Search

This paper presents a political economy analysis of global inequities in access to COVID-19 vaccines, treatments, and diagnostic tests. We adapt a conceptual model used for analysing the political economy of global extraction and health to examine the politico-economic factors affecting access to COVID-19 health products and technologies in four interconnected layers: the social, political, and historical context; politics, institutions, and policies; pathways to ill-health; and health consequences. Our analysis finds that battles over access to COVID-19 products occur in a profoundly unequal playing field, and that efforts to improve access that do not shift the fundamental power imbalances are bound to fail. Inequitable access has both direct effects on health (preventable illness and death) and indirect effects through exacerbation of poverty and inequality. We highlight how the case of COVID-19 products reflects broader patterns of structural violence, in which the political economy is structured to improve and lengthen the lives of those in the Global North while neglecting and shortening the lives of those in the Global South. We conclude that achieving equitable access to pandemic response products requires shifting longstanding power imbalances and the institutions and processes that entrench and enable them., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest None., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Objective: This cross-sequential study examines whether the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic affected the mental health of staff working at an Australian air medical service, the Royal Flying Doctors Service South Eastern (RFDSSE) Section., Methods: The risk of anxiety and depression was measured using a prospective anonymized online survey using the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, which was answered by 119 employees. This cross-sequential study was completed in December 2021 with reference to 2 time points: now and the beginning of the pandemic. A high risk of anxiety was defined using a Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale score of 11 to 21 (low risk: 0-10). Chi-square testing was used to compare subgroups at single time points. McNemar testing was used to compare the risk of anxiety and depression between the beginning of the pandemic and December 2021., Results: Employees recalled a higher risk of anxiety at the beginning of the pandemic (29%) compared with December 2021 (16%) (P = .012). At the beginning of the pandemic, nonoperational staff members were more anxious than operational staff (P = .019). One third (31%) of operational staff members were concerned about dying at the beginning of the pandemic., Conclusion: Our findings demonstrate that RFDSSE employees recalled higher levels of anxiety at the beginning of the pandemic compared with their risk in December 2021. Operational and nonoperational staff have different mental health needs; anxiety experienced by nonoperational staff during a pandemic should not be underestimated. The overall prevalence of anxiety and depression is high, suggesting health care staff in an air medical service may require extra psychological support. Other air medical organizations may reflect on our study findings and plan how to better support their own staff as a result., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has raised interest in the application of e-health or d-health (digital health) innovations throughout the world. Many countries have rapidly developed, refined or retooled e-health solutions and existing legislation and guidelines to permit their swift implementation. It is anticipated that these events will stimulate sustained change in the interest in and use of e-health (e.g. telehealth, telemedicine, m-health (mobile health), e-learning and health informatics). The stance of the Health Professions Council of South Africa (HPCSA) has hampered this response, initially even in the face of the pandemic. This article reviews recent events in SA, relevant World Medical Association statements and international COVID-19-related responses. It concludes that the HPCSA must acknowledge global experience, and provide SA with clear, evidence-based and clinically practicable guidelines that promote and sustain the use of telemedicine broadly, now and post COVID-19. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]