Search

Introduction: Insights into effective policy strategies for improved coordination of care is needed. In this study we describe and compare the policy strategies chosen in Denmark and Sweden, and discuss them in relation to interorganisational network theory. Policy practice: The policy initiatives to improve collaboration between primary and secondary healthcare in Denmark and Sweden include legislation and agreements aiming at clarifying areas of responsibility and defining requirements, creation of links across organisational boarders. In Denmark many initiatives have been centrally induced, while development of local solutions is more prominent in Sweden. Many Danish initiatives target the administrative level, while in Sweden initiatives are also directed at the operational level. In both countries economic incentives for collaboration are weak or lacking, and use of sanctions as a regulatory mean is limited. Discussion and conclusion: Despite a variety of policy initiatives, lacking or poorly developed structures to support implementation function as barriers for coordination. The two cases illustrate that even in two relatively coherent health systems, with regional management of both the hospital and general practice sector, there are issues to resolve in regard to administrative and operational coordination. The interorganisational network literature can provide useful tools and concepts for interpreting such issues. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Denmark and Sweden initially adopted different responses to the COVID-19 pandemic although the two countries share many characteristics. Denmark responded swiftly with many mandatory restrictions. In contrast, Sweden relied on voluntary restrictions and a more "relaxed" response during the first wave of the pandemic. However, increased rates of COVID-19 cases led to a new approach that involved many more mandatory restrictions, thus making Sweden's response similar to Denmark's in the second wave of the pandemic., Aim: The aim was to investigate and compare the extent to which the populations in Denmark and Sweden considered the COVID-19 restrictions to be acceptable during the first two waves of the pandemic. The study also aimed to identify the characteristics of those who were least accepting of the restrictions in the two countries., Materials and Methods: Cross-sectional surveys were conducted in Denmark and Sweden in 2021. The study population was sampled from nationally representative web panels in the two countries, consisting of 2,619 individuals from Denmark and 2,633 from Sweden. The questionnaire captured key socio-demographic characteristics. Acceptability was operationalized based on a theoretical framework consisting of seven constructs and one overarching construct., Results: The respondents' age and gender patterns were similar in the two countries. The proportion of respondents in Denmark who agreed with the statements ("agree" alternative) that captured various acceptability constructs was generally higher for the first wave than the second wave of the pandemic. The opposite pattern was seen for Sweden. In Denmark, 66% in the first wave and 50% in the second wave were accepting of the restrictions. The corresponding figures for Sweden was 42% (first wave) and 47% (second wave). Low acceptance of the restrictions, defined as the 25% with the lowest total score on the seven acceptability statements, was associated with younger age, male gender and lower education levels., Conclusion: Respondents in Sweden were more accepting of the restrictions in the second wave, when the country used many mandatory restrictions. In contrast, respondents in Denmark were more accepting of the restrictions in the first wave than in the second wave, implying an increased weariness to comply with the restrictions over time. There were considerable socio-demographic differences between those who expressed low acceptance of the restrictions and the others in both countries, suggesting the importance of tailoring communication about the pandemic to different segments of the population., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2023 Nilsen, Seing, Sekhon, Kallemose, Tjørnhøj-Thomsen, Stefánsdóttir, Vrangbæk, Andersen and Kirk.)

This paper explores and compares health system responses to the COVID-19 pandemic in Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden, in the context of existing governance features. Content compiled in the Covid-19 Health System Response Monitor combined with other publicly available country information serve as the foundation for this analysis. The analysis mainly covers early response until August 2020, but includes some key policy and epidemiological developments up until December 2020. Our findings suggest that despite the many similarities in adopted policy measures, the five countries display differences in implementation as well as outcomes. Declaration of state of emergency has differed in the Nordic region, whereas the emphasis on specialist advisory agencies in the decision-making process is a common feature. There may be differences in how respective populations complied with the recommended measures, and we suggest that other structural and circumstantial factors may have an important role in variations in outcomes across the Nordic countries. The high incidence rates among migrant populations and temporary migrant workers, as well as differences in working conditions are important factors to explore further. An important question for future research is how the COVID-19 epidemic will influence legislation and key principles of governance in the Nordic countries., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Aims/hypothesis: High prevalence of coexisting morbidity in people with type 2 diabetes highlights the need to include interactions with education and comorbidity in the assessments of societal consequences of type 2 diabetes. The purpose of this study was to estimate the joint effects of education, type 2 diabetes and six frequent comorbidities., Methods: Nationwide administrative register data on type 2 diabetes diagnosis, hospital admissions, education and disability pension were grouped at the individual level by means of a unique personal identification number. Included were all people (N = 2,281,599) in the age span of 40-59 years living in Denmark in the period 2005 to 2017, covering a total of 17,754,788 person-years. We used both Cox proportional hazards and Aalen additive hazards models to estimate relative and absolute joint effects of type 2 diabetes, educational attainment and six common comorbidities (CVD, cancer and cerebrovascular, respiratory, musculoskeletal and psychiatric diseases). We decomposed the joint effects of educational level, type 2 diabetes and comorbidities into main effects and the interaction effect, measured as extra cases of disability pension., Results: Lower level of educational attainment, type 2 diabetes and comorbidities independently contributed to additional granted disability pensions. The joint number of cases of disability pension exceeded the sum of the three exposures, which is explained by a synergistic effect of lower educational level, type 2 diabetes and comorbidity., Conclusions/interpretation: In this population study, the joint effects of type 2 diabetes, lower education and comorbidity were associated with larger than additive rates of disability pension. An integrated approach that takes into account socioeconomic barriers to type 2 diabetes rehabilitation may slow down disease progression and increase the working ability of socially disadvantaged people., (© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.)

Social distancing measures have been a key component in government strategies to mitigate COVID-19 globally. Based on official documents, this study aimed to identify, compare and analyse public social distancing policy measures adopted in Denmark and Sweden regarding the coronavirus from 1 March 2020 until 1 October 2020. A key difference was the greater emphasis on laws and executive orders (sticks) in Denmark, which allowed the country to adopt many stricter policy measures than Sweden, which relied mostly on general guidelines and recommendations (sermons). The main policy adopters in Denmark were the government and the Danish Parliament, whereas the Public Health Agency issued most policies in Sweden, reflecting a difference in political governance and administrative structure in the two countries. During the study period, Sweden had noticeably higher rates of COVID-19 deaths and hospitalizations per 100,000 population than Denmark, yet it is difficult to determine the impact or relative effectiveness of sermons and sticks, particularly with regard to broader and longer-term health, economic and societal effects.

Denmark, Finland and Sweden have experienced two major recessions during the last 25 years. The adjustments to the earlier crisis in the late 1980s (Denmark) and early 1990s (Finland and Sweden) resembled the policies in many other European countries during the present crisis. The analysis of relationship of deep economic crises and growth period between them to the health system policies and institutions in the three countries from the 1980s to 2013 is based on a categorisation of reactions to external shocks as path conforming or path breaking. The results of the empirical long-term trends show that the reactions to deep recessions have been mainly temporary adjustments and acceleration of changes already prepared before economic crisis. The economic crisis in the three countries has not been 'good enough' to enable paradigmatic changes in the Nordic public, decentralised and equity-oriented health systems. Changes such as the slow privatisation in care funding and production and the adoption of new management practices indicate an ongoing paradigmatic change related to longer-term societal, ideological and political developments rather than directly to economic crises or growth.

This paper compares the introduction of policies to promote or strengthen patient choice in four Northern European countries - Denmark, England, the Netherlands and Sweden. The paper examines whether there has been convergence in choice policies across Northern Europe. Following Christopher Pollitt's suggestion, the paper distinguishes between rhetorical (discursive) convergence, decision (design) convergence and implementation (operational) convergence (Pollitt, 2002). This leads to the following research question for the article: Is the introduction of policies to strengthen choice in the four countries characterised by discursive, decision and operational convergence? The paper concludes that there seems to be convergence among these four countries in the overall policy rhetoric about the objectives associated with patient choice, embracing both concepts of empowerment (the intrinsic value) and market competition (the instrumental value). It appears that the institutional context and policy concerns such as waiting times have been important in affecting the timing of the introduction of choice policies and implementation, but less so in the design of choice policies. An analysis of the impact of choice policies is beyond the scope of this paper, but it is concluded that further research should investigate how the institutional context and timing of implementation affect differences in how the choice policy works out in practice., (© Cambridge University Press 2012)