Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 5 de 5
Filter
1.
Health Policy ; 126(10): 988-995, 2022 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36002358

ABSTRACT

Although public health emergencies like the COVID-19 pandemic thrust senior public health officials into the spotlight, their day-to-day roles remain misunderstood and under-examined. In jurisdictions that follow the Westminster system of government such as Canada, the United Kingdom, and Australia, Chief Medical Officers of Health (CMOHs) are typically senior public servants who are simultaneously positioned as public health professionals with independent expertise, senior advisors to an elected government, and designated protectors of the public health interest. Using Canada's federal and provincial CMOHs as case studies of this role in Westminster governments, we analyzed in-depth key informant interview data to examine how CMOHs navigate the tensions among their duties to the government, profession, and public in order to maximize their public health impact. We demonstrate that CMOHs are variously called upon to be government advisors, public health managers, and public communicators, and that the different emphasis that jurisdictions place on these roles shapes the tools and pathways through which CMOHs can influence government action and public health. We also elucidate the tensions associated with having CMOHs positioned within the senior levels of the public service and the strategies these officials use to balance their internal- and external-facing roles. Finally, we highlight the trade-offs among different institutional design options to inform decisions about the structure of the CMOH position in different contexts.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Public Health , Canada , Humans , Pandemics , Qualitative Research
2.
Health Res Policy Syst ; 20(1): 55, 2022 May 16.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35578289

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Several countries allocate official development assistance (ODA) for research on global health and development issues that is initiated in the donor country. The integration of such research within domestic research systems aligns with efforts to coordinate ODA investments with science, technology and innovation policies towards achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). METHODS: Through a document synthesis and interviews with research funders in ODA donor and recipient countries, we evaluated the performance of this funding approach across seven donor-country programmes from five donor countries and examined the institutional design elements that increase its chances of advancing development goals and addressing global challenges. RESULTS: We found that carefully designed programmes provide a promising pathway to producing valuable and contextually relevant knowledge on global health and development issues. To achieve these outcomes and ensure they benefit ODA-receiving countries, programmes should focus on recipient-country priorities and absorptive capacity; translate research on global public goods into context-appropriate technologies; plan and monitor pathways to impact; structure equitable partnerships; strengthen individual and institutional capacity; and emphasize knowledge mobilization. CONCLUSIONS: Global health and development research programmes and partnerships have an important role to play in achieving the SDGs and addressing global challenges. Governments should consider the potential of ODA-funded research programmes to address gaps in their global health and development frameworks. In the absence of concrete evidence of development impact, donor countries should consider making increases in ODA allocations for research additional to more direct investments that have demonstrated effectiveness in ODA-receiving countries.


Subject(s)
Global Health , International Cooperation , Developed Countries , Developing Countries , Financing, Organized , Humans
3.
J Epidemiol Community Health ; 76(1): 100-104, 2022 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34407995

ABSTRACT

As the COVID-19 pandemic took hold in 2020, Chief Medical Officers (CMOs) entered the public spotlight like never before. Amidst this increased visibility, the role is deeply contested. Much of the disagreement concerns whether CMOs should act independently of the government: while some argue CMOs should act as independent voices who work to shape government policy to protect public health, others stress that CMOs are civil servants whose job is to support the government. The scope and diversity of debates about the CMO role can be explained by its inherently contradictory nature, which requires incumbents to balance their commitments as physicians with their mandates as civil servants who advise and speak on the government's behalf. The long-haul COVID-19 pandemic has further tested the CMO role and has shone light on its varying remits and expectations across different jurisdictions, institutions and contexts. It is perhaps unsurprising, then, that calls to amend the CMO role have emerged in some jurisdictions during the pandemic. However, any discussions about changing the CMO role need a stronger understanding of how different institutional and individual approaches impact what incumbents feel able to do, say and achieve. Based on an ongoing comparative analysis of the position across five countries with Westminster-style political systems, we provide an overview of the CMO role, explain its prominence in a pandemic, examine some debates surrounding the role and discuss a few unanswered empirical questions before describing our ongoing study in greater detail.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Pandemics , COVID-19/complications , Government , Humans , SARS-CoV-2 , Post-Acute COVID-19 Syndrome
4.
CMAJ Open ; 8(3): E560-E567, 2020.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32887695

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) crisis, Canada's provincial chief medical officers of health (CMOHs) have provided regular updates on the pandemic response. We sought to examine whether their messaging varied over time and whether it varied across jurisdictions. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative study of news releases from Canadian provincial government websites during the initial phases of the COVID-19 outbreak between Jan. 21 and Mar. 31, 2020. We performed content analysis using a predefined data extraction framework to derive themes. RESULTS: We identified 290 news releases. Four broad thematic categories emerged: describing the government's preparedness and capacity building, issuing recommendations and mandates, expressing reassurance and encouraging the public, and promoting public responsibility. Most of the news releases were prescriptive, conveying recommendations and mandates to slow transmission. Cross-jurisdictional variations in messaging reflected local realities, such as evidence of community transmission. Messaging also reflected changing information about the pandemic over time, shifting from a tone of reassurance early on, to a sudden emphasis on social distancing measures, to a concern with public responsibility to slow transmission. INTERPRETATION: Messaging across jurisdictions was generally consistent, and variations in the tone and timing of CMOH messaging aligned with different and changing realities across contexts. These findings indicate that when evaluating CMOHs' statements, it is critical to consider the context of the information they possess, the epidemiologic circumstances in their jurisdiction and the way the province has structured the CMOH role.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Disease Outbreaks/prevention & control , Information Dissemination/methods , Physician Executives/statistics & numerical data , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/transmission , COVID-19/virology , Canada/epidemiology , Communication , Humans , Physician Executives/ethics , Qualitative Research , SARS-CoV-2/genetics
5.
Glob Public Health ; 8(6): 639-53, 2013 Jul.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-23826994

ABSTRACT

United Nations (UN) member states have universally recognised the right to health in international agreements, but protection of this right at the national level remains incomplete. This article examines the level and scope of constitutional protection of specific rights to public health and medical care, as well as the broad right to health. We analysed health rights in the constitutions of 191 UN countries in 2007 and 2011. We examined how rights protections varied across the year of constitutional adoption; national income group and region; and for vulnerable groups within each country. A minority of the countries guaranteed the rights to public health (14%), medical care (38%) and overall health (36%) in their constitutions in 2011. Free medical care was constitutionally protected in 9% of the countries. Thirteen per cent of the constitutions guaranteed children's right to health or medical care, 6% did so for persons with disabilities and 5% for each of the elderly and the socio-economically disadvantaged. Valuable next steps include regular monitoring of the national protection of health rights recognised in international agreements, analyses of the impact of health rights on health outcomes and longitudinal multi-level studies to assess whether specific formulations of the rights have greater impact.


Subject(s)
Global Health , Health Services Accessibility/legislation & jurisprudence , Human Rights/legislation & jurisprudence , Public Health/legislation & jurisprudence , Constitution and Bylaws , Cross-Sectional Studies , Health Services Accessibility/trends , Humans , United Nations
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...