Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 20 de 4.629
Filtrar
1.
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep ; 70(14): 514-518, 2021 Apr 09.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33830985

RESUMEN

COVID-19 has disproportionately affected persons who identify as non-Hispanic American Indian or Alaska Native (AI/AN) (1). The Blackfeet Tribal Reservation, the northern Montana home of the sovereign Blackfeet Nation, with an estimated population of 10,629 (2), detected the first COVID-19 case in the community on June 16, 2020. Following CDC guidance,* and with free testing widely available, the Indian Health Service and Blackfeet Tribal Health Department began investigating all confirmed cases and their contacts on June 25. The relationship between three community mitigation resolutions passed and enforced by the Blackfeet Tribal Business Council and changes in the daily COVID-19 incidence and in the distributions of new cases was assessed. After the September 28 issuance of a strictly enforced stay-at-home order and adoption of a mask use resolution, COVID-19 incidence in the Blackfeet Tribal Reservation decreased by a factor of 33 from its peak of 6.40 cases per 1,000 residents per day on October 5 to 0.19 on November 7. Other mitigation measures the Blackfeet Tribal Reservation used included closing the east gate of Glacier National Park for the summer tourism season, instituting remote learning for public school students throughout the fall semester, and providing a Thanksgiving meal to every household to reduce trips to grocery stores. CDC has recommended use of routine public health interventions for infectious diseases, including case investigation with prompt isolation, contact tracing, and immediate quarantine after exposure to prevent and control transmission of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19 (3). Stay-at-home orders, physical distancing, and mask wearing indoors, outdoors when physical distancing is not possible, or when in close contact with infected or exposed persons are also recommended as nonpharmaceutical community mitigation measures (3,4). Implementation and strict enforcement of stay-at-home orders and a mask use mandate likely helped reduce the spread of COVID-19 in the Blackfeet Tribal Reservation.


Asunto(s)
/etnología , Indios Norteamericanos/estadística & datos numéricos , Máscaras , Salud Pública/legislación & jurisprudencia , Cuarentena/legislación & jurisprudencia , Características de la Residencia/estadística & datos numéricos , Adolescente , Adulto , Anciano , Anciano de 80 o más Años , Niño , Preescolar , Trazado de Contacto , Femenino , Disparidades en el Estado de Salud , Humanos , Incidencia , Lactante , Recién Nacido , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Montana/epidemiología , Adulto Joven
4.
BMC Public Health ; 21(1): 490, 2021 03 11.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33706726

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: It is now 25 years since the adoption of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) and the same concerns raised during its negotiations such as high prices of medicines, market exclusivity and delayed market entry for generics remain relevant as highlighted recently by the Ebola and COVID-19 pandemics. The World Health Organization's (WHO) mandate to work on the interface between intellectual property, innovation and access to medicine has been continually reinforced and extended to include providing support to countries on the implementation of TRIPS flexibilities in collaboration with stakeholders. This study analyses the role of intellectual property on access to medicines in the African Region. METHODS: We analyze patent data from the African Regional Intellectual Property Organization (ARIPO) and Organisation Africaine de la Propriété Intellectuelle (OAPI) to provide a situational analysis of patenting activity and trends. We also review legislation to assess how TRIPS flexibilities are implemented in countries. RESULTS: Patenting was low for African countries. Only South Africa and Cameroon appeared in the list of top ten originator countries for ARIPO and OAPI respectively. Main diseases covered by African patents were HIV/AIDS, cardiovascular diseases, cancers and tumors. Majority countries have legislation allowing for compulsory licensing and parallel importation of medicines, while the least legislated flexibilities were explicit exemption of pharmaceutical products from patentable subject matter, new or second use of patented pharmaceutical products, imposition of limits to patent term extension and test data protection. Thirty-nine countries have applied TRIPS flexibilities, with the most common being compulsory licensing and least developed country transition provisions. CONCLUSIONS: Opportunities exist for WHO to work with ARIPO and OAPI to support countries in reviewing their legislation to be more responsive to public health needs.


Asunto(s)
/prevención & control , Comercio/legislación & jurisprudencia , Accesibilidad a los Servicios de Salud/economía , Accesibilidad a los Servicios de Salud/legislación & jurisprudencia , Propiedad Intelectual , Patentes como Asunto , África , Comercio/historia , Países en Desarrollo , Historia del Siglo XX , Humanos , Derecho Internacional , Salud Pública/legislación & jurisprudencia , Organización Mundial de la Salud
5.
Int J Equity Health ; 20(1): 77, 2021 03 15.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33722225

RESUMEN

Global response to COVID-19 pandemic has inadvertently undermined the achievement of existing public health priorities and laregely overlooked local context. Recent evidence suggests that this will cause additional maternal and childhood mortality and morbidity especially in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Here we have explored the contextual factors influencing maternal, neonatal and children health (MNCH) care in Bangladesh, Nigeria and South Africa amidst the pandemic. Our findings suggest that between March and May 2020, there was a reduction in utilisation of basic essential MNCH services such as antenatal care, family planning and immunization due to: a) the implementation of lockdown which triggered fear of contracting the COVID-19 and deterred people from accessing basic MNCH care, and b) a shift of focus towards pandemic, causing the detriment to other health services, and c) resource constraints. Taken together these issues have resulted in compromised provision of basic general healthcare. Given the likelihood of recurrent waves of the pandemic globally, COVID-19 mitigation plans therefore should be integrated with standard care provision to enhance system resilience to cope with all health needs. This commentary suggests a four-point contextualised mitigation plan to safeguard MNCH care during the pandemic using the observed countries as exemplars for LMIC health system adaptations to maintain the trajectory of progress regarding sustainable development goals (SDGs).


Asunto(s)
/prevención & control , Servicios de Salud del Niño , Control de Enfermedades Transmisibles/métodos , Utilización de Instalaciones y Servicios/tendencias , Servicios de Salud Materna , Adulto , Bangladesh , Niño , Países en Desarrollo , Femenino , Humanos , Nigeria , Embarazo , Salud Pública/legislación & jurisprudencia , Cuarentena/legislación & jurisprudencia , Sudáfrica , Poblaciones Vulnerables
6.
BMC Public Health ; 21(1): 503, 2021 03 15.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33722226

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Governments worldwide recommended unprecedented measures to contain the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). As pressure mounted to scale back measures, understanding public priorities was critical. We assessed initial public adherence with and support for stay-at-home orders in nations and cities with different SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 death rates. METHODS: Cross-sectional surveys were administered to representative samples of adults aged ≥18 years from regions with different SARS-CoV-2 prevalences from April 2-8, 2020. Regions included two nations [the United States (US-high prevalence) and Australia (AU-low prevalence)] and two US cities [New York City (NY-high prevalence) and Los Angeles (LA-low prevalence)]. Regional SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 prevalence (cumulative SARS-CoV-2 infections, COVID-19 deaths) as of April 8, 2020: US (363,321, 10,845), AU (5956, 45), NY (81,803, 4571), LA (7530, 198). Of 8718 eligible potential respondents, 5573 (response rate, 63.9%) completed surveys. Median age was 47 years (range, 18-89); 3039 (54.5%) were female. RESULTS: Of 5573 total respondents, 4560 (81.8%) reported adherence with recommended quarantine or stay-at-home policies (range of samples, 75.5-88.2%). Additionally, 29.1% of respondents screened positive for anxiety or depression symptoms (range of samples, 28.6-32.0%), with higher prevalences among those of younger age, female gender, and those in quarantine or staying at home most of the time versus those who did not report these behaviours. Despite elevated prevalences of adverse mental health symptoms and significant life disruptions, 5022 respondents (90.1%) supported government-imposed stay-at-home orders (range of samples, 88.9-93.1%). Of these, 90.8% believed orders should last at least three more weeks or until public health or government officials recommended, with support spanning the political spectrum. CONCLUSIONS: Public adherence with COVID-19 mitigation policies was highly prevalent, in both highly-affected (US, NY) and minimally-affected regions (AU, LA). Despite disruption of respondents' lives, the vast majority supported continuation of extended stay-at-home orders. Despite common support, these two countries diverged in stringent mitigation implementation, which may have contributed to subsequent outcomes. These results reveal the importance of surveillance of public support for and adherence with such policies during the COVID-19 pandemic and for future infectious disease outbreaks.


Asunto(s)
/prevención & control , Control de Enfermedades Transmisibles/métodos , Brotes de Enfermedades/prevención & control , Estilo de Vida , Opinión Pública , Cuarentena , Adolescente , Adulto , Anciano , Australia/epidemiología , /mortalidad , Estudios Transversales , Femenino , Humanos , Los Angeles/epidemiología , Masculino , Salud Mental , Persona de Mediana Edad , Ciudad de Nueva York/epidemiología , Salud Pública/legislación & jurisprudencia , Encuestas y Cuestionarios , Estados Unidos/epidemiología , Adulto Joven
7.
Int J Equity Health ; 20(1): 86, 2021 03 25.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33766049

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: Our research summarized policy disparities in response to the first wave of COVID-19 between China and Germany. We look forward to providing policy experience for other countries still in severe epidemics. METHODS: We analyzed data provided by National Health Commission of the People's Republic of China and Johns Hopkins University Coronavirus Resource Center for the period 10 January 2020 to 25 May 252,020. We used generalized linear model to evaluate the associations between the main control policies and the number of confirmed cases and the policy disparities in response to the first wave of COVID-19 between China and Germany. RESULTS: The generalized linear models show that the following factors influence the cumulative number of confirmed cases in China: the Joint Prevention and Control Mechanism; locking down the worst-hit areas; the highest level response to public health emergencies; the expansion of medical insurance coverage to suspected patients; makeshift hospitals; residential closed management; counterpart assistance. The following factors influence the cumulative number of confirmed cases in Germany: the Novel Coronavirus Crisis Command; large gathering cancelled; real-time COVID-19 risk assessment; the medical emergency plan; schools closure; restrictions on the import of overseas epidemics; the no-contact protocol. CONCLUSIONS: There are two differences between China and Germany in non-pharmaceutical interventions: China adopted the blocking strategy, and Germany adopted the first mitigation and then blocking strategy; China's goal is to eliminate the virus, and Germany's goal is to protect high-risk groups to reduce losses. At the same time, the policies implemented by the two countries have similarities: strict blockade is a key measure to control the source of infection, and improving medical response capabilities is an important way to reduce mortality.


Asunto(s)
/epidemiología , Control de Enfermedades Transmisibles/legislación & jurisprudencia , Política de Salud/legislación & jurisprudencia , Pandemias/legislación & jurisprudencia , Pandemias/prevención & control , Salud Pública/legislación & jurisprudencia , Adulto , Anciano , Anciano de 80 o más Años , China/epidemiología , Femenino , Alemania/epidemiología , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad
8.
Hist Philos Life Sci ; 43(2): 46, 2021 Mar 25.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33768363

RESUMEN

The COVID-19 crisis has called into question the utilitarianism-oriented human-wildlife relations and the legitimacy of wildlife protection regime in China. The pandemic has triggered significant, swift, and encompassing changes in policies. Drawing on insights from historical institutionalism, we argue that COVID-19 constitutes a critical juncture in China's wildlife protection policy.


Asunto(s)
Animales Salvajes , Política Ambiental/legislación & jurisprudencia , Salud Pública/legislación & jurisprudencia , Animales , China , Humanos
10.
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep ; 70(10): 350-354, 2021 Mar 12.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33705364

RESUMEN

CDC recommends a combination of evidence-based strategies to reduce transmission of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19 (1). Because the virus is transmitted predominantly by inhaling respiratory droplets from infected persons, universal mask use can help reduce transmission (1). Starting in April, 39 states and the District of Columbia (DC) issued mask mandates in 2020. Reducing person-to-person interactions by avoiding nonessential shared spaces, such as restaurants, where interactions are typically unmasked and physical distancing (≥6 ft) is difficult to maintain, can also decrease transmission (2). In March and April 2020, 49 states and DC prohibited any on-premises dining at restaurants, but by mid-June, all states and DC had lifted these restrictions. To examine the association of state-issued mask mandates and allowing on-premises restaurant dining with COVID-19 cases and deaths during March 1-December 31, 2020, county-level data on mask mandates and restaurant reopenings were compared with county-level changes in COVID-19 case and death growth rates relative to the mandate implementation and reopening dates. Mask mandates were associated with decreases in daily COVID-19 case and death growth rates 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, and 81-100 days after implementation. Allowing any on-premises dining at restaurants was associated with increases in daily COVID-19 case growth rates 41-60, 61-80, and 81-100 days after reopening, and increases in daily COVID-19 death growth rates 61-80 and 81-100 days after reopening. Implementing mask mandates was associated with reduced SARS-CoV-2 transmission, whereas reopening restaurants for on-premises dining was associated with increased transmission. Policies that require universal mask use and restrict any on-premises restaurant dining are important components of a comprehensive strategy to reduce exposure to and transmission of SARS-CoV-2 (1). Such efforts are increasingly important given the emergence of highly transmissible SARS-CoV-2 variants in the United States (3,4).


Asunto(s)
/epidemiología , Máscaras , Salud Pública/legislación & jurisprudencia , Restaurantes/legislación & jurisprudencia , /mortalidad , Humanos , Estados Unidos/epidemiología
11.
Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd ; 1652021 03 02.
Artículo en Holandés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33651511

RESUMEN

Since the end of January 2020, covid-19 is a group A infectious disease according to the Public Health Act (in Dutch: Wet publiekegezondheid or Wpg). To avert the risk of infection with covid-19, coercive measures can be imposed under this law. Almost at the same time, since January 1 2020, two new Dutch laws regulate the mandatory care for people with intellectual disability and dementia (the Care and Compulsion Act (in Dutch: Wet zorgendwang or Wzd) and for people with a mental disorder (the Mandatory Mental Health Care Act (in Dutch: Wet verplichte GGZ or Wvggz). Just like the Wpg, the Wzd and Wvggz allow coercion for the benefit of third parties. In this clinical lesson we describe the use of the Wpg, Wzd and Wvggz in order to avert covid-19 infection risk.


Asunto(s)
/prevención & control , Coerción , Discapacidad Intelectual/terapia , Trastornos Mentales/terapia , Salud Pública/legislación & jurisprudencia , Humanos , Países Bajos
12.
BMC Public Health ; 21(1): 393, 2021 02 23.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33622279

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Face masks have been employed in the COVID-19 pandemic plans as a public and personal health control measure against the spread of SARS-CoV-2. In Poland, obligatory wearing of masks in public spaces was introduced on April 10th, 2020; a relaxation of previous universal measures was announced on May 29th, 2020, limiting use to indoor public places. OBJECTIVE: To assess use of masks or other protective devices in public spaces in Poland during the SARS-Cov-2 epidemic. METHODS: A non-participatory covert observational study was conducted on three dates, (10.05/18.05/25.05.2020) at public spaces in 13 regions with different risks. Ten consecutive individuals were observed by each of 82 medical students (n = 2460 observations), using a structured checklist. RESULTS: Among 2353 observed persons, the female/male ratios were 1.0, 1.1, and 1.0 on the three dates. Almost three quarters - 73.6% (n = 552/750) were using masks on date 1, 66.5% (544/818) on date 2; and 65.7% (516/785) on date 3. Cloth masks predominated on all dates (64.7-62.3%-62.6%), followed by medical (23.4-28.5%-26.9%). Being female (OR = 1.77-1.47-1.53 respectively) and location in a closed space (OR = 2.60-2.59-2.32) were each associated with higher usage. Participants in sports were about two times less likely to use masks (OR = 0.64-0.53-0.53) as compared to other activities. The proportion using masks correctly decreased gradually over time (364/552; 65.9%; 339/544; 62.3% and 304/516; 58.9%). More females wore masks correctly (date 1: 205/294; 69.7% vs 159/258; 61.6%, and date 3: 186/284; 65.5% vs 118/232; 50.9%; p = 0.045; p = 0.0008 respectively). Uncovered noses (47.3-52.7%) and masks around the neck (39.2-42.6%) were the most frequent incorrect practices. CONCLUSIONS: Practices were not in line with official recommendations, especially among males, and deteriorated over time. Cloth masks were predominantly used in public spaces. Health promotion, through utilizing all available communication channels, would be helpful to increase compliance.


Asunto(s)
/prevención & control , Epidemias , Máscaras/estadística & datos numéricos , /epidemiología , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Polonia/epidemiología , Salud Pública/legislación & jurisprudencia
13.
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep ; 70(6): 208-211, 2021 Feb 12.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33571175

RESUMEN

Approximately 41% of adults aged 18-24 years in the United States are enrolled in a college or university (1). Wearing a face mask can reduce transmission of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) (2), and many colleges and universities mandate mask use in public locations and outdoors when within six feet of others. Studies based on self-report have described mask use ranging from 69.1% to 86.1% among adults aged 18-29 years (3); however, more objective measures are needed. Direct observation by trained observers is the accepted standard for monitoring behaviors such as hand hygiene (4). In this investigation, direct observation was used to estimate the proportion of persons wearing masks and the proportion of persons wearing masks correctly (i.e., covering the nose and mouth and secured under the chin*) on campus and at nearby off-campus locations at six rural and suburban universities with mask mandates in the southern and western United States. Trained student observers recorded mask use for up to 8 weeks from fixed sites on campus and nearby. Among 17,200 observed persons, 85.5% wore masks, with 89.7% of those persons wearing the mask correctly (overall correct mask use: 76.7%). Among persons observed indoors, 91.7% wore masks correctly. The proportion correctly wearing masks indoors varied by mask type, from 96.8% for N95-type masks and 92.2% for cloth masks to 78.9% for bandanas, scarves, and similar face coverings. Observed indoor mask use was high at these six universities with mask mandates. Colleges and universities can use direct observation findings to tailor training and messaging toward increasing correct mask use.


Asunto(s)
Máscaras/estadística & datos numéricos , Máscaras/normas , Salud Pública/legislación & jurisprudencia , Estudiantes/psicología , Universidades/legislación & jurisprudencia , Adolescente , /prevención & control , Humanos , Estudiantes/estadística & datos numéricos , Estados Unidos/epidemiología , Adulto Joven
14.
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep ; 70(6): 212-216, 2021 Feb 12.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33571176

RESUMEN

SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), is transmitted predominantly by respiratory droplets generated when infected persons cough, sneeze, spit, sing, talk, or breathe. CDC recommends community use of face masks to prevent transmission of SARS-CoV-2 (1). As of October 22, 2020, statewide mask mandates were in effect in 33 states and the District of Columbia (2). This study examined whether implementation of statewide mask mandates was associated with COVID-19-associated hospitalization growth rates among different age groups in 10 sites participating in the COVID-19-Associated Hospitalization Surveillance Network (COVID-NET) in states that issued statewide mask mandates during March 1-October 17, 2020. Regression analysis demonstrated that weekly hospitalization growth rates declined by 2.9 percentage points (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.3-5.5) among adults aged 40-64 years during the first 2 weeks after implementing statewide mask mandates. After mask mandates had been implemented for ≥3 weeks, hospitalization growth rates declined by 5.5 percentage points among persons aged 18-39 years (95% CI = 0.6-10.4) and those aged 40-64 years (95% CI = 0.8-10.2). Statewide mask mandates might be associated with reductions in SARS-CoV-2 transmission and might contribute to reductions in COVID-19 hospitalization growth rates, compared with growth rates during <4 weeks before implementation of the mandate and the implementation week. Mask-wearing is a component of a multipronged strategy to decrease exposure to and transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and reduce strain on the health care system, with likely direct effects on COVID-19 morbidity and associated mortality.


Asunto(s)
/prevención & control , Hospitalización/estadística & datos numéricos , Máscaras/estadística & datos numéricos , Salud Pública/legislación & jurisprudencia , Adolescente , Adulto , Anciano , Anciano de 80 o más Años , /terapia , Estudios de Cohortes , Humanos , Persona de Mediana Edad , Estados Unidos/epidemiología , Adulto Joven
15.
Aust Health Rev ; 45(1): 74-76, 2021 Feb.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33517976

RESUMEN

The global focus on nation states' responses to the COVID-19 pandemic has rightly highlighted the importance of science and evidence as the basis for policy action. Those with a lifelong passion for evidence-based policy (EBP) have lauded Australia's and other nations' policy responses to COVID-19 as a breakthrough moment for the cause. This article reflects on the complexity of the public policy process, the perspectives of its various actors, and draws on Alford's work on the Blue, Red and Purple zones to propose a more nuanced approach to advocacy for EBP in health. We contend that the pathway for translation of research evidence into routine clinical practice is relatively linear, in contrast to the more complex course for translation of evidence to public policy - much to the frustration of health researchers and EBP advocates. Cairney's description of the characteristics of successful policy entrepreneurs offers useful guidance to advance EBP and we conclude with proposing some practical mechanisms to support it. Finally, we recommend that researchers and policy makers spend more time in the Purple zone to enable a deeper understanding of, and mutual respect for, the unique contributions made by research, policy and political actors to sound public policy.


Asunto(s)
/terapia , Práctica Clínica Basada en la Evidencia/normas , Guías como Asunto , Política de Salud , Pandemias/prevención & control , Salud Pública/legislación & jurisprudencia , Salud Pública/normas , Australia/epidemiología , Humanos
17.
BMC Public Health ; 21(1): 411, 2021 02 26.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33637062

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: To reduce the transmission of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 in its first wave, European governments have implemented successive measures to encourage social distancing. However, it remained unclear how effectively measures reduced the spread of the virus. We examined how the effective-contact rate (ECR), the mean number of daily contacts for an infectious individual to transmit the virus, among European citizens evolved during this wave over the period with implemented measures, disregarding a priori information on governmental measures. METHODS: We developed a data-oriented approach that is based on an extended Susceptible-Exposed-Infectious-Removed (SEIR) model. Using the available data on the confirmed numbers of infections and hospitalizations, we first estimated the daily total number of infectious-, exposed- and susceptible individuals and subsequently estimated the ECR with an iterative Poisson regression model. We then compared change points in the daily ECRs to the moments of the governmental measures. RESULTS: The change points in the daily ECRs were found to align with the implementation of governmental interventions. At the end of the considered time-window, we found similar ECRs for Italy (0.29), Spain (0.24), and Germany (0.27), while the ECR in the Netherlands (0.34), Belgium (0.35) and the UK (0.37) were somewhat higher. The highest ECR was found for Sweden (0.45). CONCLUSIONS: There seemed to be an immediate effect of banning events and closing schools, typically among the first measures taken by the governments. The effect of additionally closing bars and restaurants seemed limited. For most countries a somewhat delayed effect of the full lockdown was observed, and the ECR after a full lockdown was not necessarily lower than an ECR after (only) a gathering ban.


Asunto(s)
/prevención & control , Epidemias/prevención & control , Gobierno , Salud Pública/legislación & jurisprudencia , Número Básico de Reproducción/estadística & datos numéricos , Europa (Continente)/epidemiología , Humanos , Modelos Biológicos , Cuarentena , Restaurantes/organización & administración , Instituciones Académicas/organización & administración
20.
J Prev Med Public Health ; 54(1): 1-7, 2021 Jan.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33618493

RESUMEN

The Korean government's strategy to combat coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has focused on non-pharmaceutical interventions, such as social distancing and wearing masks, along with testing, tracing, and treatment; overall, its performance has been relatively good compared to that of many other countries heavily affected by COVID-19. However, little attention has been paid to health equity in measures to control the COVID-19 pandemic. The study aimed to examine the unequal impacts of COVID-19 across socioeconomic groups and to suggest potential solutions to tackle these inequalities. The pathways linking social determinants and health could be entry points to tackle the unequal consequences of this public health emergency. It is crucial for infectious disease policy to consider social determinants of health including poor housing, precarious working conditions, disrupted healthcare services, and suspension of social services. Moreover, the high levels of uncertainty and complexity inherent in this public health emergency, as well as the health and socioeconomic inequalities caused by the pandemic, underscore the need for good governance other than top-down measures by the government. We emphasize that a people-centered perspective is a key approach during the pandemic era. Mutual trust between the state and civil society, strong accountability of the government, and civic participation are essential components of cooperative disaster governance.


Asunto(s)
/prevención & control , Equidad en Salud/normas , Política de Salud , Infectología/legislación & jurisprudencia , /fisiopatología , Programas de Gobierno/legislación & jurisprudencia , Programas de Gobierno/métodos , Equidad en Salud/estadística & datos numéricos , Humanos , Infectología/métodos , Infectología/tendencias , Pandemias/prevención & control , Pandemias/estadística & datos numéricos , Salud Pública/legislación & jurisprudencia , Salud Pública/métodos , Salud Pública/tendencias , República de Corea
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA
...