Search

Background. During the influenza pandemic 2009/A/H1N1, the main burden of managing patients fell on primary care physicians (PCP). This provided an excellent opportunity to investigate the implications of pandemic policies for the PCP role. Aim. To examine policies affecting the role of PCP in the pandemic response in Australia (in the state of Victoria), Israel and England. Methods. Content analysis of the documents published by the health authorities in Australia, Israel and England during the pandemic 2009/A/H1N1. Results. The involvement of PCP in the pandemic response differed among the countries in timing and allocated responsibilities. The Israeli approach during the containment phase was to maximise the protection of PCP at the expense of putting pressure on hospitals where the suspected cases were tested and treated. In Australia and England, PCP managed the suspected patients from the beginning of the pandemic. The work of PCP in England was supported by the introduction of the National Pandemic Flu Service during the mitigation phase, whereas Australian PCP had no additional support structures and their role was constant and intensive throughout the pandemic period. Conclusion. Health authorities need to engage with representatives of PCP to evaluate policies for pandemic planning and management. Adequate support and protection for PCP during different stages of pandemic management should be provided. What is known about the topic? During the influenza pandemic 2009/A/H1N1, the main burden of diagnosing and managing the patients fell on PCP. The prominent role of PCP in the 2009/A/H1N1 pandemic presents an excellent opportunity to investigate implications of pandemic policies for primary care and to tackle the possible problems that these policies may impose on the ability of PCP to effectively participate in the public health response. What does this paper add? This paper examines policies that affected the roles of PCP in managing the influenza pandemic 2009/A/H1N1 in three countries: Australia, Israel and England. Although general evaluations of the pandemic response in different countries have previously been reported, this is the first study that focuses on policies for pandemic management at the primary care level. What are the implications for practitioners? Practitioners (PCP and primary care workers in general) would benefit if pandemic preparedness plans were constructed to provide an adequate system of support and protection to primary care workers during different stages of pandemic management. For policy makers, this analysis may help to overhaul the strategies for primary care engagement in the pandemic response. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Between 1997 and 2010, the English government pursued an ambitious programme to reduce health inequalities, the explicit and sustained commitment of which was historically and internationally unique. Previous evaluations have produced mixed results. None of these evaluations have, however, compared the trends in health inequalities within England with those in other European countries. We carried out an innovative analysis to assess whether changes in trends in health inequalities observed in England after the implementation of its programme, have been more favourable than those in other countries without such a programme.Methods: Data were obtained from nationally representative surveys carried out in England, Finland, the Netherlands and Italy for years around 1990, 2000 and 2010. A modified difference-in-difference approach was used to assess whether trends in health inequalities in 2000-2010 were more favourable as compared to the period 1990-2000 in England, and the changes in trends in inequalities after 2000 in England were then compared to those in the three comparison countries. Health outcomes were self-assessed health, long-standing health problems, smoking status and obesity. Education was used as indicator of socioeconomic position.Results: After the implementation of the English strategy, more favourable trends in some health indicators were observed among low-educated people, but trends in health inequalities in 2000-2010 in England were not more favourable than those observed in the period 1990-2000. For most health indicators, changes in trends of health inequalities after 2000 in England were also not significantly different from those seen in the other countries.Conclusions: In this rigorous analysis comparing trends in health inequalities in England both over time and between countries, we could not detect a favourable effect of the English strategy. Our analysis illustrates the usefulness of a modified difference-in-difference approach for assessing the impact of policies on population-level health inequalities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]