Search

Background Studies confirm the positive effect of sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) taxation on public health. However, only a few countries in Europe adopt SSB taxes. From a public policy perspective, we investigate the conditions under which countries do or do not follow this evidence. Methods Crisp-set Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) of 26 European Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development countries with and without an SSB tax. We test which configurations of conditions (problem pressure, governmental composition, strategic planning, health care system, public health policies, inclusion of expert advice in policymaking) emerge as relevant in determining adoption and non-adoption between the years 1981 and 2021. Pathways that lead to the presence and absence of SSB taxes are identified separately. Results At least one of the following configurations of conditions is present in countries that introduced taxation: (i) high financial problem pressure, low regulatory impact assessment activity; (ii) high public health problem pressure, a contribution-financed health care system, no holistic strategy for combatting non-communicable diseases (NCDs); (iii) a tax-financed health care system, a holistic NCD strategy, high strategic and executive planning capacity. In countries that did not adopt SSB taxes, we find (i) high regulatory impact assessment activity, high levels of sugar export; (ii) no holistic NCD strategy, high spending on preventive care; (iii and iv) a lack of strategic planning capacity and either a high share of spending on preventive care or inclusion of expert advice. Discussion Evidence inclusion requires clear policy priorities in terms of strategy and resources to promote public health. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background In responding to Covid-19, governments have tried to balance protecting health while minimizing gross domestic product (GDP) losses. We compare health-related net benefit (HRNB) and GDP losses associated with government responses of the UK, Ireland, Germany, Spain and Sweden from UK healthcare payer perspective. Methods We compared observed cases, hospitalizations and deaths under 'mitigation' to modelled events under 'no mitigation' to 20 July 2020. We thus calculated healthcare costs, quality adjusted life years (QALYs), and HRNB at £20,000/QALY saved by each country. On per population (i.e. per capita) basis, we compared HRNB with forecast reductions in 2020 GDP growth (overall or compared with Sweden as minimal mitigation country) and qualitatively and quantitatively described government responses. Results The UK saved 3.17 (0.32–3.65) million QALYs, £33 (8–38) billion healthcare costs and £1416 (220–1637) HRNB per capita at £20,000/QALY. Per capita, this is comparable to £1455 GDP loss using Sweden as comparator and offsets 46.1 (7.1–53.2)% of total £3075 GDP loss. Germany, Spain, and Sweden had greater HRNB per capita. These also offset a greater percentage of total GDP losses per capita. Ireland fared worst on both measures. Countries with more mask wearing, testing, and population susceptibility had better outcomes. Highest stringency responses did not appear to have best outcomes. Conclusions Our exploratory analysis indicates the benefit of government Covid-19 responses may outweigh their economic costs. The extent that HRNB offset economic losses appears to relate to population characteristics, testing levels, and mask wearing, rather than response stringency. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Acetylsalicylic acid is a frequently used medication worldwide. It is not used in pediatrics due its association with Reye syndrome. However, in case of pediatric intoxication, children are more fragile to salicylate poisoning because of their reduced ability of buffer the acid stress. Intoxication leads to a decoupling of oxidative phosphorylation and subsequently to a loss in mitochondrial function. Symptoms of poisoning are diverse; eventually they can lead to the death of the patient. Governmental websites of various EU countries were searched for legal information on acetylsalicylic acid availability in pharmacies and non-pharmacy stores. Various EU countries permit prescription-free sales of acetylsalicylic acid in pharmacies and non-pharmacy stores. In Sweden acetylsalicylic acid 500 mg may be sold in a maximum package size of 20 tablets or effervescent tablets in a non-pharmacy. In the UK a maximum of 16 tablets of acetylsalicylic acid 325 mg is allowed to sell in non-pharmacies. In Ireland acetylsalicylic acid is classified as S2 medication. Subsequently, acetylsalicylic acid is allowed to be sold prescription-free in pharmacies and non-pharmacy stores. In the Netherlands acetylsalicylic acid may only be sold in drug stores or pharmacies. A maximum of 24 tablets of 500 mg is allowed to purchase in a drug store. Several countries in the European Union are permitted to offer acetylsalicylic acid prescription-free in pharmacies and non-pharmacy stores without legal guidance on the storage position within the store. Further research is needed to investigate whether acetylsalicylic acid is located directly accessible to young children within the stores in EU countries which permit prescription-free sales of acetylsalicylic acid. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents updates on building projects in health sciences libraries as of July 2014. These include projects at Al Maktoum Medical Library of Mohammed Bin Rashid at Academic Medical Center in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, Regional Library and Information Service at Dr. Steevens' Hospital in Dublin, Ireland, and Denmark Hill Campus Libraries at King's College London in Waterloo, London, England.