The workforce crisis in healthcare: Moving the debate to bridge evidence and policy.

This Special Issue aims to advance the healthcare workforce (HCWF) debate by directing its attention to the implementation of policy recommendations and identifying weaknesses. The selection of articles highlights a wide range of HCWF policies and interventions across various countries. The challenges faced often stem from policy failures and governance gaps at the macro-, meso- and micro-levels of health systems. Recommendations to mitigate the HCWF crisis include interconnected strategies, multi-/transsectoral policies, solidarity-based efforts, collaboration, skill-mix reforms, equity measures, global approaches, and crucially, strong political will. In addition, specific policy solutions are explored, such as community-centred action and employment of community health workers, mental health support initiatives, inclusion of refugees and displaced healthcare workers into the labour market, and preparing the HCWF for the impact of climate change. This Special Issue calls for transformative HCWF policies and multi-level transsectoral governance as essential components needed to effectively address the crisis. This will only be possible, if HCWF policy moves higher up in the public policy arena leading, among other things, to the establishment of HCWF research as a distinct academic field.

How can intersectoral collaboration and action help improve the education, recruitment, and retention of the health and care workforce? A scoping review.

Inadequate numbers, maldistribution, attrition, and inadequate skill-mix are widespread health and care workforce (HCWF) challenges. Intersectoral-inclusive of different government sectors, non-state actors, and the private sector-collaboration and action are foundational to the development of a responsive and sustainable HCWF. This review presents evidence on how to work across sectors to educate, recruit, and retain a sustainable HCWF, highlighting examples of the benefits and challenges of intersectoral collaboration. We carried out a scoping review of scientific and grey literature with inclusion criteria around intersectoral governance and mechanisms for the HCWF. A framework analysis to identify and collate factors linked to the education, recruitment, and retention of the HCWF was carried out. Fifty-six documents were included. We identified a wide array of recommendations for intersectoral activity to support the education, recruitment, and retention of the HCWF. For HCWF education: formalise intersectoral decision-making bodies; align HCWF education with population health needs; expand training capacity; engage and regulate private sector training; seek international training opportunities and support; and innovate in training by leveraging digital technologies. For HCWF recruitment: ensure there is intersectoral clarity and cooperation; ensure bilateral agreements are ethical; carry out data-informed recruitment; and learn from COVID-19 about mobilising the domestic workforce. For HCWF retention: innovate around available staff, especially where staff are scarce; improve working and employment conditions; and engage the private sector. Political will and commensurate investment must underscore any intersectoral collaboration for the HCWF.

The mental health needs of healthcare workers: When evidence does not guide policy. A comparative assessment of selected European countries.

BACKGROUND: The healthcare workforce (HCWF) globally is facing high stress levels and deteriorating mental health due to workplace, labour market and policy deficiencies that further exacerbate the existing crisis. However, comprehensive and effective action is missing. AIMS: We adopt a health system and governance perspective to address the mental health needs of healthcare workers (HCWs), considering the nature of interventions and the levels and actors involved in governance. The aim is to move the debate forward by identifying governance gaps hampering the implementation of health workforce policies and exploring strategies to effectively increase mental health support. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A qualitative comparative methodology is applied based on a case study design utilising a multi-level intersectoral governance matrix. We conducted a rapid assessment of HCWF developments in the European context (Germany, Portugal, Romania, Switzerland and the United Kingdom), drawing on secondary sources and country experts. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Awareness of mental health threats among HCWs increased, but policy discourse is driven by service delivery and labour market demands. The attention to HCWs' needs is stronger on the international level and weakest at national/regional levels. Although organisations and professions demonstrate varying degrees of activity, their efforts are scattered and lack sustainability. Similar challenges were identified across healthcare systems, including limited action, disconnected actors, missing coordination, and a lack of attention to governance gaps and system weaknesses. CONCLUSION: Adopting a health system approach is important but not sufficient. Successful mental health policy implementation needs multi-level governance and coherent coordination mechanisms.

Post-COVID health policy responses to healthcare workforce capacities: A comparative analysis of health system resilience in six European countries.

A cross countries in Europe, health policy is seeking to adapt to the post-pandemic 'permacrisis', where high demands on the healthcare workforce and shortages continue and combine with climate change, and war. The success of these efforts depends on the capacities of the healthcare workforce. This study aims to compare health policy responses to strengthen the capacities of the healthcare workforce and to explore the underpinning dynamics between health systems, policy actors and health policies. The study draws on a qualitative, comparative analysis of Austria, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Germany, Italy and the Netherlands. The findings suggest that policy responses at the national level focused on hospitals and absorptive capacities, while policy responses at local/regional levels also included general practice and adaptive capacities. There were only few examples of policies directed at transformative capacities. The underling dynamics were shaped by health systems, where individual parts are closely connected, by embeddedness in specific service delivery and areas, and by power dynamics. In conclusion, sub-national health policy responses emerge as key to effective responses to the post-pandemic permacrisis, where health professions are central policy actors. Sub-national health policy responses build on existing power relations, but also have the potential to transcend these power relations.

European support for improving global health systems and policies

The European Union (EU) is one of the world’s largest markets, aid donors, health care innovators and tradingpowers. As such, many of its policies affect global health. EU policies affect global health directly, as with overseas aid, trade policy or support for the World Health Organization (WHO). They also affect global health indirectly, as with the many internally focused policies which affect health and health policy options in other countries, such as research priorities or medicines regulation. The extensive range of policy areas that touch global health mean that the EU has a wide range of policy tools which inevitably shape global health, and which the EU can use intentionally to shape health governance and outcomes worldwide.The broad shape of any coherent strategy or approach to global health, in the complex institutional environment ofEurope, must align priorities with tools, identifying what the EU wants to achieve in the global health sphere andwhich policy tools will be best suited to have the desired effects. Alignment requires consideration of the differentways in which countries near the EU already relate to it (e.g. accession candidates) and should include anappreciation of which actors should use the different policy tools, with respect to subsidiarity as well as the advantages of joint action in some areas. The review of EU instruments clearly shows the immense scale of the impact of existing EU policies on global health, and the potential that a coherent approach could have to strengthen global health governance and improve global health policies and outcomes. The EU affects global health through many different policies; the question is how, when and by whom these policies will be used for global health.

Violence against healthcare workers in the middle of a global health crisis: what is it about policy and what to learn from international comparison?

Introduction: Violence against healthcare workers is a global health problem threatening healthcare workforce retention and health system resilience in a fragile post-COVID 'normalisation' period. In this perspective article, we argue that violence against healthcare workers must be made a greater priority. Our novel contribution to the debate is a comparative health system and policy approach. Methods: We have chosen a most different systems comparative approach concerning the epidemiological, political, and geographic contexts. Brazil (under the Bolsonaro government) and the United Kingdom (under the Johnson government) serve as examples of countries that were strongly hit by the pandemic in epidemiological terms while also displaying policy failures. New Zealand and Germany represent the opposite. A rapid assessment was undertaken based on secondary sources and country expertise. Results: We found similar problems across countries. A global crisis makes healthcare workers vulnerable to violence. Furthermore, insufficient data and monitoring hamper effective prevention, and lack of attention may threaten women, the nursing profession, and migrant/minority groups the most. There were also relevant differences. No clear health system pattern can be identified. At the same time, professional associations and partly the media are strong policy actors against violence. Conclusion: In all countries, muchmore involvement from political leadership is needed. In addition, attention to the political dimension and all forms of violence are essential.

From Health in All Policies to Health for All Policies.

Worldwide responses to the COVID-19 pandemic have shown that it is possible for politicians to come together across departmental boundaries. To this end, in many countries, heads of government and their health ministers work closely with all other ministries, departments, and sectors, including social affairs, internal affairs, foreign affairs, research and education, transport, agriculture, business, and state aid. In this Viewpoint, we ask if and how the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) can support intersectoral collaboration to promote health, since governments have already committed to achieving them. We contend that SDGs can do so, ultimately advancing health while offering co-benefits across society.

Resources or trust: What matters more in the vaccination strategies of high-income liberal democracies?

Objectives: This paper presents an overview of the vaccination policy responses to the COVID-19 pandemic in Denmark, Canada, and the United States until September 1, 2021. The article seeks to understand the reasons for vaccination differences among high-income, liberal democracies. Methods: The country cases were selected based on tiers of population-level vaccination uptake within six months after vaccines became broadly available (for high-income countries). We conducted a rapid review of primary data for each country case. Through a graphical and descriptive analysis, we evaluated common patterns as well as significant divergences in the vaccination rollout across countries and its relationship with COVID-19 health outcomes, government policy responses, resource constraints, and socio-political factors. This inductive analysis provides a sense of how resource constraints compare with current political contexts in each country case that may influence the public's response to a national vaccination strategy. Results: Resources, socio-economic factors, and health outcomes related to COVID-19 do not ensure vaccination policy success as the case of the United States makes clear. Instead, trust in government and health systems appear to promise a higher vaccination uptake and maintained support for measures during a pandemic. Trust in government can be defined as the confidence citizens have that governmental actions will do what is right and perceived as fair. Conclusion: Denmark, the United States, and Canada are high-income liberal democracies with very different vaccine strategies and subsequently different vaccination outcomes across their populations. What appears to be critical to successful vaccination outcomes is high trust in government or health officials, along with the depoliticization of the COVID-19 pandemic among the country's political parties.

Centralizing and decentralizing governance in the COVID-19 pandemic: The politics of credit and blame.

COVID-19 led to significant and dynamic shifts in power relations within and between governments, teaching us how governments make health policies and how health crises affect government. We focus on centralization and decentralization within and between governments: within government, meaning the extent to which the head of government controls policy; and between governments, meaning the extent to which the central government pre-empts or controls local and regional government. Political science literature suggests that shifting patterns of centralization and decentralization can be explained by leading politicians' efforts to gain credit for popular actions and outcomes and deflect blame for unpopular ones. We test this hypothesis in two ways: by coding the Health Systems Response Monitor's data on government responses, and through case studies of the governance of COVID-19 in Austria, Czechia and France. We find that credit and blame do substantially explain the timing and direction of changes in centralization and decentralization. In the first wave, spring 2020, heads of government centralized and raised their profile in order to gain credit for decisive action, but they subsequently tried to decentralize in order to avoid blame for repeated restrictions on life or surges of infection. These findings should shape advice on governance for pandemic response.

Health system resilience and health workforce capacities: Comparing health system responses during the COVID-19 pandemic in six European countries.

BACKGROUND: The health workforce is a key component of any health system and the present crisis offers a unique opportunity to better understand its specific contribution to health system resilience. The literature acknowledges the importance of the health workforce, but there is little systematic knowledge about how the health workforce matters across different countries. AIMS: We aim to analyse the adaptive, absorptive and transformative capacities of the health workforce during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in Europe (January-May/June 2020), and to assess how health systems prerequisites influence these capacities. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We selected countries according to different types of health systems and pandemic burdens. The analysis is based on short, descriptive country case studies, using written secondary and primary sources and expert information. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Our analysis shows that in our countries, the health workforce drew on a wide range of capacities during the first wave of the pandemic. However, health systems prerequisites seemed to have little influence on the health workforce's specific combinations of capacities. CONCLUSION: This calls for a reconceptualisation of the institutional perquisites of health system resilience to fully grasp the health workforce contribution. Here, strengthening governance emerges as key to effective health system responses to the COVID-19 crisis, as it integrates health professions as frontline workers and collective actors.

An analysis of the COVID-19 vaccination campaigns in France, Israel, Italy and Spain and their impact on health and economic outcomes.

Objectives: This paper presents an overview of the vaccination campaigns in France, Israel, Italy and Spain during the first eleven months from the first COVID-19 vaccine approval (Dec 2020 - Nov 2021). These four countries were chosen as they share similar socioeconomic, and epidemiological profiles and adopted similar vaccination strategies. Methods: A rapid review of available primary data from each country was conducted. Data were collected from official government documents whenever possible, supplemented by information from international databases and local reports. The data were analysed via descriptive and graphical analysis to identify common patterns as well as significant divergences in the structural changes of countries' healthcare systems during the pandemic, outcomes of the vaccination roll-out, and their impact on contextual policies. Results: The four countries adopted similar interventions to protect and strengthen their healthcare systems. The effective coordination between the governance levels, ability to ensure a large supply of doses, and trust towards health authorities were amongst the determinants for more successful vaccination outcomes. The analysis reports a positive impact of the COVID-19 vaccines on epidemiological, political and economic outcomes. We observed some evidence of a negative association between increased vaccine coverage and fatalities and hospitalisation trends. Conclusions: The strengths and weaknesses of COVID-19 pandemic crisis management along with the various strategies surrounding the vaccination roll-out campaigns may yield lessons for policymakers amidst such decisions, including for future pandemics. Lay summary: This paper presents an overview of the vaccination campaigns in France, Israel, Italy and Spain during the first eleven months following approval of the first COVID-19 vaccine (Dec 2020 - Nov 2021). These four countries were chosen as they share similar demographic, socioeconomic, and epidemiological profiles, and adopted similar vaccinations strategies. Effective coordination between governance levels, ability to ensure a large supply of doses, and trust towards health authorities were amongst the determinants for successful outcomes of vaccination campaigns. The strengths and weaknesses of COVID-19 pandemic crisis management, along with the various strategies surrounding the vaccination roll-out campaigns may yield lessons for policymakers amidst such decisions, including for future pandemics.

Perspective: Lessons from COVID-19 of countries in the European region in light of findings from the health system response monitor.

Introduction: Decision-makers initially had limited data to inform their policy responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. The research community developed several online databases to track cases, deaths, and hospitalizations; however, a major deficiency was the lack of detailed information on how health systems were responding to the pandemic and how they would need to be transformed going forward. Approach: In an effort to fill this information gap, in March 2020, the European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies, the WHO European Regional Office and the European Commission created the COVID-19 Health System Response Monitor (HSRM) to collect and organise up-to-date information on how health systems, mainly in the WHO European Region, were responding to the COVID-19 pandemic. Findings: The HSRM analysis and broader Observatory work on COVID-19 shone light on a range of health system challenges and weaknesses and catalogued policy options countries put in place during the pandemic to address these. Countries prioritised policies on investing in public health, supporting the workforce, maintaining financial stability, and strengthening governance in their response to COVID-19. Outlook: COVID-19 is likely to continue to impact health systems for the foreseeable future; the ability to cope with this pressure, and other shocks, depends on having good information on what other countries have done so that health systems develop adequate policy options. In support of this, the country information on the COVID-19 HSRM will remain available as a repository to inform decision makers on options for actions and possible measures against COVID-19 and other public health emergencies. Building on its previous work on health systems resilience, the European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies will sustain its focus on analysing key issues related to the recovery from the pandemic and making health systems more resilient. This includes policy knowledge transfer between countries and systematic resilience testing, aiming at contributing to an improved understanding of health system response, recovery, and preparedness. Contribution to the literature in non-technical language: The COVID-19 Health System Response Monitor (HSRM) was the first database in the WHO European Region to collect and organise up-to-date information on how health systems were responding to the COVID-19 pandemic. The HSRM provides a repository of policies which can be used to inform decision makers in health and other policy domains on options for action and possible measures against COVID-19 and other public health emergencies. This initiative proved particularly valuable, especially during the early phases of the pandemic, when there was limited information for countries to draw on as they formulated their own policy response to the pandemic. Our perspectives paper highlights some key challenges within health systems that the HSRM was able to identify during the pandemic and considers policy options countries put in place in response. Our research contributes to literature on emergency responses and recovery, health systems performance assessment, particularly health system resilience, and showcases the Observatory experience on how to design such a data collection tool, as well as how to leverage its findings to support cross-country learning.

The politics of healthy ageing: myths and realities

Research from the European Observatory’s Economics of Health and Active Ageing series finds overwhelmingly that population ageing is not a major problem for the sustainability of health care systems or societies. So why is it so often treated as a threat? This brief draws on a book presenting and synthesizing the international evidence on this question. It first identifies three myths that are widely influential in debates about ageing. The myths are that ageing societies are fiscally unsustainable, that older people prefer better benefits for themselves at the expense of younger people, and that politicians give older people what they want – benefits for older people at the expense of younger generations. If these myths were true, there would indeed be a major crisis in the increasing number of ageing societies. The brief and research discussed in it find that none of these three myths is true. The brief then reviews evidence on the possibility of ‘win–win’ politics that produce good outcomes for people of all ages. In terms of policy design, this means focusing on life-course policies. Life-course approaches have extensive implications for policy because they suggest ways to make policies that invest for the future at every stage of people’s lives. They also have distinctive politics because they ask for political leaders, interests and advocates to form coalitions among different groups that mutually benefit from the same policies. The brief concludes with lessons on ways to develop political coalitions in support of life-course policies.

Social policy as an integral component of pandemic response: Learning from COVID-19 in Brazil, Germany, India and the United States.

It is easy but mistaken to think that public health emergency measures and social policy can be separated. This paper compares the experiences of Brazil, Germany, India and the United States during their 2020 responses to the COVID-19 pandemic to show that social policies such as unemployment insurance, flat payments and short-time work are crucial to the effectiveness of non-pharmaceutical interventions as well as to their political sustainability. Broadly, public health measures that constrain economic activity will only be effective and sustainable if paired with social policy measures that enable people to comply without sacrificing their livelihoods and economic wellbeing. Tough public health policies and generous social policies taken together proved a success in Germany. Generous social policies uncoupled from strong public health interventions, in Brazil and the US during the summer of 2020, enabled lockdown compliance but failed to halt the pandemic, while tough public health measures without social policy support rapidly collapsed in India. In the COVID-19 and future pandemics, public health theory and practice should recognise the importance of social policy to the immediate effectiveness of public health policy as well as to the long-term social and economic impact of pandemics.

Denial and Distraction: How the Populist Radical Right Responds to COVID-19 Comment on "A Scoping Review of PRR Parties' Influence on Welfare Policy and its Implication for Population Health in Europe".

This commentary considers the impact of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic on the study of populist radical right (PRR) politicians and their influence on public health and health policy. A systematic review of recent research on the influence of PRR politicians on the health and welfare policies shows that health is not a policy arena that these politicians have much experience in. In office, their effects can be destructive, primarily because they subordinate health to their other goals. Brazil, the US and the UK all show this pattern. PRR politicians in opposition such as the Freedom Party of Austria (FPÖ) in Austria or the Lega in Italy, said very little during the actual health crisis, but once the public no longer appeared afraid they lost no time in reactivating anti-European Union (EU) sentiments. Whether in government or in opposition, PRR politicians opted for distraction and denial. Their effects ranged from making the pandemic worse.

Centralisation and decentralisation in a crisis: How credit and blame shape governance

The COVID-19 pandemic led to unprecedented challengesand political creativity worldwide. In governance, this often led to unexpected centralisation and decentralisation in response to case surges. Changes in the distribution of power and responsibility throughout governments changed quickly as the pandemic progressed. Centralisation and decentralisation occurred within governments and between governments, as power shifted. The main explanation for the patterns of centralisation and decentralisation is the politics of credit and blame. Politicians at all levels seek to centralise when there is credit to be had from forceful action and decentralise when there are unpopular policies or bad news coming.

Migrant carers in Europe in times of COVID-19: a call to action for European health workforce governance and a public health approach.

The present study explores the situation of migrant carers in long-term care (LTC) in European Union Member States and the disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic from a public health perspective. The aim is to bring LTC migrant carers into health workforce research and highlight a need for trans-sectoral and European heath workforce governance. We apply an exploratory approach based on secondary sources, document analysis and expert information. A framework comprising four major dimensions was developed for data collection and analysis: LTC system, LTC health labour market, LTC labour migration policies and specific LTC migrant carer policies during the COVID-19 crisis March to May 2020. Material from Austria, Italy, Germany, Poland and Romania was included in the study. Results suggest that undersupply of carers coupled with cash benefits and a culture of family responsibility may result in high inflows of migrant carers, who are channelled in low-level positions or the informal care sector. COVID-19 made the fragile labour market arrangements of migrant carers visible, which may create new health risks for both the individual carer and the population. Two important policy recommendations are emerging: to include LTC migrant carers more systematically in public health and health workforce research and to develop European health workforce governance which connects health system needs, health labour markets and the individual migrant carers.