Search

Background: Attendance to neonatal follow-up programs presents a significant factor associated with positive long-term outcomes of high-risk infants. Strategies to maximize participation benefit not only future interventions' effectiveness but also healthcare systems and society. While a number of studies have focused on attrition or loss to follow-up, no studies have focused on the contributive risk factors to abstaining from neonatal follow-up programs specifically during the COVID-19 pandemic. This study aims to reveal the main factors linked to non-compliance in a neonatal follow-up program of a tertiary hospital. Methods: In this ambidirectional observational study, data from 1137 high-risk neonates who participated in a hospital follow-up program were collected (573 before and 564 after the COVID-19 pandemic). The study sample was grouped to three groups: G1 (N = 831), who maintained participation in the program; G2 (N = 196), who discontinued; and G3 (N = 110), who never visited the outpatient clinics. Data were obtained from the hospital's Systems Applications and Products (SAP) Software and a structured questionnaire, answered by parents of newborns either discontinuing (G2) or not attending (G3) the follow-up program through a telephone contact. Results: The most frequently reported reason for discontinuance before the pandemic onset was the parents' perception of no necessity to maintain participation (44.12%). During the COVID-19 pandemic, provider-related barriers to maintaining hospital access, inability to provide high-quality services (37.14%), and feelings of fear and insecurity (18.5%) emerged as factors for non-attendance. Citizenship and morbidity (respiratory distress syndrome, sepsis, necrotic enterocolitis, jaundice) acted as incentives to join the follow-up program during both study periods. Multiple regression analysis showed that multiple-gestation infants had higher odds of maintaining participation during the COVID-19 period (OR, 4.04; CI, 1.09–14.9). Conclusions: Understanding the potential impact of COVID-19 and the transformative changes in neonatal follow-up clinics is crucial for applying compliance strategies. Removing barriers to maintain family participation can lead to increased attendance rates. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Fiscal decentralisation (FD) is a widely implemented decentralisation policy consisting of the allocation of pooling and spending responsibilities from the central government to lower levels of governance within a country. In 2001, The Italian National Health System (Servizio Sanitario Nazionale, SSN) has introduced a strong element of FD, making regions responsible for their own pooling of resources and for their budgets. Despite the relevance, only few studies exist on health sector-FD in Italy, mostly looking at the effects of FD on infant mortality. Methods: This study performs a fixed-effects panel data analysis of Italian Regions and Autonomous provinces between the years 2001 and 2017, to investigate the effects of health sector-FD on availability, accessibility, and utilisation of healthcare services in Italy. Results: FD decreases availability of staff and hospital beds, decreases utilisation of care, measured by hospitalisation rates, and increases interregional patients' mobility for healthcare purposes, a finding suggesting increased disparities in access to healthcare. These effects seem to be stronger for public - rather than private - services, and are more prominent in poorer areas. Conclusion: This evidence suggest that FD has created a fragmented and unequal healthcare system, in which levels of availability, utilisation of, and accessibility to resources - as well as the extent of public sector's retrenchment - coincide with the wealth of the area. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background Empirical evidence on how ownership type affects the quality and cost of medical care is growing, and debate on these topics is ongoing. Despite the fact that the private sector is a major provider of hospital services in Greece, little comparative information on private versus public sector hospitals is available. The aim of the present study was to describe and compare the operation and performance of private for-profit (PFP) and public hospitals in Greece, focusing on differences in nurse staffing rates, average lengths of stay (ALoS), and Social Health Insurance (SHI) payments for hospital care per patient discharged. Methods Five different datasets were prepared and analyzed, two of which were derived from information provided by the National Statistical Service (NSS) of Greece and the other three from data held by the three largest SHI schemes in the country. All data referred to the 3-year period from 2001 to 2003. Results PFP hospitals in Greece are smaller than public hospitals, with lower patient occupancy, and have lower staffing rates of all types of nurses and highly qualified nurses compared with public hospitals. Calculation of ALoS using NSS data yielded mixed results, whereas calculations of ALoS and SHI payments using SHI data gave results clearly favoring the public hospital sector in terms of cost-efficiency; in all years examined, over all specialties and all SHI schemes included in our study, unweighted ALoS and SHI payments for hospital care per discharge were higher for PFP facilities. Conclusions In a mixed healthcare system, such as that in Greece, significant performance differences were observed between PFP and public hospitals. Close monitoring of healthcare provision by hospital ownership type will be essential to permit evidence-based decisions on the future of the public/private mix in terms of healthcare provision.

The article discusses developments in the health care sector in Great Britain as of January 2014, particularly the role of special administrators in the reduction of National Health Service (NHS) hospital services. It focuses on the amendment for the Health and Social Care Act of 2012 that is being tackled by the British Parliament. The amendment aims to restore a partial planning function of the government in the health services sector.

The COVID-19 pandemic revealed and exacerbated the global inequalities regarding the availability and access to vaccines. Many terms have appeared in the academic literature (“vaccine colonialism,” “vaccine nationalism,” “vaccine apartheid”) trying to capture and interpret these inequalities, failing in most cases to realistically explain the upstream causes of the observed injustices. A Marxist perspective on the contrary emphasizes the structural causes of inequalities in capitalism and attributes them to the existence of economic exploitation. “Vaccine imperialism,” which refers to the control that advanced industrialized countries exert on the development, production, and distribution of vaccines at the expense of less-developed economies, can describe and explain in a more realistic way the observed inequalities during the pandemic. Our study proposes a circuit of vaccine imperialism that explains how economic imperialist exploitation takes place via transfers of value from less-developed economies (vaccine recipient countries) to imperialist economies (vaccine producing and patent holder countries) using four different channels: (a) protection of intellectual property (IP) rights (patents), (b) earnings from royalty payments for the use of vaccines (monopolistic prices and profits), (c) exercise of monopoly power on the production and distribution of vaccines (control over the quantity of vaccines supplied, exclusion of competitors through vaccine licensing), and (d) public debt servicing.JEL Classification: I14, I18, D43, F54, F55, H51 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]