RESUMEN
Background: A notable shift in healthcare policy is healthcare privatization, which refers to the transfer of ownership, management, or provision of healthcare services from the public sector to private entities. Objectives: To provide a narrative examination of the impact of privatization on various dimensions of healthcare, including quality, equity, accessibility, and cost-effectiveness. Policymakers can utilize the findings of this study to make well-informed decisions regarding privatization strategies. Materials and Methods: A systematic review was implemented using the following databases: PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar. Studies conducted from January 2000 to January 2023 in developing or developed countries that assessed the impact of healthcare privatization on population health within public sector institutions were included. Results: Eleven studies were included. The findings revealed diverse perspectives on the impact of healthcare privatization, with four studies (36.4%) supporting privatization (two of these were conducted in Saudi Arabia), six studies (54.5%) opposing it (three of these were conducted in European countries), and one study (9.1%) taking a neutral stance. Two studies investigated the impact on healthcare quality, and both revealed that privatization negatively impacts uninsured patients and low-income populations. In addition, five studies investigated the healthcare access and equity dimensions following privatization: one was in favor, one was neutral, and three were opposing it. Four studies investigated the cost-effectiveness dimension, with three in favor and one study opposing it. Conclusion: This review highlights different perspectives on healthcare privatization. While studies, as those from Saudi Arabia, suggest benefits in terms of efficiency and innovation, others, particularly from European countries, emphasize negative consequences such as inequity and reduced quality. This emphasizes the need for more investigations to understand privatization's impact on healthcare.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) has received much attention in various clinical settings and has been approved recently for application in pediatric care. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether HFNC use improves cardiopulmonary outcomes in pediatric patients with the cardiac disease more effectively than alternative oxygen therapies. METHODS: Systematic review was performed using PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases. Randomized controlled trials comparing HFNC with alternative oxygen therapies and observational studies that solely reported on the use of HFNC in the pediatric population were included between 2012 and 2022. RESULTS: Nine studies with approximately 656 patients were reported in this review. HFNC significantly increased systemic oxygen saturation across all literature investigating this parameter. Other notable outcomes in HFNC patients included normalizing heart rate, partial blood pressure, and PaO2/FiO2 ratio. However, some studies reported a complication rate concurrent with traditional oxygen therapies, and a suggested HFNC failure rate of 50% was observed. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with traditional oxygen therapies, HFNC can reduce anatomical dead space and normalize systemic oxygen saturation, PaO2/FiO2 ratio, heart rate, and partial blood pressure. We advocate using HFNC therapy in children with cardiac diseases as the currently available evidence supports HFNC use over other oxygenation treatments in the pediatric population.
