Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 96.066
Filter
Add more filters

Uruguay Oncology Collection
Publication year range
1.
Immunity ; 54(7): 1353-1362, 2021 07 13.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34260880

ABSTRACT

Development COVID-19 vaccines in a record time has been an unprecedented global scientific achievement. However, the world has failed to ensure equitable access to what should have been a global public good. What options remain available to African countries to ensure immunization of their populations and ultimately overcome the pandemic?


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines/supply & distribution , Health Services Accessibility/statistics & numerical data , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , Africa/epidemiology , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19 Vaccines/administration & dosage , COVID-19 Vaccines/classification , Global Health , Health Services Accessibility/organization & administration , Health Services Accessibility/trends , Humans , Vaccination/statistics & numerical data , Vaccination/trends
2.
CA Cancer J Clin ; 71(5): 407-436, 2021 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34028809

ABSTRACT

Distress management (DM) (screening and response) is an essential component of cancer care across the treatment trajectory. Effective DM has many benefits, including improving patients' quality of life; reducing distress, anxiety, and depression; contributing to medical cost offsets; and reducing emergency department visits and hospitalizations. Unfortunately, many distressed patients do not receive needed services. There are several multilevel barriers that represent key challenges to DM and affect its implementation. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research was used as an organizational structure to outline the barriers and facilitators to implementation of DM, including: 1) individual characteristics (individual patient characteristics with a focus on groups who may face unique barriers to distress screening and linkage to services), 2) intervention (unique aspects of DM intervention, including specific challenges in screening and psychosocial intervention, with recommendations for resolving these challenges), 3) processes for implementation of DM (modality and timing of screening, the challenge of triage for urgent needs, and incorporation of patient-reported outcomes and quality measures), 4) organization-inner setting (the context of the clinic, hospital, or health care system); and 5) organization-outer setting (including reimbursement strategies and health-care policy). Specific recommendations for evidence-based strategies and interventions for each of the domains of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research are also included to address barriers and challenges.


Subject(s)
Delivery of Health Care/standards , Mass Screening/standards , Mental Health Services , Neoplasms/psychology , Psychological Distress , Stress, Psychological , Delivery of Health Care/organization & administration , Health Services Accessibility/organization & administration , Health Services Accessibility/standards , Healthcare Disparities , Humans , Mass Screening/organization & administration , Mental Health Services/organization & administration , Mental Health Services/standards , Neoplasms/complications , Patient Reported Outcome Measures , Stress, Psychological/diagnosis , Stress, Psychological/etiology , Stress, Psychological/therapy
3.
CA Cancer J Clin ; 71(6): 466-487, 2021 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34545941

ABSTRACT

The Hispanic/Latino population is the second largest racial/ethnic group in the continental United States and Hawaii, accounting for 18% (60.6 million) of the total population. An additional 3 million Hispanic Americans live in Puerto Rico. Every 3 years, the American Cancer Society reports on cancer occurrence, risk factors, and screening for Hispanic individuals in the United States using the most recent population-based data. An estimated 176,600 new cancer cases and 46,500 cancer deaths will occur among Hispanic individuals in the continental United States and Hawaii in 2021. Compared to non-Hispanic Whites (NHWs), Hispanic men and women had 25%-30% lower incidence (2014-2018) and mortality (2015-2019) rates for all cancers combined and lower rates for the most common cancers, although this gap is diminishing. For example, the colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence rate ratio for Hispanic compared with NHW individuals narrowed from 0.75 (95% CI, 0.73-0.78) in 1995 to 0.91 (95% CI, 0.89-0.93) in 2018, reflecting delayed declines in CRC rates among Hispanic individuals in part because of slower uptake of screening. In contrast, Hispanic individuals have higher rates of infection-related cancers, including approximately two-fold higher incidence of liver and stomach cancer. Cervical cancer incidence is 32% higher among Hispanic women in the continental US and Hawaii and 78% higher among women in Puerto Rico compared to NHW women, yet is largely preventable through screening. Less access to care may be similarly reflected in the low prevalence of localized-stage breast cancer among Hispanic women, 59% versus 67% among NHW women. Evidence-based strategies for decreasing the cancer burden among the Hispanic population include the use of culturally appropriate lay health advisors and patient navigators and targeted, community-based intervention programs to facilitate access to screening and promote healthy behaviors. In addition, the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on cancer trends and disparities in the Hispanic population should be closely monitored.


Subject(s)
Early Detection of Cancer/statistics & numerical data , Health Services Accessibility/statistics & numerical data , Hispanic or Latino/statistics & numerical data , Neoplasms/ethnology , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Female , Humans , Incidence , Male , Middle Aged , Neoplasms/mortality , Neoplasms/prevention & control , Puerto Rico/epidemiology , Risk Factors , Survival Rate , United States/epidemiology , White People/statistics & numerical data , Young Adult
4.
Am J Hum Genet ; 111(5): 809-824, 2024 05 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38642557

ABSTRACT

Advancements in genomic technologies have shown remarkable promise for improving health trajectories. The Human Genome Project has catalyzed the integration of genomic tools into clinical practice, such as disease risk assessment, prenatal testing and reproductive genomics, cancer diagnostics and prognostication, and therapeutic decision making. Despite the promise of genomic technologies, their full potential remains untapped without including individuals of diverse ancestries and integrating social determinants of health (SDOHs). The NHGRI launched the 2020 Strategic Vision with ten bold predictions by 2030, including "individuals from ancestrally diverse backgrounds will benefit equitably from advances in human genomics." Meeting this goal requires a holistic approach that brings together genomic advancements with careful consideration to healthcare access as well as SDOHs to ensure that translation of genetics research is inclusive, affordable, and accessible and ultimately narrows rather than widens health disparities. With this prediction in mind, this review delves into the two paramount applications of genetic testing-reproductive genomics and precision oncology. When discussing these applications of genomic advancements, we evaluate current accessibility limitations, highlight challenges in achieving representativeness, and propose paths forward to realize the ultimate goal of their equitable applications.


Subject(s)
Genomics , Precision Medicine , Humans , Genomics/methods , Precision Medicine/methods , Genome, Human , Genetic Testing , Neoplasms/genetics , Health Services Accessibility
5.
Am J Hum Genet ; 111(5): 825-832, 2024 05 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38636509

ABSTRACT

Next-generation sequencing has revolutionized the speed of rare disease (RD) diagnoses. While clinical exome and genome sequencing represent an effective tool for many RD diagnoses, there is room to further improve the diagnostic odyssey of many RD patients. One recognizable intervention lies in increasing equitable access to genomic testing. Rural communities represent a significant portion of underserved and underrepresented individuals facing additional barriers to diagnosis and treatment. Primary care providers (PCPs) at local clinics, though sometimes suspicious of a potential benefit of genetic testing for their patients, have significant constraints in pursuing it themselves and rely on referrals to specialists. Yet, these referrals are typically followed by long waitlists and significant delays in clinical assessment, insurance clearance, testing, and initiation of diagnosis-informed care management. Not only is this process time intensive, but it also often requires multiple visits to urban medical centers for which distance may be a significant barrier to rural families. Therefore, providing early, "direct-to-provider" (DTP) local access to unrestrictive genomic testing is likely to help speed up diagnostic times and access to care for RD patients in rural communities. In a pilot study with a PCP clinic in rural Kansas, we observed a minimum 5.5 months shortening of time to diagnosis through the DTP exome sequencing program as compared to rural patients receiving genetic testing through the "traditional" PCP-referral-to-specialist scheme. We share our experience to encourage future partnerships beyond our center. Our efforts represent just one step in fostering greater diversity and equity in genomic studies.


Subject(s)
Genetic Testing , Genomics , Health Services Accessibility , Rare Diseases , Rural Population , Humans , Genetic Testing/methods , Rare Diseases/genetics , Rare Diseases/diagnosis , Genomics/methods , Child , Male , High-Throughput Nucleotide Sequencing , Female
6.
CA Cancer J Clin ; 70(2): 105-124, 2020 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32068901

ABSTRACT

Globally, cancer is the second leading cause of death, with numbers greatly exceeding those for human immunodeficiency virus/acquired immunodeficiency syndrome, tuberculosis, and malaria combined. Limited access to timely diagnosis, to affordable, effective treatment, and to high-quality care are just some of the factors that lead to disparities in cancer survival between countries and within countries. In this article, the authors consider various factors that prevent access to cancer medicines (particularly access to essential cancer medicines). Even if an essential cancer medicine is included on a national medicines list, cost might preclude its use, it might be prescribed or used inappropriately, weak infrastructure might prevent it being accessed by those who could benefit, or quality might not be guaranteed. Potential strategies to address the access problems are discussed, including universal health coverage for essential cancer medicines, fairer methods for pricing cancer medicines, reducing development costs, optimizing regulation, and improving reliability in the global supply chain. Optimizing schedules for cancer therapy could reduce not only costs, but also adverse events, and improve access. More and better biomarkers are required to target patients who are most likely to benefit from cancer medicines. The optimum use of cancer medicines depends on the effective delivery of several services allied to oncology (including laboratory, imaging, surgery, and radiotherapy). Investment is necessary in all aspects of cancer care, from these supportive services to technologies, and the training of health care workers and other staff.


Subject(s)
Health Services Accessibility/trends , Neoplasms/therapy , Quality of Health Care , Combined Modality Therapy/trends , Humans
7.
CA Cancer J Clin ; 70(3): 165-181, 2020 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32202312

ABSTRACT

Lack of health insurance coverage is strongly associated with poor cancer outcomes in the United States. The uninsured are less likely to have access to timely and effective cancer prevention, screening, diagnosis, treatment, survivorship, and end-of-life care than their counterparts with health insurance coverage. On March 23, 2010, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) was signed into law, representing the largest change to health care delivery in the United States since the introduction of the Medicare and Medicaid programs in 1965. The primary goals of the ACA are to improve health insurance coverage, the quality of care, and patient outcomes, and to maintain or lower costs by catalyzing changes in the health care delivery system. In this review, we describe the main components of the ACA, including health insurance expansions, coverage reforms, and delivery system reforms, provisions within these components, and their relevance to cancer screening and early detection, care, and outcomes. We then highlight selected, well-designed studies examining the effects of the ACA provisions on coverage, access to cancer care, and disparities throughout the cancer control continuum. Finally, we identify research gaps to inform evaluation of current and emerging health policies related to cancer outcomes.


Subject(s)
Early Detection of Cancer/economics , Health Services Accessibility/economics , Neoplasms/economics , Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act , Humans , Insurance, Health/economics , Medically Uninsured/statistics & numerical data , Morbidity/trends , Neoplasms/epidemiology , United States/epidemiology
8.
N Engl J Med ; 388(9): 824-832, 2023 Mar 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36856618

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: By the end of 2022, nearly 20 million workers in the United States have gained paid-sick-leave coverage from mandates that require employers to provide benefits to qualified workers, including paid time off for the use of preventive services. Although the lack of paid-sick-leave coverage may hinder access to preventive care, current evidence is insufficient to draw meaningful conclusions about its relationship to cancer screening. METHODS: We examined the association between paid-sick-leave mandates and screening for breast and colorectal cancers by comparing changes in 12- and 24-month rates of colorectal-cancer screening and mammography between workers residing in metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs) that have been affected by paid-sick-leave mandates (exposed MSAs) and workers residing in unexposed MSAs. The comparisons were conducted with the use of administrative medical-claims data for approximately 2 million private-sector employees from 2012 through 2019. RESULTS: Paid-sick-leave mandates were present in 61 MSAs in our sample. Screening rates were similar in the exposed and unexposed MSAs before mandate adoption. In the adjusted analysis, cancer-screening rates were higher among workers residing in exposed MSAs than among those in unexposed MSAs by 1.31 percentage points (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.28 to 2.34) for 12-month colorectal cancer screening, 1.56 percentage points (95% CI, 0.33 to 2.79) for 24-month colorectal cancer screening, 1.22 percentage points (95% CI, -0.20 to 2.64) for 12-month mammography, and 2.07 percentage points (95% CI, 0.15 to 3.99) for 24-month mammography. CONCLUSIONS: In a sample of private-sector workers in the United States, cancer-screening rates were higher among those residing in MSAs exposed to paid-sick-leave mandates than among those residing in unexposed MSAs. Our results suggest that a lack of paid-sick-leave coverage presents a barrier to cancer screening. (Funded by the National Cancer Institute.).


Subject(s)
Breast Neoplasms , Colorectal Neoplasms , Early Detection of Cancer , Sick Leave , Humans , Breast Neoplasms/diagnosis , Breast Neoplasms/economics , Colorectal Neoplasms/diagnosis , Colorectal Neoplasms/economics , Early Detection of Cancer/economics , Early Detection of Cancer/statistics & numerical data , Mammography/statistics & numerical data , Mandatory Programs/economics , Mandatory Programs/legislation & jurisprudence , Mandatory Programs/statistics & numerical data , Salaries and Fringe Benefits/economics , Salaries and Fringe Benefits/legislation & jurisprudence , Salaries and Fringe Benefits/statistics & numerical data , Sick Leave/economics , Sick Leave/legislation & jurisprudence , Sick Leave/statistics & numerical data , United States/epidemiology , Urban Population/statistics & numerical data , Health Services Accessibility/economics , Health Services Accessibility/legislation & jurisprudence , Health Services Accessibility/statistics & numerical data
9.
CA Cancer J Clin ; 69(3): 166-183, 2019 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30786025

ABSTRACT

Between 1991 and 2015, the cancer mortality rate declined dramatically in the United States, reflecting improvements in cancer prevention, screening, treatment, and survivorship care. However, cancer outcomes in the United States vary substantially between populations defined by race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, health insurance coverage, and geographic area of residence. Many potentially preventable cancer deaths occur in individuals who did not receive effective cancer prevention, screening, treatment, or survivorship care. At the same time, cancer care spending is large and growing, straining national, state, health insurance plans, and family budgets. Indeed, one of the most pressing issues in American medicine is how to ensure that all populations, in every community, derive the benefit from scientific research that has already been completed. Addressing these questions from the perspective of health care delivery is necessary to accelerate the decline in cancer mortality that began in the early 1990s. This article, part of the Cancer Control Blueprint series, describes challenges with the provision of care across the cancer control continuum in the United States. It also identifies goals for a high-performing health system that could reduce disparities and the burden of cancer by promoting the adoption of healthy lifestyles; access to a regular source of primary care; timely access to evidence-based care; patient-centeredness, including effective patient-provider communication; enhanced coordination and communication between providers, including primary care and specialty care providers; and affordability for patients, payers, and society.


Subject(s)
Continuity of Patient Care/organization & administration , Goals , Health Equity/organization & administration , Health Services Accessibility/organization & administration , Neoplasms/economics , Neoplasms/prevention & control , Continuity of Patient Care/economics , Health Equity/economics , Health Services Accessibility/economics , Humans , Insurance, Health/economics , Insurance, Health/organization & administration , Mass Screening/economics , Mass Screening/organization & administration , Neoplasms/epidemiology , United States/epidemiology
10.
CA Cancer J Clin ; 69(1): 35-49, 2019 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30376182

ABSTRACT

Cancer care delivery is being shaped by growing numbers of cancer survivors coupled with provider shortages, rising costs of primary treatment and follow-up care, significant survivorship health disparities, increased reliance on informal caregivers, and the transition to value-based care. These factors create a compelling need to provide coordinated, comprehensive, personalized care for cancer survivors in ways that meet survivors' and caregivers' unique needs while minimizing the impact of provider shortages and controlling costs for health care systems, survivors, and families. The authors reviewed research identifying and addressing the needs of cancer survivors and caregivers and used this synthesis to create a set of critical priorities for care delivery, research, education, and policy to equitably improve survivor outcomes and support caregivers. Efforts are needed in 3 priority areas: 1) implementing routine assessment of survivors' needs and functioning and caregivers' needs; 2) facilitating personalized, tailored, information and referrals from diagnosis onward for both survivors and caregivers, shifting services from point of care to point of need wherever possible; and 3) disseminating and supporting the implementation of new care methods and interventions.


Subject(s)
Cancer Survivors , Caregivers , Health Policy , Health Services Accessibility/organization & administration , Healthcare Disparities/organization & administration , Quality Improvement/organization & administration , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Biomedical Research/methods , Biomedical Research/organization & administration , Cancer Survivors/statistics & numerical data , Child , Child, Preschool , Evidence-Based Medicine/methods , Evidence-Based Medicine/organization & administration , Female , Health Status Disparities , Humans , Infant , Infant, Newborn , Male , Medically Underserved Area , Middle Aged , Needs Assessment , Outcome and Process Assessment, Health Care , Patient-Centered Care/methods , Patient-Centered Care/organization & administration , Referral and Consultation/organization & administration , Social Support , United States , Young Adult
11.
CA Cancer J Clin ; 69(1): 50-79, 2019 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30452086

ABSTRACT

From the mid-20th century, accumulating evidence has supported the introduction of screening for cancers of the cervix, breast, colon and rectum, prostate (via shared decisions), and lung. The opportunity to detect and treat precursor lesions and invasive disease at a more favorable stage has contributed substantially to reduced incidence, morbidity, and mortality. However, as new discoveries portend advancements in technology and risk-based screening, we fail to fulfill the greatest potential of the existing technology, in terms of both full access among the target population and the delivery of state-of-the art care at each crucial step in the cascade of events that characterize successful cancer screening. There also is insufficient commitment to invest in the development of new technologies, incentivize the development of new ideas, and rapidly evaluate promising new technology. In this report, the authors summarize the status of cancer screening and propose a blueprint for the nation to further advance the contribution of screening to cancer control.


Subject(s)
Early Detection of Cancer/methods , Neoplasms/diagnosis , American Cancer Society , Clinical Trials as Topic , Early Detection of Cancer/adverse effects , Early Detection of Cancer/standards , Early Detection of Cancer/trends , Female , Health Services Accessibility/organization & administration , Humans , Incidence , Inventions , Male , Neoplasms/epidemiology , Neoplasms/prevention & control , Outcome and Process Assessment, Health Care , Practice Guidelines as Topic , Quality Improvement/organization & administration , Risk Assessment , Translational Research, Biomedical/trends , United States/epidemiology
12.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A ; 120(19): e2301304120, 2023 05 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37126686

ABSTRACT

In recent years, the United States has been experiencing historically high suicide rates. In the face of mental health care provider shortages that leave millions needing to travel longer to find providers with schedule openings, if any are available at all, the inaccessibility of mental health care has become increasingly central in explaining suicidality. To examine the relationship between access to care and suicide, we leverage a dataset mapping all licensed US psychiatrists and psychotherapists (N= 711,214), as of early 2020, and employ real-world transportation data to model patients' mobility barriers. We find a strong association between reduced mental health care provider spatial-social accessibility and heightened suicide risk. Using a machine learning approach to condition on a host of 22 contextual factors known to be implicated in suicide (e.g., race, education, divorce, gun shop prevalence), we find that in locales where individuals seeking care can access fewer mental health care providers, already more likely to be saturated by demand, suicide risk is increased (3.2% for each reduced SD of psychiatrist accessibility; 2.3% for psychotherapists). Additionally, we observe that local spatial-social accessibility inequalities are associated with further heightened risk of suicide, underscoring the need for research to account for the highly localized barriers preventing many Americans from accessing needed mental health services.


Subject(s)
Mental Health Services , Suicide , Humans , United States , Health Services Accessibility , Mental Health , Suicidal Ideation
13.
Circulation ; 150(3): 171-173, 2024 Jul 16.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-39008562

ABSTRACT

Our research investigates the societal implications of access to glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonists, particularly in light of recent clinical trials demonstrating the efficacy of semaglutide in reducing cardiovascular mortality. A decade-long analysis of Google Trends indicates a significant increase in searches for GLP-1 agonists, primarily in North America. This trend contrasts with the global prevalence of obesity. Given the high cost of GLP-1 agonists, a critical question arises: Will this disparity in medication accessibility exacerbate the global health equity gap in obesity treatment? This viewpoint explores strategies to address the health equity gap exacerbated by this emerging medication. Because GLP-1 agonists hold the potential to become a cornerstone in obesity treatment, ensuring equitable access is a pressing public health concern.


Subject(s)
Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 Receptor , Health Equity , Obesity , Humans , Obesity/drug therapy , Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 Receptor/agonists , Glucagon-Like Peptides/therapeutic use , Healthcare Disparities , Health Services Accessibility , Anti-Obesity Agents/therapeutic use , Hypoglycemic Agents/therapeutic use , Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonists
14.
Lancet ; 403(10443): 2551-2564, 2024 Jun 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38797179

ABSTRACT

Rising antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is a global health crisis for countries of all economic levels, alongside the broader challenge of access to antibiotics. As a result, development goals for child survival, healthy ageing, poverty reduction, and food security are at risk. Preserving antimicrobial effectiveness, a global public good, requires political will, targets, accountability frameworks, and funding. The upcoming second high-level meeting on AMR at the UN General Assembly (UNGA) in September, 2024, is evidence of political interest in addressing the problem of AMR, but action on targets, accountability, and funding, absent from the 2016 UNGA resolution, is needed. We propose ambitious yet achievable global targets for 2030 (relative to a prepandemic 2019 baseline): a 10% reduction in mortality from AMR; a 20% reduction in inappropriate human antibiotic use; and a 30% reduction in inappropriate animal antibiotic use. Given national variation in current levels of antibiotic use, these goals (termed the 10-20-30 by 2030) should be met within a framework of universal access to effective antibiotics. The WHO Access, Watch, Reserve (AWARE) system can be used to define, monitor, and evaluate appropriate levels of antibiotic use and access. Some countries should increase access to narrow-spectrum, safe, and affordable (Access) antibiotics, whereas others should discourage the inappropriate use of broader-spectrum (Watch) and last-resort (Reserve) antibiotics; AWARE targets should use a risk-based, burden-adjusted approach. Improved infection prevention and control, access to clean water and sanitation, and vaccination coverage can offset the selection effects of increased antibiotic use in low-income settings. To ensure accountability and global scientific guidance and consensus, we call for the establishment of the Independent Panel on Antimicrobial Access and Resistance and the support of leaders from low-income and middle-income countries.


Subject(s)
Anti-Bacterial Agents , Global Health , United Nations , Humans , Anti-Bacterial Agents/therapeutic use , Health Services Accessibility , Drug Resistance, Microbial
15.
Lancet ; 403(10445): 2751-2754, 2024 Jun 22.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38795714

ABSTRACT

On June 24, 2022, the US Supreme Court's decision in Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health Organization marked the removal of the constitutional right to abortion in the USA, introducing a complex ethical and legal landscape for patients and providers. This shift has had immediate health and equity repercussions, but it is also crucial to examine the broader impacts on states, health-care systems, and society as a whole. Restrictions on abortion access extend beyond immediate reproductive care concerns, necessitating a comprehensive understanding of the ruling's consequences across micro and macro levels. To mitigate potential harm, it is imperative to establish a research agenda that informs policy making and ensures effective long-term monitoring and reporting, addressing both immediate and future impacts.


Subject(s)
Supreme Court Decisions , Women's Health , Female , Humans , Pregnancy , Abortion, Induced/legislation & jurisprudence , Abortion, Induced/ethics , Abortion, Legal/legislation & jurisprudence , Health Services Accessibility/legislation & jurisprudence , United States , Women's Health/legislation & jurisprudence , Women's Rights/legislation & jurisprudence
16.
Lancet ; 403(10443): 2534-2550, 2024 Jun 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38797178

ABSTRACT

The increasing number of bacterial infections globally that do not respond to any available antibiotics indicates a need to invest in-and ensure access to-new antibiotics, vaccines, and diagnostics. The traditional model of drug development, which depends on substantial revenues to motivate investment, is no longer economically viable without push and pull incentives. Moreover, drugs developed through these mechanisms are unlikely to be affordable for all patients in need, particularly in low-income and middle-income countries. New, publicly funded models based on public-private partnerships could support investment in antibiotics and novel alternatives, and lower patients' out-of-pocket costs, making drugs more accessible. Cost reductions can be achieved with public goods, such as clinical trial networks and platform-based quality assurance, manufacturing, and product development support. Preserving antibiotic effectiveness relies on accurate and timely diagnosis; however scaling up diagnostics faces technological, economic, and behavioural challenges. New technologies appeared during the COVID-19 pandemic, but there is a need for a deeper understanding of market, physician, and consumer behaviour to improve the use of diagnostics in patient management. Ensuring sustainable access to antibiotics also requires infection prevention. Vaccines offer the potential to prevent infections from drug-resistant pathogens, but funding for vaccine development has been scarce in this context. The High-Level Meeting of the UN General Assembly in 2024 offers an opportunity to rethink how research and development can be reoriented to serve disease management, prevention, patient access, and antibiotic stewardship.


Subject(s)
Anti-Bacterial Agents , Drug Development , Humans , Anti-Bacterial Agents/therapeutic use , Bacterial Infections/prevention & control , Bacterial Infections/drug therapy , Bacterial Infections/diagnosis , COVID-19/prevention & control , Drug Resistance, Bacterial , Health Services Accessibility , Pandemics
17.
PLoS Comput Biol ; 20(7): e1012307, 2024 Jul.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-39058746

ABSTRACT

Access to treatment and medication for opioid use disorder (MOUD) is essential in reducing opioid use and associated behavioral risks, such as syringe sharing among persons who inject drugs (PWID). Syringe sharing among PWID carries high risk of transmission of serious infections such as hepatitis C and HIV. MOUD resources, such as methadone provider clinics, however, are often unavailable to PWID due to barriers like long travel distance to the nearest methadone provider and the required frequency of clinic visits. The goal of this study is to examine the uncertainty in the effects of travel distance in initiating and continuing methadone treatment and how these interact with different spatial distributions of methadone providers to impact co-injection (syringe sharing) risks. A baseline scenario of spatial access was established using the existing locations of methadone providers in a geographical area of metropolitan Chicago, Illinois, USA. Next, different counterfactual scenarios redistributed the locations of methadone providers in this geographic area according to the densities of both the general adult population and according to the PWID population per zip code. We define different reasonable methadone access assumptions as the combinations of short, medium, and long travel distance preferences combined with three urban/suburban travel distance preference. Our modeling results show that when there is a low travel distance preference for accessing methadone providers, distributing providers near areas that have the greatest need (defined by density of PWID) is best at reducing syringe sharing behaviors. However, this strategy also decreases access across suburban locales, posing even greater difficulty in regions with fewer transit options and providers. As such, without an adequate number of providers to give equitable coverage across the region, spatial distribution cannot be optimized to provide equitable access to all PWID. Our study has important implications for increasing interest in methadone as a resurgent treatment for MOUD in the United States and for guiding policy toward improving access to MOUD among PWID.


Subject(s)
Health Services Accessibility , Methadone , Opiate Substitution Treatment , Opioid-Related Disorders , Methadone/therapeutic use , Humans , Opioid-Related Disorders/drug therapy , Opioid-Related Disorders/epidemiology , Health Services Accessibility/statistics & numerical data , Opiate Substitution Treatment/statistics & numerical data , Opiate Substitution Treatment/methods , Substance Abuse, Intravenous/epidemiology , Needle Sharing/statistics & numerical data , Adult , Analgesics, Opioid/therapeutic use , Analgesics, Opioid/administration & dosage , Computational Biology
18.
CA Cancer J Clin ; 68(2): 133-152, 2018 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29377070

ABSTRACT

The population of adult survivors of childhood cancer continues to grow as survival rates improve. Although it is well established that these survivors experience various complications and comorbidities related to their malignancy and treatment, this risk is modified by many factors that are not directly linked to their cancer history. Research evaluating the influence of patient-specific demographic and genetic factors, premorbid and comorbid conditions, health behaviors, and aging has identified additional risk factors that influence cancer treatment-related toxicity and possible targets for intervention in this population. Furthermore, although current long-term follow-up guidelines comprehensively address specific therapy-related risks and provide screening recommendations, the risk profile of the population continues to evolve with ongoing modification of treatment strategies and the emergence of novel therapeutics. To address the multifactorial modifiers of cancer treatment-related health risk and evolving treatment approaches, a patient-centered and risk-adapted approach to care that often requires a multidisciplinary team approach, including medical and behavioral providers, is necessary for this population. CA Cancer J Clin 2018;68:133-152. © 2018 American Cancer Society.


Subject(s)
Cancer Survivors , Neoplasms/complications , Neoplasms/psychology , Patient-Centered Care , Adult , Age Factors , Child , Health Behavior , Health Services Accessibility , Humans , Neoplasms/therapy , Quality of Life , Risk Factors
19.
Ann Intern Med ; 177(6): 812-816, 2024 Jun.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38739923

ABSTRACT

The current U.S. health insurance "system" was not deliberately planned and constructed but has emerged piecemeal over the past half-century through a series of incremental and haphazard reforms. That policy history also reveals a clear but unfulfilled societal commitment to providing access to essential health care regardless of resources. To fulfill this obligation, the solution proposed in this article has 2 key elements: 1) universal coverage that is automatic, free, and basic, and 2) the option to buy supplemental coverage in a well-designed market. Such a system could, if desired, be created without raising taxes and without disrupting or changing the delivery of medical care.


Subject(s)
Health Care Reform , Universal Health Insurance , United States , Humans , Insurance, Health/economics , Health Services Accessibility , Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
20.
Ann Intern Med ; 177(4): 484-496, 2024 Apr.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38467001

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: There is increasing concern for the potential impact of health care algorithms on racial and ethnic disparities. PURPOSE: To examine the evidence on how health care algorithms and associated mitigation strategies affect racial and ethnic disparities. DATA SOURCES: Several databases were searched for relevant studies published from 1 January 2011 to 30 September 2023. STUDY SELECTION: Using predefined criteria and dual review, studies were screened and selected to determine: 1) the effect of algorithms on racial and ethnic disparities in health and health care outcomes and 2) the effect of strategies or approaches to mitigate racial and ethnic bias in the development, validation, dissemination, and implementation of algorithms. DATA EXTRACTION: Outcomes of interest (that is, access to health care, quality of care, and health outcomes) were extracted with risk-of-bias assessment using the ROBINS-I (Risk Of Bias In Non-randomised Studies - of Interventions) tool and adapted CARE-CPM (Critical Appraisal for Racial and Ethnic Equity in Clinical Prediction Models) equity extension. DATA SYNTHESIS: Sixty-three studies (51 modeling, 4 retrospective, 2 prospective, 5 prepost studies, and 1 randomized controlled trial) were included. Heterogenous evidence on algorithms was found to: a) reduce disparities (for example, the revised kidney allocation system), b) perpetuate or exacerbate disparities (for example, severity-of-illness scores applied to critical care resource allocation), and/or c) have no statistically significant effect on select outcomes (for example, the HEART Pathway [history, electrocardiogram, age, risk factors, and troponin]). To mitigate disparities, 7 strategies were identified: removing an input variable, replacing a variable, adding race, adding a non-race-based variable, changing the racial and ethnic composition of the population used in model development, creating separate thresholds for subpopulations, and modifying algorithmic analytic techniques. LIMITATION: Results are mostly based on modeling studies and may be highly context-specific. CONCLUSION: Algorithms can mitigate, perpetuate, and exacerbate racial and ethnic disparities, regardless of the explicit use of race and ethnicity, but evidence is heterogeneous. Intentionality and implementation of the algorithm can impact the effect on disparities, and there may be tradeoffs in outcomes. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Agency for Healthcare Quality and Research.


Subject(s)
Algorithms , Healthcare Disparities , Humans , Healthcare Disparities/ethnology , Health Services Accessibility , Quality of Health Care , Ethnicity
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL