ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to showcase the potential and key concerns and risks of artificial intelligence (AI) in the health sector, illustrating its application with current examples, and to provide policy guidance for the development, assessment, and adoption of AI technologies to advance policy objectives. METHODS: Nonsystematic scan and analysis of peer-reviewed and gray literature on AI in the health sector, focusing on key insights for policy and governance. RESULTS: The application of AI in the health sector is currently in the early stages. Most applications have not been scaled beyond the research setting. The use in real-world clinical settings is especially nascent, with more evidence in public health, biomedical research, and "back office" administration. Deploying AI in the health sector carries risks and hazards that must be managed proactively by policy makers. For AI to produce positive health and policy outcomes, 5 key areas for policy are proposed, including health data governance, operationalizing AI principles, flexible regulation, skills among health workers and patients, and strategic public investment. CONCLUSIONS: AI is not a panacea, but a tool to address specific problems. Its successful development and adoption require data governance that ensures high-quality data are available and secure; relevant actors can access technical infrastructure and resources; regulatory frameworks promote trustworthy AI products; and health workers and patients have the information and skills to use AI products and services safely, effectively, and efficiently. All of this requires considerable investment and international collaboration.
Subject(s)
Artificial Intelligence , Health Care Sector/organization & administration , Health Care Sector/statistics & numerical data , Health Policy , Health Services Administration/statistics & numerical data , Biomedical Research/organization & administration , Critical Pathways , Delivery of Health Care/organization & administration , Efficiency, Organizational , Health Care Sector/economics , Health Care Sector/standards , Health Equity , Humans , Public Health Administration/standards , Public Health Administration/statistics & numerical data , Safety ManagementSubject(s)
Biomedical Research/organization & administration , COVID-19/prevention & control , Communicable Disease Control/organization & administration , Public Health Practice , Vaccine Efficacy , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19 Serological Testing , COVID-19 Vaccines , Communicable Disease Control/methods , Data Systems , Government Regulation , Health Policy/legislation & jurisprudence , Humans , Immunization, Secondary , Public Health Administration/legislation & jurisprudence , Public Health Administration/standards , United States , Vaccination/statistics & numerical dataSubject(s)
Public Health Administration , Public Health Practice , United States Public Health Service/organization & administration , Accreditation , Federal Government , Health Policy , Health Workforce/statistics & numerical data , Local Government , Public Health Administration/standards , State Government , United StatesABSTRACT
For nearly 2 decades, the Community Health Status Indicators tool reliably supplied communities with standardized, local health data and the capacity for peer-community comparisons. At the same time, it created a large community of users who shared learning in addressing local health needs. The tool survived a transition from the Health Resources and Services Administration to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention before being shuttered in 2017. While new community data tools have come online, nothing has replaced Community Health Status Indicators, and many stakeholders continue to clamor for something new that will enable local health needs assessments, peer comparisons, and creation of a community of solutions. The National Committee on Vital and Health Statistics heard from many stakeholders that they still need a replacement data source. (Am J Public Health. 2021;111(10):1865-1873. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2021.306437).
Subject(s)
Community Health Services/standards , Health Status Indicators , Public Health Administration/standards , Health Planning/organization & administration , Health Planning Support/standards , Humans , United StatesABSTRACT
The COVID-19 pandemic has revealed cracks in the nation's public health infrastructure.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Public Health Administration/economics , Public Health Administration/standards , Budgets , Humans , United States/epidemiology , WorkforceABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Leading Change is one of five Executive Core Qualifications (ECQs) used in developing leaders in the federal government. Leadership development programs that incorporate multirater feedback and executive coaching are valuable in developing competencies to lead change. METHODS: We examined the extent by which coaching influenced Leading Change competencies and identified effective tools and resources used to enhance the leadership capacity of first- and midlevel leaders at Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, Sexually Transmitted Diseases, and Tuberculosis Prevention. Data included qualitative data collected via semi-structured interviews that focused on leadership changes made by leaders in the Coaching and Leadership Initiative (CaLI), a leadership development program for Team Leads and Branch Chiefs. FINDINGS: Ninety-six participants completed leadership coaching; 94 (98%) of whom completed one or more interviews. Of those 94 respondents, 74 (79%) reported improvements in their ability to lead change in 3 of 4 leading change competencies: creativity and innovation, flexibility, and resilience. All respondents indicated tools and resources that were effective in leading change: 49 (52%) participated in instructor-led activities during their CaLI experience; 33 (35%) experiential activities; 94 (100%) developmental relationships, assessment, and feedback; and 25 (27%) self-development. CONCLUSIONS/APPLICATION TO PRACTICE: First- and midlevel leaders in a public health agency benefitted from using leadership coaching in developing competencies to lead organizational change. Leadership development programs might benefit from examining Leading Change competencies and including instructor-led and experiential activities as an additional component of a comprehensive leadership development program.
Subject(s)
Feedback , Leadership , Organizational Innovation , Public Health Administration/standards , Humans , Mentoring/methods , Mentoring/standards , Mentoring/statistics & numerical data , Public Health Administration/methods , Public Health Administration/statistics & numerical dataSubject(s)
Cost of Illness , Delivery of Health Care/organization & administration , Peripheral Arterial Disease/surgery , Vascular Surgical Procedures/standards , Delivery of Health Care/economics , Delivery of Health Care/standards , Humans , Peripheral Arterial Disease/economics , Peripheral Arterial Disease/epidemiology , Practice Guidelines as Topic , Practice Patterns, Physicians'/economics , Practice Patterns, Physicians'/organization & administration , Practice Patterns, Physicians'/standards , Public Health Administration/economics , Public Health Administration/standards , South Africa/epidemiology , Sustainable Development , Vascular Surgical Procedures/economics , Vascular Surgical Procedures/organization & administrationABSTRACT
Closed points of dispensing (PODs) are an essential component of local public health preparedness programs because most local public health agencies lack the infrastructure to distribute medical countermeasures to all community members in a short period of time through open PODs alone. However, no study has examined closed POD recruitment strategies or approaches to determine best practices, such as how to select or recruit an agency, group, or business to become a closed POD site once a potential partner has been identified. We conducted qualitative interviews with US disaster planners to identify their approaches and challenges to recruiting closed POD sites. In total, 16 disaster planners participated. Recruitment considerations related to selecting sites, paperwork needed, and challenges faced in recruiting closed POD sites. Important selection criteria for sites included size, agencies or businesses with vulnerable or confined populations who lack access or ability to get to or through open POD sites, and critical infrastructure organizations. Major challenges to recruitment included difficulty convincing sites of closed POD importance, obstacles with recruiting sites that can administer mass vaccination, and fear of legal repercussions related to medical countermeasure dispensing or administration. Closed POD recruitment is a frequently challenging but highly necessary process both before and during the current pandemic. These recommendations can be used by other disaster planners intending to start or expand their closed POD network. Public health agencies should continue working toward improved distribution plans for medical countermeasures, both oral and vaccine, to minimize morbidity and mortality during mass casualty events.
Subject(s)
Civil Defense/organization & administration , Disaster Planning/organization & administration , Emergency Responders/statistics & numerical data , Public Health Administration/standards , Bioterrorism/prevention & control , Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S. , Geography, Medical , Humans , Pandemics/prevention & control , Qualitative Research , United StatesABSTRACT
Fourteen months into the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, we identify key lessons in the global and national responses to the pandemic. The World Health Organization has played a pivotal technical, normative and coordinating role, but has been constrained by its lack of authority over sovereign member states. Many governments also mistakenly attempted to manage COVID-19 like influenza, resulting in repeated lockdowns, high excess morbidity and mortality, and poor economic recovery. Despite the incredible speed of the development and approval of effective and safe vaccines, the emergence of new SARS-CoV-2 variants means that all countries will have to rely on a globally coordinated public health effort for several years to defeat this pandemic.
Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Communicable Disease Control , Global Health , Communicable Disease Control/methods , Communicable Disease Control/organization & administration , Communicable Disease Control/trends , Global Health/history , Global Health/trends , Government , History, 21st Century , Humans , Pandemics/history , Public Health/history , Public Health/methods , Public Health/trends , Public Health Administration/methods , Public Health Administration/standards , Public Health Administration/trends , SARS-CoV-2/physiologySubject(s)
Coronavirus Infections/prevention & control , Information Dissemination/methods , Public Health Administration/standards , Public Health Practice/standards , Biomedical Research/standards , Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S./standards , Communication , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Federal Government , Humans , State Government , United StatesABSTRACT
The present article details the publication process and the vicissitudes of three articles about SARS-CoV-2 and its related disease (COVID-19). The three articles were published one month apart between March and May 2020. Their mediatization led French health authorities to intervene. Our article does not focus on and does not assess the scientific quality of the articles presented, but only aims to open the reflection on medical publication. Beyond the description of these three specific cases, this article raises issues about article retraction, peer-reviewing, preprints, authorship and the dissemination of scientific medical information, including through the mass media. It discusses new publishing modes and the dissemination of published information in clinical research.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Communications Media , Information Dissemination , Public Opinion , Publishing , COVID-19/epidemiology , Data Accuracy , Decision Making , France/epidemiology , Humans , Public Health Administration/standards , Publications/standards , Publications/statistics & numerical data , Publishing/standards , Publishing/statistics & numerical data , SARS-CoV-2/physiologySubject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Infection Control/organization & administration , Models, Organizational , Pandemics , COVID-19/transmission , Community Networks/organization & administration , Community Networks/standards , Delivery of Health Care/methods , Delivery of Health Care/organization & administration , Disease Outbreaks/prevention & control , Food Assistance/organization & administration , Food Assistance/standards , Humans , India/epidemiology , Infection Control/methods , Psychosocial Support Systems , Public Health Administration/methods , Public Health Administration/standards , SARS-CoV-2/physiology , Transients and MigrantsSubject(s)
COVID-19/ethnology , Emigrants and Immigrants/statistics & numerical data , Ethnicity/statistics & numerical data , Healthcare Disparities , Minority Groups/statistics & numerical data , Patient Advocacy , Bias , COVID-19/mortality , COVID-19/pathology , Confidentiality/legislation & jurisprudence , France/epidemiology , Health Status Disparities , Healthcare Disparities/ethnology , Healthcare Disparities/legislation & jurisprudence , Healthcare Disparities/statistics & numerical data , Humans , Morbidity , Mortality/ethnology , Pandemics , Patient Advocacy/legislation & jurisprudence , Public Health Administration/legislation & jurisprudence , Public Health Administration/standards , Public Health Administration/trends , SARS-CoV-2ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Making the right decisions in the field of public health depends on the reliable recording of statistical data such as death and birth. There have been radical changes and innovations in the death registration since 2009 in Turkey to improve reporting. AIMS: To examine the distribution and the trend of causes of death between the years 2009 and 2017 in Turkey. STUDY DESIGN: Descriptive study. METHODS: In this study, the causes of death were evaluated in three groups used in the Global Burden of Disease study. Group I included infectious, maternal, perinatal, and nutritional conditions; group II included noncommunicable diseases; and group III included injuries. Age-standardized mortality rates were calculated per 100,000 according to age, sex, and cause of death. Joinpoint regression was used to evaluate the trend in mortality rates. In addition, the leading causes of death were also determined. RESULTS: In total, age-standardized mortality rates increased significantly on average annually (1.5% per year). When the trends of causes of death were examined according to gender, there was a significant increase in deaths from group I in both genders and a significant increase in deaths from group III in males, whereas there was no statistically significant change in deaths from group II between 2009 and 2017. CONCLUSION: A significant quantitative improvement in death registration was seen in Turkey between the years 2009 and 2017. This is due to the increase in the number of reported deaths. The change in the distribution of causes of death is noteworthy. This research can provide the basis for further researches that will examine the change in causes of death.