Inequalities in access to paid sick leave among workers in England and Wales.

BACKGROUND: It is poorly understood which workers lack access to sick pay in England and Wales. This evidence gap has been of particular interest in the context of the Covid-19 pandemic given the relationship between presenteeism and infectious disease transmission. METHOD: This cross-sectional analysis (n = 8874) was nested within a large community cohort study based across England and Wales (Virus Watch). An online survey in February 2021 asked participants in work if they had access to paid sick leave. We used logistic regression to examine sociodemographic factors associated with lacking access to sick pay. RESULTS: Only 66% (n = 5864) of participants reported access to sick pay. South Asian workers (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 1.40, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.06-1.83) and those from Other minority ethnic backgrounds (OR 2.93, 95% CI 1.54-5.59) were more likely to lack access to sick pay compared to White British workers. Older workers (OR range 1.72 [1.53-1.93]-5.26 [4.42-6.26]), workers in low-income households (OR 2.53, 95% CI 2.15-2.98) and those in transport, trade, and service occupations (OR range 2.03 [1.58-2.61]-5.29 [3.67-7.72]) were also more likely to lack access to sick pay compared respectively to workers aged 25-44, those in high income households and managerial occupations. DISCUSSION: Unwarranted age and ethnic inequalities in sick pay access are suggestive of labour market discrimination. Occupational differences are also cause for concern. Policymakers should consider expanding access to sick pay to mitigate transmission of Covid-19 and other endemic respiratory infections in the community, and in the context of pandemic preparation.

Evaluating the systems used to monitor HIV populations accessing therapy and care in low-income and lower-middle-income countries.

OBJECTIVES: The scale-up of delivery of antiretroviral therapy (ART) in low-income and middle-income countries has been coupled with the collection of data aimed at monitoring the welfare of the HIV-positive and treated populations in those countries. We aimed to compare the data items collected and reported and the degree of harmonization achieved following the publication of WHO tools for collection and reporting of these data in 2006, and of two United Nations General Assembly Special Session (UNGASS) indicators relating to the health of patients on ART in 2008. DESIGN: Retrospective examination of monitoring tools used in four countries in 2008 and 2010. METHODS: We examined and compared the type of information collected and reported from treatment and care programmes in Malawi, Uganda, Tanzania and Ukraine. We also assessed the effect of the publication of the WHO-recommended data capture and reporting tools and the UNGASS-recommended indicators on harmonizing data in these four countries 2 years following the publication of each of these tools and indicators. RESULTS: : Although the majority of WHO-recommended data items were included in patient record cards, clinic ART registers and in reports submitted to the ministries of health in the countries by 2010, there remains little concordance between the four countries examined on the specific items included in patient records and monitoring reports. Furthermore, numerous additional items, which differ by country, and which are not included in WHO recommendations, are still recorded and reported. CONCLUSION: The differences and diversity of data reported across countries continues to challenge our ability to make international comparisons and to assess programme performance.

Translating evidence into policy in low-income countries: lessons from co-trimoxazole preventive therapy.

In the April 2010 issue of this journal, Date et al. expressed concern over the slow scale-up in low-income settings of two therapies for the prevention of opportunistic infections in people living with the human immunodeficiency virus: co-trimoxazole prophylaxis and isoniazid preventive therapy. This short paper discusses the important ways in which policy analysis can be of use in understanding and explaining how and why certain evidence makes its way into policy and practice and what local factors influence this process. Key lessons about policy development are drawn from the research evidence on co-trimoxazole prophylaxis, as such lessons may prove helpful to those who seek to influence the development of national policy on isoniazid preventive therapy and other treatments. Researchers are encouraged to disseminate their findings in a manner that is clear, but they must also pay attention to how structural, institutional and political factors shape policy development and implementation. Doing so will help them to understand and address the concerns raised by Date et al. and other experts. Mainstreaming policy analysis approaches that explain how local factors shape the uptake of research evidence can provide an additional tool for researchers who feel frustrated because their research findings have not made their way into policy and practice.