Search

Background: This paper discusses the stages of health system resilience (HSR) and the factors underlying differences in HSR during the covid-19 pandemic, especially the vaccination challenge. We studied the relationship between vaccination strategies and macro-context backgrounds in 21 Latin American countries. Our objective was to capture the impact of those aspects in the SR and identify potential improvements for future crises and for vaccination programs in general. Methods: The study uses mixed-methods research to provide insights into how the countries' backgrounds and vaccination strategies impact the HSR. Particularly, we used explanatory sequential mixed methods, which entails a quantitative-qualitative two-phase sequence. The quantitative phase was conducted using cluster and variance analysis, in which the HSR was measured using as a proxy the covid-19 vaccination outcomes in three cut-offs of reaching 25%, 50%, and 75% of population coverage. This approach allows us to discriminate covid-19 vaccination progress by stages and contrast it to the qualitative stage, in which we performed a country-case analysis of the background conditions and the changes in vaccination strategies that occurred during the corresponding dates. Results: The paper provides a rich comparative case analysis of countries, classifying them by early, prompt, and delayed performers. The results show that differences in vaccination performance are due to flexibility in adapting strategies, cooperation, and the ability to design multilevel solutions that consider the needs of various actors in the health ecosystem. These differences vary depending on the vaccination stage, which suggests the importance of acknowledging learning, diffusion, and feedback processes at the regional level. Conclusions: We identified the importance of societal well-being as an ideal country antecedent for high and sustained levels of performance in covid-19 vaccination. Whereas in other countries where the set-up and beginning phases were rough, the value of the operational decisions and the learning on the move regarding their own and their peers' trajectories were crucial and were reflected in performance improvement. A contribution of this study is that the above-mentioned analysis was done using vaccination coverage cut-off points that allow a performance view that takes into consideration the stages of the vaccination progress and the learning process that goes with it. As well as framing this into the HSR shock cycles that allow to differentiate the stages of resilience on which countries must act. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic immensely impacted care provision, including quality of care in general practice. This paper aimed: (1) to assess how Belgian general practices acted upon the six dimensions of quality of care during COVID-19; (2) to study differences between the three Belgian regions; and (3) to benchmark the performance of the Belgian practices against the performance in other European countries. Methods: The data collected from 479 Belgian practices during 2020–2021 using an online survey as part of the international cross-sectional PRICOV-19 study were analyzed. Hereby, descriptive statistics, chi-squared tests, and binary logistic regression analyses were performed. Thirty-four survey questions related to the six dimensions of quality of care were selected as outcome variables. The adjusted regression models included four practice characteristics as covariates: practice type, being a teaching practice for GP trainees, multidisciplinarity of the team, and payment system. Results: Belgian practices made important organizational changes to deliver high-quality care during COVID-19. Most practices (n = 259; 56.1%) actively reached out to vulnerable patients. Limitations to the practice building or infrastructure threatened high-quality care in 266 practices (55.5%). Infection prevention measures could not always be implemented during COVID-19, such as using a cleaning protocol (n = 265; 57.2%) and providing a separate doctor bag for infection-related home visits (n = 130; 27.9%). Three hundred and sixty practices (82.0%) reported at least one safety incident related to a delayed care process in patients with an urgent condition. The adjusted regression analysis showed limited significant differences between the Belgian regions regarding the quality of care delivered. Belgian practices demonstrated varied performance compared to other European countries. For example, they excelled in always checking the feasibility of isolation at home but reported more patient safety incidents related to timely care than at least three-quarters of the other European countries. Conclusions: Future studies using different design methods are crucial to investigate which country and practice characteristics are associated with delivering high-quality care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Human communities suffered a vast socioeconomic burden in dealing with the pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) globally. Real-word data about these burdens can inform governments about evidence-based resource allocation and prioritization. The aim of this scoping review was to map the cost-of-illness (CoI) studies associated with COVID-19. Methods: This scoping review was conducted from January 2019 to December 2021. We searched cost-of-illness papers published in English within Web of Sciences, PubMed, Google Scholar, Scopus, Science Direct and ProQuest. For each eligible study, extracted data included country, publication year, study period, study design, epidemiological approach, costing method, cost type, cost identification, sensitivity analysis, estimated unit cost and national burden. All of the analyses were applied in Excel software. Results: 2352 records were found after the search strategy application, finally 28 articles met the inclusion criteria and were included in the review. Most of the studies were done in the United States, Turkey, and China. The prevalence-based approach was the most common in the studies, and most of studies also used Hospital Information System data (HIS). There were noticeable differences in the costing methods and the cost identification. The average cost of hospitalization per patient per day ranged from 101$ in Turkey to 2,364$ in the United States. Among the studies, 82.1% estimated particularly direct medical costs, 3.6% only indirect costs, and 14.3% both direct and indirect costs. Conclusion: The economic burden of COVID-19 varies from country to country. The majority of CoI studies estimated direct medical costs associated with COVID-19 and there is a paucity of evidence for direct non-medical, indirect, and intangible costs, which we recommend for future studies. To create homogeneity in CoI studies, we suggest researchers follow a conceptual framework and critical appraisal checklist of cost-of-illness (CoI) studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]