Search

Resilience is situated at the core of the World Health Organization European policy framework for health and well‐being and the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. Resilience refers to how effectively a person, group, or system deals with and recovers from challenging situations. In this paper resilience refers to the capacity of a health care professional to manage complex issues and adapt to situations successfully. This brief paper provides explicit knowledge for strengthening personal resilience in health care using the Ottawa Charter framework as a guide. Developing a resilient health care workforce should address all five Ottawa Charter areas of action, should involve multiple stakeholders, and should incorporate resilience strategies into everyday health care activities. The paper presents recommendations for future programs designed to build a resilient workforce that can provide high quality care in a sustainable manner. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A growing body of knowledge highlights the negative impact of the COVID‐19 pandemic on the health and well‐being of many people with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDDs) and their caregivers. The underlying reasons are not only due to biomedical factors but also ethical issues. They stem from longstanding and pervasive structural injustices and negative social attitudes that continue to devalue people with IDD and that underlie certain clinical decisions and frameworks for public‐health policies during this pandemic. Unless these fundamental ethical shortcomings are addressed, pandemic responses will continue to undermine the human rights and well‐being of people with IDD. This paper proposes an ethics framing for policy and practices regarding clinical care and public health based on Martha Nussbaum's approach to Capability Theory. Such a framework can reorient healthcare professionals and healthcare systems to support the capabilities of people with IDD to protect, recover, and promote health and well‐being. It could be applied during this pandemic and in planning for future pandemics. The paper presents some practical recommendations that follow from applying this framework. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The development of new effective but expensive medical treatments leads to discussions about whether and how such treatments should be funded in solidarity‐based healthcare systems. Solidarity is often seen as an elusive concept; it appears to be used to refer to different sets of concerns, and its interrelations with the concept of justice are not well understood. This paper provides a conceptual analysis of the concept of solidarity as it is used in discussions on the allocation of healthcare resources and the funding of expensive treatments. It contributes to the clarification of the concept of solidarity by identifying in the literature and discussing four uses of the concept: (1) assisting patients in need, (2) upholding the solidarity‐based healthcare system, (3) willingness to contribute and (4) promoting equality. It distinguishes normative and descriptive uses of the concept and outlines the overlap and differences between solidarity and justice. Our analysis shows that the various uses of the concept of solidarity point to different, even conflicting, ethical stances on whether and how access to effective, expensive treatments should be provided. We conclude that the concept of solidarity has a role to play in discussions on the accessibility and funding of newly approved medical treatments. It requires, for instance, that healthcare policies promote and maintain both societal willingness to contribute to the care of others and the value of providing care to vulnerable patients through public funding. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the past decade, numerous ethical frameworks have been developed to support public health decision‐making in challenging areas. Before the COVID‐19 pandemic began, members of the authorship team were involved in research programmes, in which the development of ethical frameworks was planned, to guide (a) the use of new technologies for emerging infectious disease surveillance; and (b) the allocation of scarce supplies of pandemic influenza vaccine. However, as the pandemic evolved, significant practical challenges emerged that led to our questioning the value of these frameworks. We now believe that a normative instrument, such as a framework, cannot adequately or reliably provide the ethical guidance that needs to be incorporated into public health decision‐making during natural disasters or infectious disease emergencies. Recently it has been suggested that there are potentially more dynamic, flexible, and effective ways to navigate decisions involving complex considerations entailed in policies and practices during a public health emergency. In this paper, we first outline the key functions of a public health ethics framework, before describing why we believe it would not be fit for purpose during a crisis. We end by considering whether proposed alternative methods to promote ethical public health decision‐making goals have the potential to meet these objectives. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A balanced approach using an integrated combination of strategies, namely, demand reduction, supply reduction and harm reduction, was suggested to be implemented in a balanced way to the policy vision of a South Africa 'free of substance abuse'. Responding on the call for a comprehensive review of the National Drug Master Plan 2013–2017 to ensure consistency in policy approach, this article explores the integrative propositional analysis (IPA)‐based analysis to evaluate 'how systemic' and integrated were the policy strategies applied. The analysis draws insights from the internal consistency of the policy and provides complementary evidence on the systemic breakdown of the policy, which correlates with previous studies. The findings are indicative of the usefulness of the IPA‐based tools to more pragmatically develop policy that better reflects the systemic/integrated relationship of the three strategies based on their conceptual systemic integrity. This research has implications for interdisciplinary scholars and practitioners, of policy and theory. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Exclusive breastfeeding (EBF) for the first 6 months of life improves survival, growth and development. In Kenya, recent legislation and policies advocate for maternity leave and workplace support for breastfeeding and breast milk expression. We conducted a qualitative study to describe factors influencing EBF for 6 months among mothers employed in commercial agriculture and tourism. We interviewed employed mothers (n = 42), alternate caregivers and employed mothers' husbands (n = 20), healthcare providers (n = 21), daycare directors (n = 22) and commercial flower farm and hotel managers (n = 16) in Naivasha, Kenya. Despite recognizing the recommended duration for EBF, employed mothers describe the early cessation of EBF in preparation for their return to work. Managers reported supporting mothers through flexible work hours and duties. Yet, few workplaces have lactation spaces, and most considered adjusting schedules more feasible than breastfeeding during work. Managers and healthcare providers believed milk expression could prolong EBF but thought mothers lack experience with pumping. The most frequently suggested interventions for improving EBF duration were to expand schedule flexibility (100% of groups), provide on‐site daycare (80% of groups) and workplace lactation rooms (60% of groups), improve milk expression education and increase maternity leave length (60% of groups). Returning to work corresponds with numerous challenges including lack of proximate or on‐site childcare and low support for and experience with milk expression. These factors currently make EBF for 6 months unattainable for most mothers in these industries. Interventions and supports to improve breastfeeding upon return to work are recommended to strengthen employed mothers' opportunity for EBF. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]