Disease Control and the Promotion of Public Health Equity

Author(s):  
Mbuso Precious Mabuza
Author(s):  
Joshua M. Sharfstein

An effective communications approach starts with a basic dictum set forth by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: “Be first, be right, be credible.” Agencies must establish themselves as vital sources of accurate information to maintain the public’s trust. At the same time, public health officials must recognize that communications play out in the context of ideological debates, electoral rivalries, and other political considerations. During a public health crisis, this means that health officials often need to constructively engage political leaders in communications and management. Navigating these waters in the middle of a crisis can be treacherous. Figuring out the best way to engage elected leaders is a core aspect of political judgment.


2021 ◽  
pp. 175797592098418
Author(s):  
Muriel Mac-Seing ◽  
Robson Rocha de Oliveira

The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in massive disruptions to public health, healthcare, as well as political and economic systems across national borders, thus requiring an urgent need to adapt. Worldwide, governments have made a range of political decisions to enforce preventive and control measures. As junior researchers analysing the pandemic through a health equity lens, we wish to share our reflections on this evolving crisis, specifically: (a) the tenuous intersections between the responses to the pandemic and public health priorities; (b) the exacerbation of health inequities experienced by vulnerable populations following decisions made at national and global levels; and (c) the impacts of the technological solutions put forward to address the crisis. Examples drawn from high-income countries are provided to support our three points.


2008 ◽  
Vol 2 (3) ◽  
pp. 150-165 ◽  
Author(s):  
Louisa E. Chapman ◽  
Ernest E. Sullivent ◽  
Lisa A. Grohskopf ◽  
Elise M. Beltrami ◽  
Joseph F. Perz ◽  
...  

ABSTRACTPeople wounded during bombings or other events resulting in mass casualties or in conjunction with the resulting emergency response may be exposed to blood, body fluids, or tissue from other injured people and thus be at risk for bloodborne infections such as hepatitis B virus, hepatitis C virus, human immunodeficiency virus, or tetanus. This report adapts existing general recommendations on the use of immunization and postexposure prophylaxis for tetanus and for occupational and nonoccupational exposures to bloodborne pathogens to the specific situation of a mass casualty event. Decisions regarding the implementation of prophylaxis are complex, and drawing parallels from existing guidelines is difficult. For any prophylactic intervention to be implemented effectively, guidance must be simple, straightforward, and logistically undemanding. Critical review during development of this guidance was provided by representatives of the National Association of County and City Health Officials, the Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists, and representatives of the acute injury care, trauma, and emergency response medical communities participating in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Terrorism Injuries: Information, Dissemination and Exchange project. The recommendations contained in this report represent the consensus of US federal public health officials and reflect the experience and input of public health officials at all levels of government and the acute injury response community. (Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2008;2:150–165)


2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 941-942
Author(s):  
Kelly Bradbury ◽  
Elaine Moody ◽  
Katie Aubrecht ◽  
Meaghan Sim ◽  
Melissa Rothfus

Abstract Emergency measures including social distancing and program restrictions during COVID-19 has reduced supports for people living with dementia and family/friend caregivers in the community. Consequently, these reductions in dementia services and resources have added to existing challenges and (in)equities for this stigmatized population. The objectives of this study were to identify how community-based resources and services for people with dementia and their caregivers are impacted by public health emergency measures enacted during COVID-19 and other infectious pandemics and secondly, use an intersectional health equity perspective to explore how supports for people and families living with dementia are affected by social determinants of health. A scoping review using JBI methodology was conducted. Academic databases searched included Embase, Medline, CINAHL and PAIS. Grey literature was searched using the CADTH tool. English articles published after 2000 in high-income countries were included. Data was extracted by two reviewers using an adaptation of the Health Equity Impact Assessment tool to explore factors related to health equity. Findings included articles discussing the COVID-19 pandemic (N=15). Most alterations to dementia services included switching to telehealth platforms with some advantages/disadvantages of this method discussed. Limited information on how different populations experienced service changes was identified and more research is needed to address issues of (in)equities for people living with dementia and their caregivers during public health emergencies. Information on how health emergency responses affects dementia services and their users will provide important information on resources for current and future efforts to analyze and assess their impacts.


2021 ◽  
Vol 43 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Lisa G. Rosas ◽  
Patricia Rodriguez Espinosa ◽  
Felipe Montes Jimenez ◽  
Abby C. King

While there are many definitions of citizen science, the term usually refers to the participation of the general public in the scientific process in collaboration with professional scientists. Citizen scientists have been engaged to promote health equity, especially in the areas of environmental contaminant exposures, physical activity, and healthy eating. Citizen scientists commonly come from communities experiencing health inequities and have collected data using a range of strategies and technologies, such as air sensors, water quality kits, and mobile applications. On the basis of our review, and to advance the field of citizen science to address health equity, we recommend ( a) expanding the focus on topics important for health equity, ( b) increasing the diversity of people serving as citizen scientists, ( c) increasing the integration of citizen scientists in additional research phases, ( d) continuing to leverage emerging technologies that enable citizen scientists to collect data relevant for health equity, and ( e) strengthening the rigor of methods to evaluate impacts on health equity. Expected final online publication date for the Annual Review of Public Health, Volume 43 is April 2022. Please see http://www.annualreviews.org/page/journal/pubdates for revised estimates.


Author(s):  
Bo Burström

This commentary refers to the article by Fisher et al on lessons from Australian primary healthcare (PHC), which highlights the role of PHC to reduce non-communicable diseases (NCDs) and promote health equity. This commentary discusses important elements and features when aiming for health equity, including going beyond the healthcare system and focusing on the social determinants of health in public health policies, in PHC and in the healthcare system as a whole, to reduce NCDs. A wider biopsychosocial view on health is needed, recognizing the importance of social determinants of health, and inequalities in health. Public funding and universal access to care are important prerequisites, but regulation is needed to ensure equitable access in practice. An example of a PHC reform in Sweden indicates that introducing market solutions in a publicly funded PHC system may not benefit those with greater needs and may reduce the impact of PHC on population health.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document