Health Policy Open最新文献

Introduction

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Background

The literature on gun violence is broad and variable, describing multiple legislation types and outcomes in observational studies. Our objective was to document the extent and nature of evidence on the impact of firearm legislation on mortality from firearm violence.

Methods

A scoping review was conducted under PRISMA-ScR guidance. A comprehensive peer-reviewed search strategy was executed in several electronic databases from inception to March 2024. Grey literature was searched for unpublished sources. Data were extracted on study design, country, population, type of legislation, and overall study conclusions on legislation impact on mortality from suicide, homicide, femicide, and domestic violence. Critical appraisal for a sample of articles with the same study design (ecological studies) was conducted for quality assessment.

Findings

5057 titles and abstracts and 651 full-text articles were reviewed. Following full-text review and grey literature search, 202 articles satisfied our eligibility criteria. Federal legislation was identified from all included countries, while state-specific laws were only reported in studies from the U.S. Numerous legislative approaches were identified including preventative, prohibitive, and more tailored strategies focused on identifying high risk individuals. Law types had various effects on rates of firearm homicide, suicide, and femicide. Lack of robust design, uneven implementation, and poor evaluation of legislation may contribute to these differences.

Interpretation

We found that national, restrictive laws reduce population-level firearm mortality. These findings can inform policy makers, public health researchers, and governments when designing and implementing legislation to reduce injury and death from firearms.

Funding

Funding is provided by the Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research (SPOR) Evidence Alliance and in part by St. Michael’s Hospital, University of Toronto.

Scoping review registration:

Open Science Framework (OSF): https://osf.io/sf38n.

As a response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the United Nations Security Council passed resolution S/RES2532 (2020), requesting the cessation of hostilities. Despite ceasefire initiatives, evidence suggests that both conflict and violent events remained unabated—and, in some cases, escalated during the first months of the pandemic. This study uses interrupted time series analyses to examine the impact of the pandemic on violent and non-violent political events—including health system-related violence—in Libya, which has been experiencing a protracted conflict since 2014. We find a reduction of approximately 21 battles (p < 0.001) only during the first month of the pandemic. However, overall, throughout the pandemic, there was an increase of roughly one battle per month (p < 0.001). The violence that affected healthcare workers decreased during the first year of the pandemic (p < 0.001); but by the second year the reduction in healthcare worker–related violence had dissipated. While the pandemic seems to have mitigated the level of violence experience by healthcare workers, the overall pattern of violence is a troubling one, particularly since they were observed while there is an international agreement for a ceasefire in place and a specific peace agreement occurring in Libya. The pattern suggests that policy to protect healthcare workers may need to be enhanced even more during crisis settings.

Intro

Improving the American healthcare system has consistently predominated the domestic policy agenda in the United States for decades. However, physicians have traditionally played a small role in the U.S. legislative process despite their direct observations of the obstacles that cost, access, and quality can have on their patients and their care. The goal of this study was to examine the relationship between physician political ideological preferences and health policy reform options.

Methods

We conducted a cross-sectional survey of 3,001 currently practicing U.S. physicians to predict how self-identification as liberal, moderate, or conservative impacted a physician’s policy preferences under the domains of cost, access, and quality.

Results

A total of 536 (18.8%) out of 3,001 physicians responded to the survey. Overall, 32% of physicians identified as liberal, 43% as moderate, and 22% as conservative.

Conclusion

Liberal-identifying physicians favored traditionally liberal reform ideas (a national health plan or public option), while conservative physicians preferred conservative policies (free market optimization). However, variation within political groups and domains of healthcare suggest that no single reform policy will be unanimously supported by every physician within a political group. Nonetheless, physicians are unanimously dissatisfied with the state of our current system, and physician-supported healthcare reform should be a national priority.

Background

The COVID-19 pandemic forced governments across the world to consider how to prioritize resource allocation. Most countries produced pandemic preparedness plans that guide and coordinate healthcare, including how to allocate scarce resources such as ventilators, human resources, and therapeutics. The objective of this study was to compare and contrast the extent to which established parameters for effective priority setting (PS) were incorporated into COVID-19 pandemic response planning in several countries around the world.

Methods

We used the Kapriri and Martin framework for effective priority setting and performed a quantitative descriptive analysis to explore whether and how countries’ type of health system, political, and economic contexts impacted the inclusion of those parameters in their COVID-19 pandemic plans. We analyzed 86 country plans across six regions of the World Health Organization.

Results

The countries sampled represent 40% of nations in AFRO, 54.5% of EMRO, 45% of EURO, 46% of PAHO, 64% of SEARO, and 41% of WPRO. They also represent 39% of all HICs in the world, 39% of Upper-Middle, 54% of Lower-Middle, and 48% of LICs. No pattern in attention to parameters of PS emerged by WHO region or country income levels. The parameters: evidence of political will, stakeholder participation, and use of scientific evidence/ adoption of WHO recommendations were each found in over 80% of plans. We identified a description of a specific PS process in 7% of the plans; explicit criteria for PS in 36.5%; inclusion of publicity strategies in 65%; mention of mechanisms for appealing decisions or implementing procedures to improve internal accountability and reduce corruption in 20%; explicit reference to public values in 15%; and a description of means for enhancing compliance with the decisions in 5%.

Conclusion

The findings provide a basis for policymakers to reflect on their prioritization plans and identify areas that need to be strengthened. Overall, there is little consideration for explicit prioritization processes and tools and restricted attention to equity considerations; this may be a starting point for policymakers interested in improving future preparedness and response planning. Although the study focused on the COVID-19 pandemic, priority setting remains one of the policymakers’ most prominent challenges. Policymakers should consider integrating systematic priority setting in their routine decision-making processes.

Puerto Rico (PR) is a United States (US) territory with a history of colonial violence, poverty, and government corruption. Due to these sociopolitical factors and natural disasters (e.g., hurricanes and earthquakes), there has been a sharp increase in PR residents migrating to the mainland US. Local media and professional health organizations focus on the impact of medical migration on the PR health system (e.g., health personnel shortages and long waiting periods for critical care). According to the PR College of Physicians and Surgeons, 365–500 physicians have left annually since 2014, which represents a crisis of access to health services. However, few studies have focused on ways to mitigate medical migration from PR to the US mainland. This article describes the recommendations provided by migrating and non-migrating Puerto Rican Physicians (PRPs) to mitigate medical migration from PR to the US mainland. We focus on qualitative data from a mixed-methods NIH-funded study (1R01MD014188) to explore factors that motivate or mitigate migration among migrating (n = 26) and non-migrating (n = 24) PRPs. Interviews were analyzed following thematic analysis guidelines. Results show the following themes: 1) strategies to retain early-career medical residents living in PR; 2) recommendations for local government on future health policy; and 3) work environment initiatives for health institutions to mitigate physician migration. Findings suggest multilevel efforts are required to mitigate medical migration in PR.

Background

Socioeconomic conditions are strongly associated with breast and cervical cancer incidence and mortality patterns; therefore, social protection programmes (SPPs) might impact these cancers. This study aimed to evaluate the effect of SPPs on breast and cervical cancer outcomes and their risk/protective factors.

Methods

Five databases were searched for articles that assessed participation in PPS and the incidence, survival, mortality (primary outcomes), screening, staging at diagnosis and risk/protective factors (secondary outcomes) for these cancers. Only peer-reviewed quantitative studies of women receiving SPPs compared to eligible women not receiving benefits were included. Independent reviewers selected articles, assessed eligibility, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias. A harvest plot represents the included studies and shows the direction of effect, sample size and risk of bias.

Findings

Of 17,080 documents retrieved, 43 studies were included in the review. No studies evaluated the primary outcomes. They all examined the relationship between SPPs and screening, as well as risk and protective factors. The harvest plot showed that in lower risk of bias studies, participants of SPPs had lower weight and fertility, were older at sexual debut, and breastfed their infants for longer.

Interpretation

No studies have yet assessed the effect of SPPs on breast and cervical cancer incidence, survival, or mortality; nevertheless, the existing evidence suggests positive impacts on risk and protective factors.