Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 11 de 11
Filter
Add more filters










Publication year range
1.
Lancet ; 402(10409): 1237-1238, 2023 10 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37805211
2.
Int J Health Policy Manag ; 11(6): 851-854, 2022 06 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34973056

ABSTRACT

While Australia's health system has reached universal health coverage (UHC), recent scholarship points to its strengths and identifies ways it could be more effective and equitable, especially for tackling non-communicable diseases (NCDs). Building on the Australian experience, we add to these perspectives and present pertinent lessons for the quest towards UHC, and for policy-makers globally with regard to NCDs. Potential lessons include: the need for (i) vigilance - UHC requires ongoing monitoring and evaluation of not only financial risk protection but non-financial barriers and impacts such as forgone care; (ii) investment and action now on structural determinants of NCDs and related inequalities to avoid potentially higher (fiscal, social and health) costs in the longer term; and (iii) the opportunity for policy-makers globally and nationally to revisit their ambitions for UHC to include population health policies/ programs beyond essential health services that are required for healthier, more equitable and thriving societies.


Subject(s)
Health Equity , Noncommunicable Diseases , Australia , Humans , Noncommunicable Diseases/prevention & control , Primary Health Care , Universal Health Insurance
3.
Data Brief ; 39: 107579, 2021 Dec.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34805466

ABSTRACT

The Covid-19 Pandemic Policy Monitor (COV-PPM) dataset prospectively documents non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) taken to contain SARS-Cov-2 transmission across countries in EU27, EEA and UK. In Germany, measures have also been recorded at the federal state and, partially, at the district levels. NPIs implemented since January 2020 have been retrieved and updated weekly from March 2020, from official governments webpages, Ministries of Health, National (Public) Health Institutes or Administrations. NPI categories collected refer to restrictions, closures or changes in functioning implemented in 13 domains: public events (gatherings in indoor or outdoor spaces); public institutions (kindergartens, schools, universities); public spaces (shops, bars, restaurants); public transport (trains, buses, trams, metro); citizens movement/mobility (e.g. pedestrians, cars, ships); border closures (air, land or sea, all incoming travels, from high-risk regions, only non-nationals); measures to improve the healthcare system (e.g. human resources or technical reinforcement, redistribution, material or infrastructural); measures for risk/vulnerable groups (e.g. elderly, chronically ill, pregnant); economic measures (e.g. lay-off rules establishment, actions to avoid job-loss, tax relaxation); testing policies (e.g. testing criteria changes); nose and mouth protection rules, vaccination and others/miscellaneous measures.

4.
Global Health ; 17(1): 18, 2021 02 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33522937

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The success of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) is predicated on multisectoral collaboration (MSC), and the COVID-19 pandemic makes it more urgent to learn how this can be done better. Complex challenges facing countries, such as COVID-19, cut across health, education, environment, financial and other sectors. Addressing these challenges requires the range of responsible sectors and intersecting services - across health, education, social and financial protection, economic development, law enforcement, among others - transform the way they work together towards shared goals. While the necessity of MSC is recognized, research is needed to understand how sectors collaborate, inform how to do so more efficiently, effectively and equitably, and ascertain similarities and differences across contexts. To answer these questions and inform practice, research to strengthen the evidence-base on MSC is critical. METHODS: This paper draws on a 12-country study series on MSC for health and sustainable development, in the context of the health and rights of women, children and adolescents. It is written by core members of the research coordination and country teams. Issues were analyzed during the study period through 'real-time' discussions and structured reporting, as well as through literature reviews and retrospective feedback and analysis at the end of the study. RESULTS: We identify four considerations that are unique to MSC research which will be of interest to other researchers, in the context of COVID-19 and beyond: 1) use theoretical frameworks to frame research questions as relevant to all sectors and to facilitate theoretical generalizability and evolution; 2) specifically incorporate sectoral analysis into MSC research methods; 3) develop a core set of research questions, using mixed methods and contextual adaptations as needed, with agreement on criteria for research rigor; and 4) identify shared indicators of success and failure across sectors to assess MSCs. CONCLUSION: In responding to COVID-19 it is evident that effective MSC is an urgent priority. It enables partners from diverse sectors to effectively convene to do more together than alone. Our findings have practical relevance for achieving this objective and contribute to the growing literature on partnerships and collaboration. We must seize the opportunity here to identify remaining knowledge gaps on how diverse sectors can work together efficiently and effectively in different settings to accelerate progress towards achieving shared goals.


Subject(s)
Global Health , Intersectoral Collaboration , Research , Sustainable Development , COVID-19/prevention & control , Developing Countries , Humans
9.
Glob Health Action ; 11(sup1): 1423744, 2018.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29569529

ABSTRACT

The World Health Organization's Innov8 Approach for Reviewing National Health Programmes to Leave No One Behind is an eight-step process that supports the operationalization of the Sustainable Development Goals' commitment to 'leave no one behind'. In 2014-2015, Innov8 was adapted and applied in Indonesia to review how the national neonatal and maternal health action plans could become more equity-oriented, rights-based and gender-responsive, and better address critical social determinants of health. The process was led by the Indonesian Ministry of Health, with the support of WHO. It involved a wide range of actors and aligned with/fed into the drafting of the maternal newborn health action plan and the implementation planning of the newborn action plan. Key activities included a sensitization meeting, diagnostic checklist, review workshop and in-country work by the review teams. This 'methods forum' article describes this adaptation and application process, the outcomes and lessons learnt. In conjunction with other sources, Innov8 findings and recommendations informed national and sub-national maternal and neonatal action plans and programming to strengthen a 'leave no one behind' approach. As follow-up during 2015-2017, components of the Innov8 methodology were integrated into district-level planning processes for maternal and newborn health, and Innov8 helped generate demand for health inequality monitoring and its use in planning. In Indonesia, Innov8 enhanced national capacity for equity-oriented, rights-based and gender-responsive approaches and addressing critical social determinants of health. Adaptation for the national planning context (e.g. decentralized structure) and linking with health inequality monitoring capacity building were important lessons learnt. The pilot of Innov8 in Indonesia suggests that this approach can help operationalize the SDGs' commitment to leave no one behind, in particular in relation to influencing programming and monitoring and evaluation.


Subject(s)
Maternal-Child Health Services/organization & administration , National Health Programs/organization & administration , Female , Health Status Disparities , Humans , Indonesia , Infant, Newborn , Maternal-Child Health Services/standards , National Health Programs/standards , Quality of Health Care/organization & administration , World Health Organization
10.
Global Health ; 7: 8, 2011 Apr 18.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-21501519

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: In the past decades, the increasing importance of and rapid changes in the global health arena have provoked discussions on the implications for the education of health professionals. In the case of Germany, it remains yet unclear whether international or global aspects are sufficiently addressed within medical education. Evaluation challenges exist in Germany and elsewhere due to a lack of conceptual guides to develop, evaluate or assess education in this field. OBJECTIVE: To propose a framework conceptualising 'global health' education (GHE) in practice, to guide the evaluation and monitoring of educational interventions and reforms through a set of key indicators that characterise GHE. METHODS: Literature review; deduction. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: Currently, 'new' health challenges and educational needs as a result of the globalisation process are discussed and linked to the evolving term 'global health'. The lack of a common definition of this term complicates attempts to analyse global health in the field of education. The proposed GHE framework addresses these problems and presents a set of key characteristics of education in this field. The framework builds on the models of 'social determinants of health' and 'globalisation and health' and is oriented towards 'health for all' and 'health equity'. It provides an action-oriented construct for a bottom-up engagement with global health by the health workforce. Ten indicators are deduced for use in monitoring and evaluation.

11.
PLoS One ; 5(11): e14059, 2010 Nov 18.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-21124982

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Patents are one of the most important forms of intellectual property. They grant a time-limited exclusivity on the use of an invention allowing the recuperation of research costs. The use of patents is fiercely debated for medical innovation and especially controversial for publicly funded research, where the patent holder is an institution accountable to public interest. Despite this controversy, for the situation in Germany almost no empirical information exists. The purpose of this study is to examine the amount, types and trends of patent applications for health products submitted by German public research organisations. METHODS/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We conducted a systematic search for patent documents using the publicly accessible database search interface of the German Patent and Trademark Office. We defined keywords and search criteria and developed search patterns for the database request. We retrieved documents with application date between 1988 and 2006 and processed the collected data stepwise to compile the most relevant documents in patent families for further analysis. We developed a rationale and present individual steps of a systematic method to request and process patent data from a publicly accessible database. We retrieved and processed 10194 patent documents. Out of these, we identified 1772 relevant patent families, applied for by 193 different universities and non-university public research organisations. 827 (47%) of these patent families contained granted patents. The number of patent applications submitted by universities and university-affiliated institutions more than tripled since the introduction of legal reforms in 2002, constituting almost half of all patent applications and accounting for most of the post-reform increase. Patenting of most non-university public research organisations remained stable. CONCLUSIONS: We search, process and analyse patent applications from publicly accessible databases. Internationally mounting evidence questions the viability of policies to increase commercial exploitation of publicly funded research results. To evaluate the outcome of research policies a transparent evidence base for public debate is needed in Germany.


Subject(s)
Biomedical Research/legislation & jurisprudence , Patents as Topic/legislation & jurisprudence , Universities , Biomedical Research/statistics & numerical data , Biotechnology/legislation & jurisprudence , Biotechnology/standards , Databases, Factual/statistics & numerical data , Germany , Humans , Patents as Topic/statistics & numerical data , Policy
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL