Self-reported screening practices of family physicians participating in the colorectal cancer screening program of the canton of Vaud: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: The organized colorectal cancer (CRC) screening program in the canton of Vaud, Switzerland offers citizens the choice of the faecal immunochemical test (FIT) or colonoscopy via a visit with a family physician (FP). Given the central role of FPs in the program, this study aimed to compare their self-reported preventive practices with the objectives of the program, namely to inform patients about CRC screening and present the choice of colonoscopy and FIT, and to identify factors associated with presenting a choice of tests. METHODS: Mixed-methods study using an online survey and semi-structured interviews. Participants were FPs from the canton of Vaud who had included ≥1 patient in the screening program. We used multivariate logistic regression to compare FPs offering only colonoscopy to those who offered a choice of tests or FIT. RESULTS: The participation rate was 40% (177 respondents / 443 eligible). Most FPs (68%) reported informing more than 75% of eligible patients about the program. Lack of time (n = 86, 33%) was the principal reason cited for not informing patients. Regarding the screening methods, 20% (n = 36) of FPs prescribed only colonoscopy, 13% (n = 23) only FIT and 65% (n = 115) both screening methods. Predictors of offering only colonoscopy rather than a choice of screening tests included: first, FP reporting that they chose/would choose colonoscopy for themselves (OR 8.54 [95% CI 1.83-39.79, P < 0.01]); second, being > 20 years in practice (OR 4.8 [95% CI 1.3-0.17.66, P = 0.02]); and third, seeing 300 or more patients per month (OR 3.05 [95% CI 1.23-7.57, P = 0.02]). When asked what could improve the program, 17% (n = 31) wrote that patients should be informed in advance about the program by postal mail and a large-scale communication campaign. CONCLUSION: The majority of FPs reported CRC screening practices consistent with the objectives of the program. However, to ensure that patients are well informed and to save time, all patients need to be systematically informed about the program. Further, FPs should be encouraged to offer a choice of tests.

Health System Performance and Resilience in Times of Crisis: An Adapted Conceptual Framework.

With the COVID-19 pandemic, the notion of health system (HS) performance has been discussed, and the notion of resilience has become increasingly important. Lacking a recognised framework that measures the performance of HSs throughout a crisis, i.e., one that explicitly includes time as a key aspect, we examined the literature about conceptual frameworks for measuring the performance and the resilience of HSs. This review highlighted a significant diversity among 18 distinct HS performance frameworks and 13 distinct HS resilience frameworks. On this basis, we developed a model that integrates the WHO's widely recognised six building block framework in a novel approach derived from the European Observatory on HSs and Policies. The resulting framework adapts the building blocks to the different stages of a crisis, thereby allowing for a comprehensive assessment of an entire health system's performance throughout the crisis's duration, while also considering the key aspect of resilience. For a more pragmatic use of this framework in the future, indicators will be developed as a next step.

Government recommendations during the COVID-19 epidemic in Switzerland: clarity, compliance and impact on the daily life of seniors in a population-based cohort.

CONTEXT: In March 2020, the Swiss Federal Council issued recommendations for a partial lockdown, with an emphasis on people aged 65 years and over because of their vulnerability to COVID-19. This study investigated whether seniors clearly understood the meaning of four recommendations (do not go grocery shopping; do not use public transport; avoid personal contact; stay at home), whether they complied with them, and what was the impact of the partial lockdown on their daily life, including difficulties and opportunities. METHODS: In April 2020, a questionnaire about how seniors experienced the partial lockdown was sent to the participants in the Lausanne Cohort Lc65+, a population-based study. The response rate reached 89%, with 2746 participants aged 72-86 years included in the analysis. Bivariable analyses and multivariable logistic models were used to identify sociodemographic and health-related characteristics associated with each outcome (clarity; compliance; impact). RESULTS: Most seniors rated the recommendations as clear (84-91%, depending on the recommendation) and complied with them (70-94%). In multivariable analyses, men were more likely to rate the recommendations as unclear. Perceiving the recommendation as unclear and having a low level of fear of the virus were associated with noncompliance. People who complied with the recommendations were more likely to experience difficulties, but also to seize opportunities during the partial lockdown. CONCLUSION: Most seniors followed the recommendations and found them clearly worded. However, some subgroups, such as men and seniors who do not fear the virus, were less likely to clearly understand the recommendations. As a correct understanding is a key factor for compliance, the findings emphasise the importance of tailoring public health communications to the characteristics of the target group, and of testing whether they are correctly understood.

A health systems resilience research agenda: moving from concept to practice.

Health system resilience, known as the ability for health systems to absorb, adapt or transform to maintain essential functions when stressed or shocked, has quickly gained popularity following shocks like COVID-19. The concept is relatively new in health policy and systems research and the existing research remains mostly theoretical. Research to date has viewed resilience as an outcome that can be measured through performance outcomes, as an ability of complex adaptive systems that is derived from dynamic behaviour and interactions, or as both. However, there is little congruence on the theory and the existing frameworks have not been widely used, which as diluted the research applications for health system resilience. A global group of health system researchers were convened in March 2021 to discuss and identify priorities for health system resilience research and implementation based on lessons from COVID-19 and other health emergencies. Five research priority areas were identified: (1) measuring and managing systems dynamic performance, (2) the linkages between societal resilience and health system resilience, (3) the effect of governance on the capacity for resilience, (4) creating legitimacy and (5) the influence of the private sector on health system resilience. A key to filling these research gaps will be longitudinal and comparative case studies that use cocreation and coproduction approaches that go beyond researchers to include policy-makers, practitioners and the public.