scholarly journals An Inconsistent Canadian Provincial and Territorial Response During the Early COVID-19 Pandemic

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amelie Cyr ◽  
Prosanta Mondal ◽  
Gregory Hansen
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Early Response ◽  
Health Interventions ◽  
World Health ◽  
Public Health Interventions ◽  
Community Based ◽  
Governmental Agencies ◽  
Health Organization ◽  
Time Of Intervention ◽  
National Approach

Objectives: According to the World Health Organization (WHO), an early and consistent international and national response is needed to control a pandemic's spread. In this analysis, we evaluate the coordination of Canada's early response to the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic in terms of public health interventions and policies implemented in each province and territory.Methods: Retrospective data was obtained from publicly accessible websites maintained by federal, provincial and territorial governmental agencies. Consistent with WHO's spreading of the disease pandemic action, individual and community-based public health interventions and policies were the focus. Time of intervention or policy, and COVID-19 cases per million at time of intervention was recorded for each province and territory.Results: Most public health interventions and policies demonstrated wide time ranges of implementation across individual provinces and territories. At time of implementation, there were also wide variations in the number of positive COVID-19 cases in these jurisdictions. Cases per million per implemented day were also not similar across interventions or policy, suggesting that other factors may have been preferentially considered.Conclusions: Whether an earlier and more structured national approach would have lessened the pandemic's burden is uncertain, calls for greater federal coordination and leadership should to examined.

scholarly journals Mandating the Use of Proximity Tracking Apps During Coronavirus Disease 2019: Ethical Justifications

2020 ◽  
Vol 7 ◽  
Author(s):  
Riya Dave ◽  
Rashmi Gupta
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Large Degree ◽  
Health Interventions ◽  
World Health ◽  
Contact Tracing ◽  
Public Health Interventions ◽  
Societal Factors ◽  
Digital World ◽  
Health Organization ◽  
Mandatory Policy

The rise of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in a digital world has expectedly called upon technologies, such as wearables and mobile devices, to work in conjunction with public health interventions to tackle the pandemic. One significant example of this integration is the deployment of proximity tracking apps on smartphones to enhance traditional contact tracing methods. Many countries have adopted proximity tracking apps; however, there is a large degree of global differentiation in the voluntariness of the apps. Further, the concept of a mandatory policy—forcing individuals to use the apps—has been met with ethical concerns (e.g., privacy and liberty). While ethical considerations surrounding deployment have been put forth, such as by the World Health Organization, ethical justifications for a mandatory policy are lacking. Here, we use the Faden–Shebaya framework, which was formed to justify public health interventions, to determine if the compulsory use of proximity tracking apps is ethically appropriate. We show that while theoretically justified, due to the current state of proximity tracking applications and societal factors, it is difficult to defend a mandatory policy in practice.

scholarly journals Institutionalising an evidence-informed approach to guideline development: progress and challenges at the World Health Organization

2018 ◽  
Vol 3 (5) ◽  
pp. e000716 ◽  
Author(s):  
Unni Gopinathan ◽  
Steven J Hoffman
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
World Health Organization ◽  
Guideline Development ◽  
Health Interventions ◽  
World Health ◽  
Public Health Interventions ◽  
Independent Evaluation ◽  
Development Processes ◽  
Health Organization

This study explored experiences, perceptions and views among World Health Organization (WHO) staff about the changes, progress and challenges brought by the guideline development reforms initiated in 2007. Thirty-five semistructured interviews were conducted with senior WHO staff. Sixteen of the interviewees had in-depth experience with WHO’s formal guideline development process. Thematic analysis was conducted to identify key themes in the qualitative data, and these were interpreted in the context of the existing literature on WHO’s guideline development processes. First, the reforms were seen to have transformed and improved the quality of WHO’s guidelines. Second, independent evaluation and feedback by the Guidelines Review Committee (GRC) was described to have strengthened the legitimacy of WHO’s recommendations. Third, WHO guideline development processes are not yet designed to systematically make use of all types of research evidence needed to inform decisions about health systems and public health interventions. For example, several interviewees expressed dissatisfaction with the insufficient attention paid to qualitative evidence and evidence from programme experience, and how the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) process evaluates the quality of evidence from non-randomised study designs, while others believed that GRADE was just not properly understood or applied. Fourth, some staff advocated for a more centralised quality assurance process covering all outputs from WHO’s departments and scientific advisory committees, especially to eliminate strategic efforts aimed at bypassing the GRC’s requirements. Overall, the ‘culture change’ senior WHO staff called for over 10 years ago appears to have gradually spread throughout the organisation. However, at least two major challenges remain: (1) ensuring that all issued advice benefits from independent evaluation, monitoring and feedback for quality and (2) designing guideline development processes to better acquire, assess, adapt and apply the full range of evidence that can inform recommendations on health systems and public health interventions.

The role of the World Bank and WHO Model Disability Survey in public health

2017 ◽  
Vol 25 (4) ◽  
pp. 262-264
Author(s):  
Carla Sabariego
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
World Bank ◽  
Population Level ◽  
Health Interventions ◽  
World Health ◽  
Public Health Interventions ◽  
The World Bank ◽  
The World ◽  
Health Organization

Abstract: The Model Disability Survey (MDS) is the tool recommended by the world health organization (WHO) to collect data on disability at the population level. It consciously promotes a narrative of inclusion, as disability is understood as a continuum, ranging from low to high levels. Public health currently faces the challenge of responding to demographic and health shifts leading to an increase in disability in the population. The MDS provides the information needed to meet these challenges and develop targeted public health interventions.

scholarly journals Ethics check-up of public health immunization programs in Canada

2021 ◽  
Vol 47 (04) ◽  
pp. 237-241
Author(s):  
Noni E MacDonald ◽  
Shawn Harmon ◽  
Janice E Graham
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Health Interventions ◽  
World Health ◽  
Immunization Programs ◽  
Vaccine Research ◽  
Public Health Interventions ◽  
Immunization Program ◽  
Ethics Review ◽  
Health Organization ◽  
Effective Public Health

The World Health Organization (WHO) recognizes immunization as one of the most successful and effective public health interventions for saving lives. In developing a roadmap for prioritizing use of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines in the context of limited supply, WHO highlighted the importance of a values (ethical principles) framework. Immunization does need to be subject to independent ethical scrutiny of vaccine research data, manufacturing practices, the legal and ethical assurance of informed consent, and also social justice issues with respect to program equity, including right to access. An ethics review of Australia’s immunization program was reported in 2012. This CANVax (Canadian Vaccination Evidence Resource and Exchange Centre) Brief offers an ethics review of immunization in Canada using the criteria utilized for Australia.

scholarly journals Reducing stigma and discrimination associated with COVID-19: early stage pandemic rapid review and practical recommendations

2021 ◽  
Vol 30 ◽  
Author(s):  
P. C. Gronholm ◽  
M. Nosé ◽  
W. H. van Brakel ◽  
J. Eaton ◽  
B. Ebenso ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Early Stage ◽  
Health Interventions ◽  
World Health ◽  
Rapid Review ◽  
Public Health Interventions ◽  
Stigma And Discrimination ◽  
Evidence Summary ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Aims To develop recommendations for strategies and interventions to reduce stigma and discrimination related to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), through reviewing and synthesising evidence in relation to COVID-19 and other disease outbreaks and infectious/stigmatised conditions from systematic reviews and primary studies and recommendations from additional materials. Methods Rapid review, drawing on the World Health Organization's (WHO) methodology for developing interim guidelines during health emergencies. PubMed/MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Cochrane Central and Campbell Collaboration searched up to mid-April 2020. Searches were supplemented by reference-searching and expert recommendations. Searches were designed to identify: (1) systematic reviews (<10 years), or (2) primary intervention studies (no date limit) reporting evidence on anti-stigma interventions (in relation to COVID-19 or other infectious/stigmatised conditions) or (3) additional relevant materials. Data were extracted on population, intervention, outcome and results. These data were compiled into evidence summary tables and narrative overviews. Recommendations on strategies for COVID-19 stigma-reduction were developed using the WHO ‘Evidence to Decision’ framework approach. The review protocol was registered with PROSPERO (registration ID: CRD42020177677). Results The searches identified a total of 4150 potentially relevant records, from which 12 systematic reviews and 29 additional articles were included. Overarching considerations and specific recommendations focus on: (1) language/words used in relation to COVID-19 and affected people; (2) media/journalistic practices; (3) public health interventions; (4) targeted public health interventions for key groups and (5) involving communities and key stakeholders. Conclusions These recommendations represent the first consolidated evidence-based guidance on stigma and discrimination reduction in relation to COVID-19. Mitigating the impact of stigma is critical in reducing distress and negative experiences, and strengthening communities' resolve to work together during exceptional circumstances. Ultimately, reducing stigma helps addressing structural inequalities that drive marginalisation and exacerbate both health risks and the impact of stigma. Administrations and decision makers are urged to consider integrating these recommendations into the ongoing COVID-19 response.

scholarly journals WHO International Health Regulations Emergency Committee for the COVID-19 outbreak

2020 ◽  
Vol 42 ◽  
pp. e2020013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Youngmee Jee
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Emerging Infectious Diseases ◽  
International Health ◽  
World Health ◽  
International Health Regulations ◽  
Community Based ◽  
Research And Innovation ◽  
Health Organization ◽  
Health Regulations

To discuss whether the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak constitutes a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC), World Health Organization (WHO) organized the 15-member International Health Regulations Emergency Committee (EC). On January 22-23 and January 30, 2020, EC convened and discussed whether the situation in China and other countries would constitute PHEIC and issued recommendations for WHO, China and the international community. Based on the recommendations of EC, WHO declared the COVID-19 outbreak a PHEIC. One of the purposes of the declaration of PHEIC was to alarm countries with weak public health infrastructures to prepare promptly for emerging infectious diseases (EID) and provide WHO with a framework for proactively supporting those countries. On February 3, 2020, WHO proposed the 2019 COVID-19 Strategic Preparedness and Response Plan, which includes accelerating research and development (R&D) processes as one of three major strategies. On February 11-12, 2020, WHO held the Global Research and Innovation Forum: Towards a Research Roadmap for COVID-19. The fact that a COVID-19 R&D forum was the first meeting convened after the PHEIC declaration testifies to the importance of R&D in response to EID. Korea has demonstrated a remarkable capacity in its laboratory response by conducting high-throughput COVID-19 testing and utilizing innovative drive-through samplings. These measures for early detection and screening of cases should be followed by full efforts to produce research-based evidence by thoroughly analyzing epidemiological, clinical and immunological data, which will facilitate the development of vaccines and therapeutics for COVID-19. It is expected that Korea plays a global partner for COVID-19 research by actively participating in immediate and mid/long-term priorities jointly led by WHO and global partners.

scholarly journals Public health significance of atherosclerosis

2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 159-166
Author(s):  
Vesna Lazić ◽  
Biljana Mijović ◽  
Miloš Maksimović
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Risk Factors ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Hdl Cholesterol ◽  
Developed Countries ◽  
Health Interventions ◽  
World Health ◽  
Public Health Interventions ◽  
Mortality And Morbidity ◽  
Cholesterol Fraction

Atherosclerosis is the leading cause of cardiovascular disease (CVD) worldwide. Recently, mortality and morbidity from CVD have shown a trend in its occurrence in earlier years, while these diseases have been associated with older age until recently. In developed countries, mortality from diseases caused by atherosclerosis has decreased over the last 50 years. However, such a trend is not reflected in both underdeveloped and developing countries where mortality remains high. Risk factors have been identified and their control can influence the reduction in morbidity and mortality from CVD associated with atherosclerosis. Among these, the so-called variable risk factors are the following: increased concentration of LDL cholesterol fraction (LDL) and/or decreased concentration of HDL cholesterol fraction (HDL), hypertension, cigarette consumption, diabetes mellitus/metabolic syndrome, improper diet, while genetic predisposition is still considered to be an invariable risk factor. In order to reduce the incidence of atherosclerosis, the World Health Organization recommends a two-pronged approach that includes public health interventions to reduce population risk factors and medical interventions for individuals at high risk with stricter surveillance of risk factors. Examples of multisectoral public health interventions include increasing taxes on cigarettes and alcohol, followed by a massive campaign to promote physical activities and healthy diet, that is to promote healthy lifestyles.

scholarly journals From Social Distance to Physical Distance: A Challenge for Evaluating Public Health Interventions Against COVID-19

2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Hadi Pratomo
Keyword(s):  
Social Distance ◽  
Physical Distance ◽  
Health Interventions ◽  
World Health ◽  
Public Health Interventions ◽  
Pharmacological Interventions ◽  
Social Distancing ◽  
Hand Sanitizer ◽  
Different Types ◽  
Health Organization

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has affected every country. Currently, no suitable vaccine or treatment has been identified; therefore, each country has attempted to issue appropriate policies, designed to reduce and prevent increases in the numbers of extreme cases. Transmission can be prevented by implementing social restrictions, also known as social distancing. The World Health Organization (WHO) has issued several methods for the prevention of transmission, including social distancing, washing hands with soap (or using hand sanitizer containing at least70% alcohol), and using masks. Over time, the term social distance has changed to physical distance. Evaluating the impacts of different types of non-pharmacological interventions has been challenging.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document