Prioritization criteria in policies and management of human resources for health: a proposal for a validated methodology.

Objective: To create and validate criteria for prioritizing problems related to policies and management of the health workforce. Methods: This methodological study was divided into three stages. First, the criteria were elaborated by means of a systematized literature review. Second, the criteria were evaluated online by a committee of judges comprised of eight specialists. In the third stage, an evaluation was carried out by the target audience in a hybrid workshop. The participants evaluated the material using the Suitability Assessment of Materials instrument, adapted for the research. Results: Three prioritization criteria (relevance, window of opportunity and acceptability) and a scoring scale were developed based on the literature review. In the evaluation by the committee of judges, the approval percentage of the criteria and prioritization method was 84%. Modifications were made based on suggestions in relation to the material presented to the specialists. In the pre-test stage, the approval percentage varied by item, with six of them reaching a maximum approval of 100% (corresponding to approximately 46% of the items), four reaching 92% and three achieving 83% each, indicating positive results. Conclusions: The developed criteria were considered valid for use in the context of policies and management in the area of human resources for health.

Impacts for health and care workers of Covid-19 and other public health emergencies of international concern: living systematic review, meta-analysis and policy recommendations.

BACKGROUND: Health and care workers (HCW) faced the double burden of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic: as members of a society affected by a public health emergency and as HWC who experienced fear of becoming infected and of infecting others, stigma, violence, increased workloads, changes in scope of practice, among others. To understand the short and long-term impacts in terms of the COVID-19 pandemic and other public health emergencies of international concern (PHEICs) on HCW and relevant interventions to address them, we designed and conducted a living systematic review (LSR). METHODS: We reviewed literature retrieved from MEDLINE-PubMed, Embase, SCOPUS, LILACS, the World Health Organization COVID-19 database, the ClinicalTrials.org and the ILO database, published from January 2000 until December 2021. We included quantitative observational studies, experimental studies, quasi-experimental, mixed methods or qualitative studies; addressing mental, physical health and well-being and quality of life. The review targeted HCW; and interventions and exposures, implemented during the COVID-19 pandemic or other PHEICs. To assess the risk of bias of included studies, we used the Johanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Critical Appraisal Tools. Data were qualitatively synthetized using meta-aggregation and meta-analysis was performed to estimate pooled prevalence of some of the outcomes. RESULTS: The 1013 studies included in the review were mainly quantitative research, cross-sectional, with medium risk of bias/quality, addressing at least one of the following: mental health issue, violence, physical health and well-being, and quality of life. Additionally, interventions to address short- and long-term impact of PHEICs on HCW included in the review, although scarce, were mainly behavioral and individual oriented, aimed at improving mental health through the development of individual interventions. A lack of interventions addressing organizational or systemic bottlenecks was noted. DISCUSSION: PHEICs impacted the mental and physical health of HCW with the greatest toll on mental health. The impact PHEICs are intricate and complex. The review revealed the consequences for health and care service delivery, with increased unplanned absenteeism, service disruption and occupation turnover that subvert the capacity to answer to the PHEICs, specifically challenging the resilience of health systems.

Challenges and strategies to improve the availability and geographic accessibility of physicians in Portugal.

BACKGROUND: Shortages of physicians in remote, rural and other underserved areas and lack of general practitioners limit access to health services. The aims of this article are to identify the challenges faced by policy and decision-makers in Portugal to guarantee the availability and geographic accessibility to physicians in the National Health Service and to describe and analyse their causes, the strategies to tackle them and their results. We also raise the issue of whether research evidence was used or not in the process of policy development. METHODS: We analysed policy and technical documents, peer-reviewed papers and newspaper articles from 1995 to 2015 through a structured search of government websites, Portuguese online newspapers and PubMed and Virtual Health Library (Biblioteca Virtual em Saúde (BVS)) databases; key informants were consulted to validate and complement the documentary search. RESULTS: The challenges faced by decision-makers to ensure access to physicians were identified as a forecasted shortage of physicians, geographical imbalances and maldistribution of physicians by level of care. To date, no human resources for health policy has been formulated, in spite of most documents reviewed stating that it is needed. On the other hand, various isolated and ad hoc strategies have been adopted, such as incentives to choose family health as a specialty or to work in an underserved region and recruitment of foreign physicians through bilateral agreements. CONCLUSIONS: Health workforce research in Portugal is scarce, and therefore, policy decisions regarding the availability and accessibility of physicians are not based on evidence. The policy interventions described in this paper should be evaluated, which would be a good starting point to inform health workforce policy development.

Social inequality, health policies and the training of physicians, nurses and dentists in Brazil and in Portugal.

This study analyzes the production of scientific knowledge on Health Inequalities (HI) and its use in policies of education of dentists, nurses and physicians in Brazil and Portugal. Documents published between January 2000 and December 2001, in Portuguese, French, English and Spanish, were identified by means of a combination of a manual and intentional electronic database survey of the grey literature. Fifty-three documents were selected from a total of 1,652. The findings revealed that there is still little knowledge available to enable an assessment of policies for human resource training in healthcare in general and for those related to physicians, nurses and dentists in particular. In Brazil, few studies have thus far been made to understand how such training can contribute towards reducing these inequalities and, in the case of Portugal, no studies were found that established a direct relationship between human resource training and the future role that these could play in combating inequality. Despite a vast increase in scientific production, many lacunae still exist in this field. Knowledge production and its relationship with decision-making still seem to be separate processes in these two countries.