Search

Objective This paper examines how negative experiences with the health-care system create a lack of confidence in receiving medical care in seven countries: Australia, Canada, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Methods The empirical analysis is based on data from the Commonwealth Fund International Health Policy Survey 2007, with nationally representative samples of adults aged 18 and over. For the analysis of the experience of cost barriers and confidence in receiving medical care, we conducted pairwise comparisons of group percentages as well as country-wise multivariate logistic regression models. Results Individuals who have experienced cost barriers show a significantly lower level of confidence in receiving safe and quality medical care than those who have not. This effect is most pronounced in the United States, where people who have foregone necessary treatment because of costs are four times as likely to lack confidence as individuals without the experience of cost barriers (adjusted odds ratio 4.00). In New Zealand, Germany, and Canada, individuals with the experience of cost barriers are twice as likely to report low confidence compared with those without this experience (adjusted odds ratios of 1.95, 2.19 and 2.24, respectively). In the Netherlands and UK, cost barriers are only a marginal phenomenon. Conclusions The fact that the experience of financial barriers considerably lowers confidence indicates that financial incentives, such as private co-payments, have a negative effect on overall public support and therefore on the legitimacy of health-care systems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: To explore the health workforce responses to COVID‐19. Design: Analysis of job advertisements. Methods: We collected advertisements for healthcare jobs which were caused by and in response to COVID‐19 between 4 March–17 April 2020 for the United States, Canada, United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand. We collected information on the date of the advertisement, position advertised and location. We categorized job positions into three categories: frontline, coordination and decision support. Results: We found 952 job advertisements, 72% of which were from the United States. There was a lag period between reported COVID‐19‐confirmed cases and job advertisements by several weeks. Nurses were the most advertised position in every country. Frontline workers were substantially more demanded than coordination or decision‐support roles. Job advertisements are a novel data source which leverages a readily available information about how workforces respond to a pandemic. The initial phases of the response emphasise the importance of frontline workers, especially nurses. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The job description for legislators in western democracies includes constituency-focused activities such as casework and district visits. Unfortunately we have a limited theoretical and empirical understanding of the factors affecting legislators' constituency-oriented activities, in large part because most studies focus on single nations; even studies that are comparative do not span a variety of electoral systems. In this article we examine the constituency focus of MPs in six chambers that do provide such variance: the Australian House and Senate, Canadian House, Irish Dáil, New Zealand House, and the British House of Commons. We find that electoral considerations and incentives provided by different electoral systems, as well as other factors, affect the priority that MPs place on constituency service. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Treatment with new and/or innovative drugs with uncertain safety and efficacy profile is associated with substantial ethical concerns. The main objective of this paper is to present guidance on the use of such drugs contained in: (i) major international codes and guidelines pertaining to medical ethics and biomedical research; (ii) national codes of medical ethics and professional conduct of the USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the UK, Ireland, France and Germany. Out of the four international codes and guidelines analysed, only the Declaration of Helsinki addresses the question of the use of unproven drugs. Among national codes, only two (USA and New Zealand) explicitly allow for use of new or innovative drugs. Moreover, treatment with unproven drugs seems to be permissible under the French code, though this is not stated explicitly. The remaining codes do not contain any articles on the use of new and innovative drugs. An update of existing articles, as well as the addition of new guidelines to the codes, should be considered in view of the rapid pace of development and introduction to clinical practice of new drugs. This work is relevant to innovative off-label applications of approved drugs and expanded access to investigational drugs., (© 2018 The British Pharmacological Society.)