Search

Aim: The goal of this paper is to analyze the COVID-19 policies of 10 European countries, including Sweden, Finland, Norway, Italy, France, Germany, Poland, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Hungary, with a time-series policy analysis tool. Subject and methods: The results of the COVID-19 policy analysis are based on a single time-series indicator, or daily population mortality rate: the number of COVID-19 daily cumulative deaths divided by the population in millions. The lower the score, the better the policy. Although many experts believe that the COVID-19 policy outcome analysis is premature, time series analysis is an excellent analysis that can provide information on the progress and transition of policy outcomes. In other words, the proposed time series analysis tool allows policymakers to identify and quantify when mistakes were made during the on-going COVID-19 pandemic. Results: The COVID-19 policy analysis discovered many useful facts. Sweden failed due to the herd immunity approach. Hungary made a fundamental mistake in COVID-19 tactics. Countries such as Sweden, Hungary, Belgium, and Poland showed time-series changes that differed from the others. Conclusion: Public health interventions can play a key role in mitigating the COVID-19 pandemic. The proposed policy analysis tool, hiscovid demonstrated the effectiveness of the time-series score behavior for discovering when policymakers made mistakes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The Sarcoma Policy Checklist was created by a multidisciplinary expert group to provide policymakers with priority areas to improve care for sarcoma patients.Main Body: This paper draws on this research, by looking more closely at how France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom are addressing each of these priority areas. It aims to highlight key gaps in research, policy and practice, as well as ongoing initiatives that may impact the future care of sarcoma patients in different European countries. A pragmatic review of the published and web-based literature was undertaken. Telephone interviews were conducted in each country with clinical and patient experts to substantiate findings. Research findings were discussed within the expert group and developed into five core policy recommendations. The five identified priority areas were: the development of designated and accredited centres of reference; more professional training; multidisciplinary care; greater incentives for research and innovation; and more rapid access to effective treatments. Most of the countries studied have ongoing initiatives addressing many of these priorities; however, many are in early stages of development, or require additional funding and resources.Conclusion: Gaps in access to quality care are particularly concerning in many of Europe's lower-resourced countries. Equitable access to information, clinical trials, innovative treatments and quality specialist care should be available to all sarcoma patients. Achieving this across Europe will require close collaboration between all stakeholders at both the national and European level. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In response to increasing care needs, the reform or development of long-term care (LTC) systems has become a prominent policy issue in all European countries. Cash-for-care schemes-allowances instead of services provided to dependents-represent a key policy aimed at ensuring choice, fostering family care, developing care markets, and containing costs. A detailed analysis of policy documents and regulations, together with a systematic review of existing studies, was used to investigate the differences among six European countries (Austria, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and Sweden). The rationale and evolution of their various cash-for-care schemes within the framework of their LTC systems also were explored. While most of the literature present cash-for-care schemes as a common trend in the reforms that began in the 1990s and often treat them separately from the overarching LTC policies, this article argues that the policy context, timing, and specific regulation of the new schemes have created different visions of care and care work that in turn have given rise to distinct LTC configurations. A new typology of long-term care configurations is proposed based on the inclusiveness of the system, the role of cash-for-care schemes and their specific regulations, as well as the views of informal care and the care work that they require. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]