scholarly journals The impact of economic sanctions on health and health systems in low- and middle-income countries

2020 ◽  
Vol 30 (Supplement_5) ◽  
Author(s):  
M Suhrcke ◽  
M Pinna Pintor ◽  
C Hamelmann
Keyword(s):  
Health Outcomes ◽  
Health System ◽  
Health Systems ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Economic Sanctions ◽  
Political Crisis ◽  
Middle Income ◽  
Financial Flows ◽  
Adverse Health ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Background Economic sanctions, understood as measures taken by one state or a group of states to coerce another into a desired conduct (eg by restricting trade and financial flows) do not primarily seek to adversely affect the health or health system of the target country's population. Yet, there may be indirect or unintended health and health system consequences that ought to be borne in mind when assessing the full set of effects of sanctions. We take stock of the evidence to date in terms of whether - and if so, how - economic sanctions impact health and health systems in LMICs. Methods We undertook a structured literature review (using MEDLINE and Google Scholar), covering the peer-reviewed and grey literature published from 1970-2019, with a specific focus on quantitative assessments. Results Most studies (23/27) that met our inclusion criteria focus on the relationship between sanctions and health outcomes, ranging from infant or child mortality as the most frequent case over viral hepatitis to diabetes and HIV, among others. Fewer studies (9/27) examined health system related indicators, either as a sole focus or jointly with health outcomes. A minority of studies explicitly addressed some of the methodological challenges, incl. control for relevant confounders and the endogeneity of sanctions. Taking the results at face value, the evidence is almost unanimous in highlighting the adverse health and health system effects of economic sanctions. Conclusions Quantitatively assessing the impact of economic sanctions on health or health systems is a challenging task, not least as it is persistently difficult to disentangle the effect of sanctions from many other, potentially major factors at work that matter for health (as, for instance, war). In addition, in times of severe economic and political crisis (which often coincide with sanctions), the collection of accurate and comprehensive data that could allow appropriate measurement is typically not a priority. Key messages The existing evidence is almost unanimous in highlighting the adverse health and health system effects of economic sanctions. There is preciously little good quality evidence on the health (system) impact of economic sanctions.

scholarly journals The impacts of decentralization on health system equity, efficiency and resilience: a realist synthesis of the evidence

2019 ◽  
Vol 34 (8) ◽  
pp. 605-617 ◽  
Author(s):  
Seye Abimbola ◽  
Leonard Baatiema ◽  
Maryam Bigdeli
Keyword(s):  
Health System ◽  
Health Systems ◽  
Negative Impact ◽  
Contextual Factors ◽  
Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Implementation Strategies ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Local Initiative ◽  
Middle Income ◽  
The Impact

Abstract One constant refrain in evaluations and reviews of decentralization is that the results are mixed. But given that decentralization is a complex intervention or phenomenon, what is more important is to generate evidence to inform implementation strategies. We therefore synthesized evidence from the literature to understand why, how and under what circumstances decentralization influences health system equity, efficiency and resilience. In doing this, we adopted the realist approach to evidence synthesis and included quantitative and qualitative studies in high-, low- and middle-income countries that assessed the the impact of decentralization on health systems. We searched the Medline and Embase databases via Ovid, and the Cochrane library of systematic reviews and included 51 studies with data from 25 countries. We identified three mechanisms through which decentralization impacts on health system equity, efficiency and resilience: ‘Voting with feet’ (reflecting how decentralization either exacerbates or assuages the existing patterns of inequities in the distribution of people, resources and outcomes in a jurisdiction); ‘Close to ground’ (reflecting how bringing governance closer to the people allows for use of local initiative, information, feedback, input and control); and ‘Watching the watchers’ (reflecting mutual accountability and support relations between multiple centres of governance which are multiplied by decentralization, involving governments at different levels and also community health committees and health boards). We also identified institutional, socio-economic and geographic contextual factors that influence each of these mechanisms. By moving beyond findings that the effects of decentralization on health systems and outcomes are mixed, this review presents mechanisms and contextual factors to which policymakers and implementers need to pay attention in their efforts to maximize the positive and minimize the negative impact of decentralized governance.

scholarly journals Public Health and Health Systems Impacts of SARS-CoV-2 Variants of Concern: A Rapid Scoping Review

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Janet A Curran ◽  
Justine Dol ◽  
Leah Boulos ◽  
Mari Somerville ◽  
Bearach Reynolds ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Health System ◽  
Health Systems ◽  
Scoping Review ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Risk Of Death ◽  
Health Measures ◽  
Guidance Documents ◽  
The Impact

Background: As of April 2021, three SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern (VOC: B.1.1.7, B.1.351 and P.1) have been detected in over 132 countries. Increased transmissibility of VOC has implications for public health measures and health system arrangements. This rapid scoping review aims to provide a synthesis of current evidence related to public health measures and health system arrangements associated with VOC. Methods: Rapid scoping review. Seven databases were searched up to April 7, 2021 for terms related to VOC, transmission, public health and health systems. A grey literature search was conducted up to April 14, 2021. Title, abstracts and full text were screened independently by two reviewers. Data were double extracted using a standardized form. Studies were included if they reported on at least one of the VOC and public health or health system outcomes. Results: Of the 2487 articles and 59 grey literature sources retrieved, 37 studies and 21 guidance documents were included. Included studies used a wide range of designs and methods. Most of the studies and guidance documents reported on B.1.1.7, and 18 studies and 4 reports provided data for consideration in relation to public health measures. Public health measures, including lockdowns, physical distancing, testing and contact tracing, were identified as critical adjuncts to a comprehensive vaccination campaign. No studies reported on handwashing or masking procedures related to VOC. For health system arrangements, 17 studies were identified. Some studies found an increase in hospitalization due to B.1.1.7 but no difference in length of stay or ICU admission. Six studies found an increased risk of death ranging from 15-67% with B.1.1.7 compared non-B.1.1.7, but three studies reported no change. One study reported on the effectiveness of personal protective equipment in reducing VOC transmission in the hospital. No studies reported on screening staff and visitors, adjusting service provisions, or adjusting patient accommodations and shared spaces, which is a significant gap in the literature. Guidance documents did not tend to cite any evidence and were thus assumed to be based on expert opinion. Conclusion: While the findings should be interpreted with caution as most of the sources identified were preprints, findings suggest a combination of non-pharmaceutical interventions (e.g., masking, physical distancing, lockdowns, testing) should be employed alongside a vaccine strategy to improve population and health system outcomes. While the findings are mixed on the impact of VOC on health system arrangements, the evidence is trending towards increased hospitalization and death.

scholarly journals Analyzing the technical efficiency of health systems in Asian countries: What Myanmar can learn from Bangladesh and Sri Lanka.

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zin Mar Win ◽  
Curt Löfgren
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Sri Lanka ◽  
Life Expectancy ◽  
Health Outcomes ◽  
Health System ◽  
Technical Efficiency ◽  
Health Systems ◽  
Infant Mortality Rate ◽  
Asian Countries ◽  
Middle Income

Abstract Background: Advancements in medicine leads, among other things, to increasing life expectancy and quality of life. However, at the same time, health care costs are increasing, and this may not be sustainable in the future. Governments and health care organizations need to implement efficiency measures in order to maximize health outcomes within available resources. This study aims to compare the technical efficiency of health systems in middle-income Asian countries, and to identify “efficient peers” for each “inefficient country”: in particular for Myanmar. Methods: A data envelopment analysis (DEA) variable returns to scale output-oriented model was used to evaluate technical efficiency in middle-income Asian countries. The input variables were current health expenditure per capita, the density of doctors, and the density of nurses and midwifery personnel. The output variables were health adjusted life expectancy (HALE) and the infant mortality rate (IMR). Myanmar may learn how to improve efficiency of its health care system through studying its efficient peers from DEA results. A review of relevant English language literature was used as a basis for informing a comparative analysis of the health systems of Myanmar and its efficient peers: Bangladesh and Sri Lanka.Results: Among the twenty-eight middle-income Asian countries studied, 39.3% of countries were technically efficient. Myanmar is one of the inefficient countries, and it should look at the health systems of its efficient peers, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka, to make its health system technically more efficient.Conclusions: The results of this study suggested that countries with inefficient health systems can improve their health outcomes without increasing their health care resources. As DEA measures efficiency only, future studies should take into account equity to assess comprehensive health system performance.

Analyzing the technical efficiency of health systems in Asian countries: What Myanmar can learn from Bangladesh and Sri Lanka.

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zin Mar Win ◽  
Curt Löfgren
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Sri Lanka ◽  
Life Expectancy ◽  
Health Outcomes ◽  
Health System ◽  
Technical Efficiency ◽  
Health Systems ◽  
Infant Mortality Rate ◽  
Asian Countries ◽  
Middle Income

Abstract Background: Advancements in medicine leads, among other things, to increasing life expectancy and quality of life. However, at the same time, health care costs are increasing, and this may not be sustainable in the future. Governments and health care organizations need to implement efficiency measures in order to maximize health outcomes within available resources. This study aims to compare the technical efficiency of health systems in middle-income Asian countries, and to identify “efficient peers” for each “inefficient country”: in particular for Myanmar. Methods: A data envelopment analysis (DEA) variable returns to scale output-oriented model was used to evaluate technical efficiency in middle-income Asian countries. The input variables were current health expenditure per capita, the density of doctors, and the density of nurses and midwifery personnel. The output variables were health adjusted life expectancy (HALE) and the infant mortality rate (IMR). Myanmar may learn how to improve efficiency of its health care system through studying its efficient peers from DEA results. A review of relevant English language literature was used as a basis for informing a comparative analysis of the health systems of Myanmar and its efficient peers: Bangladesh and Sri Lanka.Results: Among the twenty-eight middle-income Asian countries studied, 39.3% of countries were technically efficient. Myanmar is one of the inefficient countries, and it should look at the health systems of its efficient peers, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka, to make its health system technically more efficient.Conclusions: The results of this study suggested that countries with inefficient health systems can improve their health outcomes without increasing their health care resources. As DEA measures efficiency only, future studies should take into account equity to assess comprehensive health system performance.

scholarly journals The impacts of health systems financing fragmentation in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review protocol

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Marina Siqueira ◽  
Maíra Coube ◽  
Christopher Millett ◽  
Rudi Rocha ◽  
Thomas Hone
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Health Outcomes ◽  
Health System ◽  
Health Systems ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Financial Risk Protection ◽  
Middle Income ◽  
Middle Income Countries ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Low And Middle Income

Abstract Background Health systems are often fragmented in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). This can increase inefficiencies and restrict progress towards universal health coverage. The objective of the systematic review described in this protocol will be to evaluate and synthesize the evidence concerning the impacts of health systems financing fragmentation in LMICs. Methods Literature searches will be conducted in multiple electronic databases, from their inception onwards, including MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, CINAHL, Scopus, ScienceDirect, Scielo, Cochrane Library, EconLit, and JSTOR. Gray literature will be also targeted through searching OpenSIGLE, Google Scholar, and institutional websites (e.g., HMIC, The World Bank, WHO, PAHO, OECD). The search strings will include keywords related to LMICs, health system financing fragmentation, and health system goals. Experimental, quasi-experimental, and observational studies conducted in LMICs and examining health financing fragmentation across any relevant metric (e.g., the presence of different health funders/insurers, risk pooling mechanisms, eligibility categories, benefits packages, premiums) will be included. Studies will be eligible if they compare financing fragmentation in alternative settings or at least two-time points. The primary outcomes will be health system-related goals such as health outcomes (e.g., mortality, morbidity, patient-reported outcome measures) and indicators of access, services utilization, equity, and financial risk protection. Additional outcomes will include intermediate health system objectives (e.g., indicators of efficiency and quality). Two reviewers will independently screen all citations, abstract data, and full-text articles. Potential conflicts will be resolved through discussion and, when necessary, resolved by a third reviewer. The methodological quality (or risk of bias) of selected studies will be appraised using established checklists. Data extraction categories will include the studies’ objective and design, the fragmentation measurement and domains, and health outcomes linked to the fragmentation. A narrative synthesis will be used to describe the results and characteristics of all included studies and to explore relationships and findings both within and between the studies. Discussion Evidence on the impacts of health system fragmentation in LMICs is key for identifying evidence gaps and priority areas for intervention. This knowledge will be valuable to health system policymakers aiming to strengthen health systems in LMICs. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42020201467

Impact of COVID-19 on FDIs, Remittances and Foreign Aids: A Case Study of Nepal

2021 ◽  
pp. 097639962097420
Author(s):  
Gaurav Bhattarai ◽  
Binita Subedi
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Low Income ◽  
Global Economy ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Foreign Assistance ◽  
Foreign Direct Investments ◽  
Middle Income ◽  
Low Income Country ◽  
The Government ◽  
The Impact

The global economy has been severely paralysed, owing to the unprecedented crisis triggered by the COVID-19 pandemic, and different studies have indicated that the crisis is relatively more maleficent to the lower-income and middle-income economies. Methodologically, this study relied on the review and analysis of the grey literature, media reporting and data published by the Asian Development Bank, United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), United Nations (UN), World Bank, International Monetary Fund (IMF) among others. The article begins by describing the impact of the pandemic on low-income and middle-income countries, and it discusses how they have responded to the crisis. While discussions have surfaced regarding whether COVID-19 will reverse the process of globalization, what will be its impact on the low-income country like Nepal? The study also highlights that with foreign direct investments speculated to shrink and foreign assistance and remittance taking a hit, how is Nepal struggling to keep its economy afloat? Analysing the new budget that the government unveiled in 2020, this study concludes with a note that instead of effectively implementing the plans and policies directed by the budget, Nepal is unnecessarily engaged in political mess and is needlessly being dragged into the geopolitical complications.

scholarly journals Understanding the influence of socioeconomic status on the association between combinations of lifestyle factors and adverse health outcomes: a systematic review protocol

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (5) ◽  
pp. e042212
Author(s):  
Hamish Foster ◽  
Peter Polz ◽  
Frances Mair ◽  
Jason Gill ◽  
Catherine A O'Donnell
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Socioeconomic Status ◽  
Health Outcomes ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Lifestyle Factors ◽  
Lifestyle Factor ◽  
Unhealthy Lifestyle ◽  
Adverse Health ◽  
Adverse Health Outcomes ◽  
The Impact

IntroductionCombinations of unhealthy lifestyle factors are strongly associated with mortality, cardiovascular disease (CVD) and cancer. It is unclear how socioeconomic status (SES) affects those associations. Lower SES groups may be disproportionately vulnerable to the effects of unhealthy lifestyle factors compared with higher SES groups via interactions with other factors associated with low SES (eg, stress) or via accelerated biological ageing. This systematic review aims to synthesise studies that examine how SES moderates the association between lifestyle factor combinations and adverse health outcomes. Greater understanding of how lifestyle risk varies across socioeconomic spectra could reduce adverse health by (1) identifying novel high-risk groups or targets for future interventions and (2) informing research, policy and interventions that aim to support healthy lifestyles in socioeconomically deprived communities.Methods and analysisThree databases will be searched (PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL) from inception to March 2020. Reference lists, citations and grey literature will also be searched. Inclusion criteria are: (1) prospective cohort studies; (2) investigations of two key exposures: (a) lifestyle factor combinations of at least three lifestyle factors (eg, smoking, physical activity and diet) and (b) SES (eg, income, education or poverty index); (3) an assessment of the impact of SES on the association between combinations of unhealthy lifestyle factors and health outcomes; (4) at least one outcome from—mortality (all cause, CVD and cancer), CVD or cancer incidence. Two independent reviewers will screen titles, abstracts and full texts of included studies. Data extraction will focus on cohort characteristics, exposures, direction and magnitude of SES effects, methods and quality (via Newcastle-Ottawa Scale). If appropriate, a meta-analysis, pooling the effects of SES, will be performed. Alternatively, a synthesis without meta-analysis will be conducted.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval is not required. Results will be disseminated via peer-reviewed publication, professional networks, social media and conference presentations.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020172588.

scholarly journals Childlessness, Individual Socioeconomic Resources, and Health: Exploring Variation in 20 Countries

2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 515-516
Author(s):  
Nekehia Quashie ◽  
Christine Mair ◽  
Radoslaw Antczak ◽  
Bruno Arpino
Keyword(s):  
Older Adults ◽  
Health Outcomes ◽  
Health Indicators ◽  
Data Repository ◽  
Middle Income ◽  
Individual Level ◽  
Socioeconomic Resources ◽  
Middle Income Countries ◽  
Using Data ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Childless older adults may be at risk for poorer health cross-nationally, yet most studies on this topic analyze only a small number of countries and only 1 or 2 health outcomes. To our knowledge, two papers exist that explore associations between childlessness and multiple indicators of health using data from a large number of regionally diverse countries (e.g., 20 countries from North America, Asia, and Europe), but neither study includes an examination of socioeconomic resources. The level of health risk faced by childless older adults is likely to be distinctly shaped by older adults’ socioeconomic resources (e.g., education, income, wealth). Associations between childlessness, socioeconomic resources, and health may also differ by country context. Using harmonized, cross-national data for adults aged 50 and older across 20 high- and middle-income countries (United States (HRS), European Union (SHARE), Mexico (MHAS), and China (CHARLS) from the Gateway to Global Aging data repository), we explore if and how individual-level socioeconomic resources (income, education, wealth) moderate associations between childlessness and five health indicators (self-rated health, ADL limitations, IADL limitations, chronic conditions, and depression). Results suggest that associations between childlessness and health outcomes vary by individual socioeconomic resources in some country contexts, but not in others. We discuss these findings in light of the impact of individual-level socioeconomic resources on older adults’ support options and health outcomes cross-nationally.

scholarly journals ‘Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance’? Towards a framework for assessing the health systems impact of the expanded Global Gag Rule

2019 ◽  
Vol 4 (5) ◽  
pp. e001786 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marta Schaaf ◽  
Emily Maistrellis ◽  
Hana Thomas ◽  
Bergen Cooper
Keyword(s):  
Global Health ◽  
Mexico City ◽  
Health Systems ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Policy Changes ◽  
Us Government ◽  
Potential Impact ◽  
City Policy ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Initial Research

During his first week in office, US President Donald J Trump issued a presidential memorandum to reinstate and broaden the reach of the Mexico City policy. The Mexico City policy (which was in place from 1985–1993, 1999–2000 and 2001–2009) barred foreign non-governmental organisations (NGOs) that received US government family planning (FP) assistance from using US funds or their own funds for performing, providing counselling, referring or advocating for safe abortions as a method of FP. The renamed policy, Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance (PLGHA), expands the Mexico City policy by applying it to most US global health assistance. Thus, foreign NGOs receiving US global health assistance of nearly any type must agree to the policy, regardless of whether they work in reproductive health. This article summarises academic and grey literature on the impact of previous iterations of the Mexico City policy, and initial research on impacts of the expanded policy. It builds on this analysis to propose a hypothesis regarding the potential impact of PLGHA on health systems. Because PLGHA applies to much more funding than it did in its previous iterations, and because health services have generally become more integrated in the past decade, we hypothesise that the health systems impacts of PLGHA could be significant. We present this hypothesis as a tool that may be useful to others’ and to our own research on the impact of PLGHA and similar exogenous overseas development assistance policy changes.

scholarly journals Health System Strategies and Adolescent Sexual Health: A Systematic Review of the Literature using Rodgers Concept Analysis Framework

2021 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 526-536
Author(s):  
Wilfred Njabulo Nunu ◽  
Lufuno Makhado ◽  
Jabu Tsakani Mabunda ◽  
Rachel Tsakani Lebese
Keyword(s):  
Sexual Health ◽  
Health Outcomes ◽  
Health System ◽  
Conceptual Framework ◽  
Health Systems ◽  
Concept Analysis ◽  
Sexual Practices ◽  
Analysis Framework ◽  
Adolescent Sexual Health ◽  
Antecedents And Consequences

Background: Health Systems Strategies play a key role in determining Adolescent Sexual Health outcomes. This study aims to review the literature on the relationship between Health Systems Strategies and Adolescent Sexual Health issues guided by Rodger's evolutionary concept analysis framework. The study further develops a Conceptual Framework that would guide a study that seeks to “Develop strategies to facilitate safe sexual practices in adolescents through Integrated Health Systems in selected Districts in Zimbabwe.” Methods: Adolescents, Health Systems, Sexual Health, and Strategies were used to search for published literature (in English) on Google Scholar, PUBMED, EBSCO, Cochran Library, and Science Direct. A total of 142 Articles and 11 reports were obtained, and the content was screened for relevance. This led to 42 articles and 03 reports being found suitable and relevant, and thus, the content was reviewed. Thematic analysis was done to identify attributes, antecedents, and consequences of Health Systems Strategies on Adolescent Sexual Health. These findings were then used to inform the development of the Conceptual Framework. Results: Key attributes, antecedents and consequences of Health System Strategies on Adolescent Sexual Health were identified. Strategies to Improve Adolescent Sexual Health outcomes were also identified. Conclusions: Different contextual factors influence policy changes and the consequences are mixed, with both positive and negative outcomes.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document