From evidence to tailored decision-making: a qualitative research of barriers and facilitating factors for the implementation of non-clinical interventions to reduce unnecessary caesarean section in Romania.

OBJECTIVE: To improve understanding of the drivers of the increased caesarean section (CS) rate in Romania and to identify interventions to reverse this trend, as well as barriers and facilitators. DESIGN: A formative research study was conducted in Romania between November 2019 and February 2020 by means of in-depth interviews and focus-group discussions. Romanian decision-makers and high-level obstetricians preselected seven non-clinical interventions for consideration. Thematic content analysis was carried out. PARTICIPANTS: 88 women and 26 healthcare providers and administrators. SETTINGS: Counties with higher and lower CS rates were selected for this research-namely Argeș, Bistrița-Nasaud, Brașov, Ialomița, Iași, Ilfov, Dolj and the capital city of București (Bucharest). RESULTS: Women wanted information, education and support. Obstetricians feared malpractice lawsuits; this was identified as a key reason for performing CSs. Most obstetrics and gynaecology physicians would oppose policies of mandatory second opinions, financial measures to equalise payments for vaginal and CS births and goal setting for CS rates. In-service training was identified as a need by obstetricians, midwives and nurses. In addition, relevant structural constraints were identified: perceived lower quality of care for vaginal birth, a lack of obstetricians with expertise in managing complicated vaginal births, a lack of anaesthesiologists and midwives, and family doctors not providing antenatal care. Finally, women expressed the need to ensure their rights to dignified and respectful healthcare through pregnancy and childbirth. CONCLUSION: Consideration of the views, values and preferences of all stakeholders in a multifaceted action tailored to Romanian determinants is critical to address relevant determinants to reduce unnecessary CSs. Further studies should assess the effect of multifaceted interventions.

COVID-19 and the global need for knowledge on nurses' health.

AIM: To emphasize that nurses need to be fully protected to carry out their vital role, particularly during pandemics, yet the lack of a standardized and systematic collection of high-quality disaggregated data on nurses health inhibits our ability to assess this within and across countries. BACKGROUND: Nurses are the largest workforce group in the health sector, yet only 59 countries worldwide report on nurse COVID-19 infections and related deaths, and the standardized, systematic collection of disaggregated health data is not yet in place. SOURCES OF EVIDENCE: Medline, International Council of Nurses, World Health Organization, Centers of Disease Control and Prevention and the experiences of the authors. DISCUSSION: Inconsistent recording and definitions of nurses, precarious and informal employment conditions, limited transparent and reliable data, lack of mass testing and long-standing structural issues and biases have affected nursing for too long. CONCLUSIONS: These issues are reflected in the limited capacity of many national public health information systems to collect, monitor and report on the health of the largest group of health workers. Political will, accountability and public data transparency at different levels are essential to adequately protect nurses at work. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING PRACTICE, AND NURSING AND HEALTH POLICY: Building on current momentum in the nursing field, immediate political action is required to strengthen existing nursing and midwifery policies, standards and regulatory capacity, as well as existing public health services and information and surveillance systems. The generation of up-to-date, context-specific knowledge is needed to inform and monitor political decisions related to the protection of nurses, and the improvement of their employment conditions, as well as to strengthen accountability for these areas at various levels.

Employment and working conditions of nurses: where and how health inequalities have increased during the COVID-19 pandemic?

BACKGROUND: Nurses and midwives play a critical role in the provision of care and the optimization of health services resources worldwide, which is particularly relevant during the current COVID-19 pandemic. However, they can only provide quality services if their work environment provides adequate conditions to support them. Today the employment and working conditions of many nurses worldwide are precarious, and the current pandemic has prompted more visibility to the vulnerability to health-damaging factors of nurses' globally. This desk review explores how employment relations, and employment and working conditions may be negatively affecting the health of nurses in countries such as Brazil, Croatia, India, Ireland, Italy, México, Nepal, Spain, and the United Kingdom. MAIN BODY: Nurses' health is influenced by the broader social, economic, and political system and the redistribution of power relations that creates new policies regarding the labour market and the welfare state. The vulnerability faced by nurses is heightened by gender inequalities, in addition to social class, ethnicity/race (and caste), age and migrant status, that are inequality axes that explain why nurses' workers, and often their families, are exposed to multiple risks and/or poorer health. Before the COVID-19 pandemic, informalization of nurses' employment and working conditions were unfair and harmed their health. During COVID-19 pandemic, there is evidence that the employment and working conditions of nurses are associated to poor physical and mental health. CONCLUSION: The protection of nurses' health is paramount. International and national enforceable standards are needed, along with economic and health policies designed to substantially improve employment and working conditions for nurses and work-life balance. More knowledge is needed to understand the pathways and mechanisms on how precariousness might affect nurses' health and monitor the progress towards nurses' health equity.

Health equity monitoring is essential in public health: lessons from Mozambique.

BACKGROUND: Countries must be able to describe and monitor their populations health and well-being needs in an attempt to understand and address them. The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) have re-emphasized the need to invest in comprehensive health information systems to monitor progress towards health equity; however, knowledge on the capacity of health information systems to be able do this, particularly in low-income countries, remains very limited. As a case study, we aimed to evaluate the current capacity of the national health information systems in Mozambique, and the available indicators to monitor health inequalities, in line with SDG 3 (Good Health and Well Being for All at All Ages). METHODS: A data source mapping of the health information system in Mozambique was conducted. We followed the World Health Organization's methodology of assessing data sources to evaluate the information available for every equity stratifier using a three-point scale: 1 - information is available, 2 - need for more information, and 3 - an information gap. Also, for each indicator we estimated the national average inequality score. RESULTS: Eight data sources contain health information to measure and monitor progress towards health equity in line with the 27 SDG3 indicators. Seven indicators bear information with nationally funded data sources, ten with data sources externally funded, and ten indicators either lack information or it does not applicable for the matter of the study. None of the 27 indicators associated with SDG3 can be fully disaggregated by equity stratifiers; they either lack some information (15 indicators) or do not have information at all (nine indicators). The indicators that contain more information are related to maternal and child health. CONCLUSIONS: There are important information gaps in Mozambique's current national health information system which prevents it from being able to comprehensively measure and monitor health equity. Comprehensive national health information systems are an essential public health need. Significant policy and political challenges must also be addressed to ensure effective interventions and action towards health equity in the country.

Inequalities in the access to and quality of healthcare in Mozambique: evidence from the household budget survey.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the inequalities in the access to and quality of care and its related direct payments. DESIGN: Secondary analysis of the cross-sectional Mozambican Household Budget Survey (HBS). SETTING: Nationally-representative sample of households in Mozambique. PARTICIPANTS: 11 480 households (58 118 individuals) interviewed during HBS 2014/15. INTERVENTION: None. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Equity, utilization of healthcare, access to quality care and direct payments. RESULTS: About 12.2% of women and 10.1% of men of the survey report a perceive health need. About 72.1% of women and 72.9% men use healthcare. Population in a disadvantaged position living in rural areas have less probabilities of using healthcare for equal health compared to the individuals of a wealthier position and living in urban settings. With regard to quality care, 47.7% women and 46.8% men do not report quality problems. No differences for women's wealth. Men in a disadvantaged position report less chances of accessing quality care compared to men of advantaged position. Also, women and men living in rural areas have less probabilities of accessing quality care. Finally, the majority of people who access healthcare paid 1 Mt during their visit. CONCLUSIONS: This study tackles a fundamental policy concern for health systems of Sub-Saharan Africa and points to areas that urge action to address the existent of socioeconomic and geographical inequalities in the access to and quality of care for women and men, including the strengthening of health facilities in rural and deprived areas to ensure that access to adequate care of acceptable quality is distributed according to need.

The value of comparative research in major day surgery / El valor de la investigación comparativa en cirugía mayor ambulatoria

Objective: To measure time trends in major day surgery rates according to hospital ownership and other hospital characteristics among the providers of the public healthcare network of Catalonia, Spain. Method: Data from the Statistics of Health Establishments providing Inpatient Care. A generalized linear mixed model with Gaussian response and random intercept and random slopes. Results: The greatest growth in the rate of major day surgery was observed among private for-profit hospitals: 42.9 (SD: 22.5) in 2009 versus 2.7 (SD: 6.7) in 1996. These hospitals exhibited a significant increase in major day surgery compared to public hospitals (coefficient 2; p-value <0.01) Conclusions: The comparative evaluation of hospital performance is a decisive tool to ensure that public resources are used as rationally and efficiently as possible

Objetivo: Medir la evolución temporal de la cirugía mayor ambulatoria entre los proveedores de la red sanitaria pública de Cataluña de acuerdo con la titularidad y otras características de los hospitales. Métodos: Con datos provenientes de la Estadística de Establecimientos Sanitarios con Régimen de Internamiento, se realizó un modelo lineal generalizado mixto con respuesta gaussiana y pendiente e intersección aleatorios. Resultados: Se observó que la mayor variación en la tasa de cirugía mayor ambulatoria era para los hospitales privados con fines de lucro: 42,9 (desviación estándar [DE]: 22,5) en 2009 frente a 2,7 (DE: 6,7) en 1996. Estos hospitales tuvieron un aumento significativo de la cirugía mayor ambulatoria en comparación con los hospitales públicos (coeficiente 2; p <0,01). Conclusiones: La evaluación comparativa del desempeño de los hospitales es una herramienta decisiva para garantizar que los recursos públicos se utilizan de la forma más racional y eficiente posible

The value of comparative research in major day surgery.

OBJECTIVE: To measure time trends in major day surgery rates according to hospital ownership and other hospital characteristics among the providers of the public healthcare network of Catalonia, Spain. METHOD: Data from the Statistics of Health Establishments providing Inpatient Care. A generalized linear mixed model with Gaussian response and random intercept and random slopes. RESULTS: The greatest growth in the rate of major day surgery was observed among private for-profit hospitals: 42.9 (SD: 22.5) in 2009 versus 2.7 (SD: 6.7) in 1996. These hospitals exhibited a significant increase in major day surgery compared to public hospitals (coefficient 2; p-value <0.01) CONCLUSIONS: The comparative evaluation of hospital performance is a decisive tool to ensure that public resources are used as rationally and efficiently as possible.

Personal de enfermería, condiciones de trabajo y su impacto en la salud / Nurse staffing, working conditions and the impact on health

No disponible

Acceso a los servicios de salud de la población inmigrante en España / Immmigrant´s access to health care in Spain: a review

Fundamentos: Una importante proporción de población en España es inmigrante y la evidencia internacional señala su acceso inadecuado a los servicios de salud. El objetivo es conocer el acceso a la atención de la población inmigrante en España. Métodos: Revisión bibliográfica de los artículos originales (1998- 2012) sobre acceso y utilización de los servicios de la población inmigrante en España registrados en Medline y MEDES. Se identificaron 319 artículos de los que se seleccionaron 20. Se utilizó el modelo de Aday y Andersen para el análisis. Resultados: Entre los artículos seleccionados, 13 estudios cuantitativos analizaron diferencias en la utilización de los servicios entre inmigrantes y autóctonos y 7 determinantes del acceso en inmigrantes. En líneas generales estos muestran menor utilización de la atención especializada, mayor de las urgencias y no se observaron diferencias entre grupos en atención primaria. Los 5 estudios cuantitativos sobre determinantes se centraron en las características de la población (sexo, edad, nivel de estudios y posesión de seguro privado) sin observarse un patrón claro. Los 2 estudios cualitativos analizaron factores relacionados con los servicios de salud y encontraron barreras en el acceso, como la provisión de información o los requisitos para obtener la tarjeta sanitaria. Conclusiones: El acceso a la atención en inmigrantes ha sido limitadamente abordado, con aproximaciones diferentes y los factores relacionados con la oferta, escasamente analizados. No se observa un patrón de utilización, las diferencias dependen de la clasificación de los inmigrante según origen y nivel asistencial. No obstante, en inmigrantes se observa menor utilización de la atención especializada y mayor de las urgencias, así como determinantes del acceso distintos a la necesidad (AU)

Background: An important proportion of the population in Spain is immigrant and the international literature indicates their inadequate access to health services. The objective is to contribute to improving the knowledge on access to health care of the immigrant population in Spain. Methods: Review of original papers published (1998-2012) on access to health services of the immigrant population in Spain published in Medline and MEDES. Out of 319 studies, 20 were selected, applying predefined criteria. The results were analyzed using the Aday and Andersen framework. Results:Among the publications, 13 quantitative studies analysed differences in health care use between the immigrant and the native population, and 7 studied determinants of access of immigrants. Studies showed less use of specialized care by immigrants, higher use of emergency care and no differences in the use of primary care between groups. Five quantitative articles on determinants of access focused on factors related to the immigrant population (sex, age, educational level and holding private health insurance), but without observing clear patterns. The two qualitative studies analyzed factors related to health services, describing access to healthcare barriers such as the limited provision of information or the requirements for personal health card. Conclusion: Access to health care in immigrants has been scarcely studied, using different approaches and the barely analysed factors related to the services. No clear patterns were observed, as differences depend on the classification of migrants according to country of origin and the level of care. However, studies showed less use of specialized care by immigrants, higher use of emergency care and the existence of determinants of access different to their needs (AU)

[Immigrants' access to health care in Spain: a review]. / Acceso a los servicios de salud de la población inmigrante en España.

BACKGROUND: An important proportion of the population in Spain is immigrant and the international literature indicates their inadequate access to health services. The objective is to contribute to improving the knowledge on access to health care of the immigrant population in Spain. METHODS: Review of original papers published (1998-2012) on access to health services of the immigrant population in Spain published in Medline and MEDES. Out of 319 studies, 20 were selected, applying predefined criteria. The results were analyzed using the Aday and Andersen framework. RESULTS: Among the publications, 13 quantitative studies analysed differences in health care use between the immigrant and the native population, and 7 studied determinants of access of immigrants. Studies showed less use of specialized care by immigrants, higher use of emergency care and no differences in the use of primary care between groups. Five quantitative articles on determinants of access focused on factors related to the immigrant population (sex, age, educational level and holding private health insurance), but without observing clear patterns. The two qualitative studies analyzed factors related to health services, describing access to healthcare barriers such as the limited provision of information or the requirements for personal health card. CONCLUSION: Access to health care in immigrants has been scarcely studied, using different approaches and the barely analysed factors related to the services. No clear patterns were observed, as differences depend on the classification of migrants according to country of origin and the level of care. However, studies showed less use of specialized care by immigrants, higher use of emergency care and the existence of determinants of access different to their needs.