The Exploration of the Health Care Systems of the United States and Belize Including a Cultural Analysis

Health systems throughout the world may have a profoundly different, or extremely similar structure. A well-known, industrialized nation, the United States has an unusual system, which Shi and Singh (2008) describe as “unnecessarily fragmented” (p. 2). Highly unusual for a developed country, this system does not guarantee access to medical care for all of its citizens. On the other hand, a small Central American country more known as a vacation hotspot, Belize ensures health care for all inhabitants of this tropical nation. How can these major differences affect health outcomes? What could these two vastly different countries have in common when considering public health? This paper will explore the Belizean public health system and the United States (US) public health system frameworks. This will include analyses of the usage of health technology, management of chronic and infectious diseases, and cultural considerations

Health system strengthening—Reflections on its meaning, assessment, and our state of knowledge

Sophie Witter - ORCID 0000-0002-7656-6188 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7656-6188Comprehensive reviews of health system strengthening (HSS) interventions are rare, partly because of lack of clarity on definitions of the term but also the potentially huge scale of the evidence. We reflect on the process of undertaking such an evidence review recently, drawing out suggestions on definitions of HSS and approaches to assessment, as well as summarising some key conclusions from the current evidence base. The key elements of a clear definition include, in our view, consideration of scope (with effects cutting across building blocks in practice, even if not in intervention design, and also tackling more than one disease), scale (having national reach and cutting across levels of the system), sustainability (effects being sustained over time and addressing systemic blockages), and effects (impacting on health outcomes, equity, financial risk protection, and responsiveness). We also argue that agreeing a framework for design and evaluation of HSS is urgent. Most HSS interventions have theories of change relating to specific system blocks, but more work is needed on capturing their spillover effects and their contribution to meeting overarching health system process goals. We make some initial suggestions about such goals, to reflect the features that characterise a “strong health system.” We highlight that current findings on “what works” are just indicative, given the limitations and biases in what has been studied and how, and argue that there is need to rethink evaluation methods for HSS beyond finite interventions and narrow outcomes. Clearer concepts, frameworks, and methods can support more coherent HSS investment.Department for International Development, Grant/Award Number: Supported by the ReBUILD and ReSYST RPCshttps://doi.org/10.1002/hpm.288234pubpub

Evidence review of what works for health systems strengthening, where and when?

Comprehensive reviews of health system strengthening (HSS) interventions are rare, partly because of lack of clarity on definitions of the term but also the potentially huge scale of the evidence. We reflect on the process of undertaking such an evidence review recently, drawing out suggestions on definitions of HSS and approaches to assessment, as well as summarising some key conclusions from the current evidence base. The key elements of a clear definition include, in our view, consideration of scope (with effects cutting across building blocks in practice, even if not in intervention design, and also tackling more than one disease), scale (having national reach and cutting across levels of the system), sustainability (effects being sustained over time and addressing systemic blockages), and effects (impacting on health outcomes, equity, financial risk protection, and responsiveness). We also argue that agreeing a framework for design and evaluation of HSS is urgent. Most HSS interventions have theories of change relating to specific system blocks, but more work is needed on capturing their spillover effects and their contribution to meeting overarching health system process goals. We make some initial suggestions about such goals, to reflect the features that characterise a “strong health system.” We highlight that current findings on “what works” are just indicative, given the limitations and biases in what has been studied and how, and argue that there is need to rethink evaluation methods for HSS beyond finite interventions and narrow outcomes. Clearer concepts, frameworks, and methods can support more coherent HSS investment

Royal society of Canada COVID-19 report: Enhancing COVID-19 vaccine acceptance in Canada

COVID-19 vaccine acceptance exists on a continuum from a minority who strongly oppose vaccination, to the moveable middle heterogeneous group with varying uncertainty levels about acceptance or hesitancy, to the majority who state willingness to be vaccinated. Intention for vaccine acceptance varies over time. COVID-19 vaccination decisions are influenced by many factors including knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs; social networks; communication environment; COVID-19 community rate; cultural and religious influences; ease of access; and the organization of health and community services and policies. Reflecting vaccine acceptance complexity, the Royal Society of Canada Working Group on COVID-19 Vaccine Acceptance developed a framework with four major factor domains that influence vaccine acceptance (people, communities, health care workers; immunization knowledge; health care and public health systems including federal/provincial/territorial/indigenous factors) - each influencing the others and all influenced by education, infection control, extent of collaborations, and communications about COVID-19 immunization. The Working Group then developed 37 interrelated recommendations to support COVID vaccine acceptance nested under four categories of responsibility: 1. People and Communities, 2. Health Care Workers, 3. Health Care System and Local Public Health Units, and 4. Federal/Provincial/Territorial/Indigenous. To optimize outcomes, all must be engaged to ensure co-development and broad ownership