Public Health Policies in the European Union. Edited by W. Holland and E. Mossialos. Ashgate, 1999 (398 pages). £50.00, hardback, ISBN 0-7546-2072-7

2001 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 113-115
Author(s):  
Isabelle Durand-Zaleski
2021 ◽  
Vol 5 ◽  
pp. 173-191
Author(s):  
Marta Hoffmann

This article presents selected results of a research project entitled Medicalization strategies of the World Health Organization1 in which the author analyzed and described three WHO policies characterized by a medicalizing approach. These three policies were compared with each other in terms of their conceptual (narrative) and institutional (practical) levels of medicalization and their effects. In order to better understand the role of a medicalized discourse in the global activities of the WHO, these three cases were also compared to one non-medicalizing policy. The aim of this article is twofold: firstly, to present two cases analyzed as part of the project, namely, the tobacco policy (a ‘medicalized’ one) and the ageing policy (a ‘non-medicalized’ one) and secondly, to consider the possible influence of WHO discourse on tobacco and ageing on public health policies in the European Union.


2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Walter Holland ◽  
Elias Mossialos ◽  
Bernard Merkel

2019 ◽  
Vol 30 (4) ◽  
pp. 833-839 ◽  
Author(s):  
Désirée Vandenberghe ◽  
Johan Albrecht

Abstract Background Non-communicable diseases (NCDs) impose a significant and growing burden on the health care system and overall economy of developed (and developing) countries. Nevertheless, an up-to-date assessment of this cost for the European Union (EU) is missing from the literature. Such an analysis could however have an important impact by motivating policymakers and by informing effective public health policies. Methods Following the PRISMA protocol, we conduct a systematic review of electronic databases (PubMed/Medline, Embase, Web of Science Core Collection) and collect scientific articles that assess the direct (health care-related) and indirect (economic) costs of four major NCDs (cardiovascular disease, cancer, type-2 diabetes mellitus and chronic respiratory disease) in the EU, between 2008 and 2018. Data quality was assessed through the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale. Results We find 28 studies that match our criteria for further analysis. From our review, we conclude that the four major NCDs in the EU claim a significant share of the total health care budget (at least 25% of health spending) and they impose an important economic loss (almost 2% of gross domestic product). Conclusion The NCD burden forms a public health risk with a high financial impact; it puts significant pressure on current health care and economic systems, as shown by our analysis. We identify a further need for cost analyses of NCDs, in particular on the impact of comorbidities and other complications. Aside from cost estimations, future research should focus on assessing the mix of public health policies that will be most effective in tackling the NCD burden.


Author(s):  
Sotiris Soulis ◽  
Marcos Sarris ◽  
George Pierrakos ◽  
Aspasia Goula ◽  
George Koutitsas ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 30 (Supplement_5) ◽  
Author(s):  
A Gilmore

Abstract Corporations have worked to promote and embed policymaking reforms which increase reliance on and provide a conduit for industry-favourable science. Such systems have become increasingly mainstream in policy making across the world, yet most are unaware of the corporate influence behind them. We will present evidence that diverse corporations worked collectively to promote and embed 'Better Regulation' (now known as 'Smart Regulation') in the European Union. The desired outcome was to reduce policymakers' ability to pass public health policies which could be detrimental to corporate interests and profits. We will illustrate how these regulatory frameworks have now been embedded. Delegates will hear examples of the ways in which corporations have gone on to use these systems to feed misleading science into the policymaking process, ultimately in attempts to dilute, delay or prevent public health policies.


2020 ◽  
Vol 13 (20) ◽  
pp. 43-57 ◽  
Author(s):  
Simona Vulpe

AbstractVaccine hesitancy is not a singular view but encompasses a set of positions located between complete acceptance of vaccination and complete rejection of vaccination. In this paper, I argue that vaccine-hesitant attitudes emerge at the intersection of individual and structural processes, and thus can be better conceptualized as “extended attitudes”. Drawing on the theoretical understanding of risk and science scepticism in post-modern societies, I consider hesitant attitudes towards vaccination as addressing risks that are induced in our everyday lives by science developments. I conducted K-Means Cluster Analysis on Eurobarometer data from 2019 regarding Europeans’ attitudes towards vaccination. Four clusters of vaccine-hesitant attitudes were identified. “Price hesitation” and “Effort hesitation” result from restricted access to vaccination because of structural constraints, such as low economic capital and health care system’ deficits. “Unexercised pro-vaccination” is an attitude manifested by people who grant authority to science to manage health-related risks, even though they did not vaccinate in the last five years. “Consistent anti-vaccination” pertains to highly reflexive individuals who dismiss experts’ authority because of scientifically derived risks. My analysis enhances the theoretical understanding and the empirical assessment of vaccine-hesitant attitudes in the European Union and can inform public health policies in this area.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document