects of health services research, including delivery of care, management of health services, assessment of healthcare needs, measurement of outcomes, allocation of healthcare resources, evaluation of different health markets and health services organizations, international comparative analysis of health systems, health economics and the impact of health policies and regulations.
期刊最新文献
Employer support for health and social care registered professionals, their patients and service users involved in regulatory fitness to practise regulatory proceedings. Factors influencing the turnover intention for disease control and prevention workers in Northeast China: an empirical analysis based on logistic-ISM model. Qualitative drivers of postoperative prophylactic antibiotics use and resistance in Ethiopia. Supporting young people through the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond: a multi-site qualitative longitudinal study. The potential promise and pitfalls of point-of-care viral load monitoring to expedite HIV treatment decision-making in rural Uganda: a qualitative study.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1