6 research outputs found

    An integrative social identity model of populist leadership

    Get PDF
    In recent years, the questions of what populism is and how populist leaders mobilize their followers have been the subject of extensive debate. While the social psychology literature holds unique theoretical tools that can be used to explain leader-follower dynamics, these have not yet been applied to understand populism and populist leadership. In this paper, we aim to discuss populism as a social-psychological concept and provide a comprehensive approach to examine the interactions between populist leaders and followers by using the identity leadership model (see New Psychology of Leadership, Haslam et al., 2020). Accordingly, we propose an integrative model in which we suggest that populism should be treated as a social-psychological concept based on (i) strong ingroup identification; (ii) interactive leadership processes that open spaces to followers for enacting their ingroup identity that end up with mobilization against vertical (e.g., elites) and horizontal (e.g., minorities, refugees, opponents) outgroups; (iii) leader's ingroup prototypicality and identity entrepreneurship that is boosted by using shared grievances, narratives of collective victimhood, and the destabilization of mainstream opponent leaders. Furthermore, by discussing real-world examples and recent studies, we aim to show how the content of what it means to be ‘us’ and what is seen as moral to ‘us’ can be shaped by populist leaders for mobilization

    Exploring the cost-effectiveness of high versus low perioperative fraction of inspired oxygen in the prevention of surgical site infections among abdominal surgery patients in three low- and middle-income countries

    No full text

    Exploring the cost-effectiveness of high versus low perioperative fraction of inspired oxygen in the prevention of surgical site infections among abdominal surgery patients in three low- and middle-income countries

    No full text
    Background: This study assessed the potential cost-effectiveness of high (80–100%) vs low (21–35%) fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO2) at preventing surgical site infections (SSIs) after abdominal surgery in Nigeria, India, and South Africa. Methods: Decision-analytic models were constructed using best available evidence sourced from unbundled data of an ongoing pilot trial assessing the effectiveness of high FiO2, published literature, and a cost survey in Nigeria, India, and South Africa. Effectiveness was measured as percentage of SSIs at 30 days after surgery, a healthcare perspective was adopted, and costs were reported in US dollars ().Results:HighFiO2maybecosteffective(cheaperandeffective).InNigeria,theaveragecostforhighFiO2was). Results: High FiO2 may be cost-effective (cheaper and effective). In Nigeria, the average cost for high FiO2 was 216 compared with 222forlowFiO2leadingtoa 222 for low FiO2 leading to a −6 (95% confidence interval [CI]: −13to 13 to −1) difference in costs. In India, the average cost for high FiO2 was 184comparedwith184 compared with 195 for low FiO2 leading to a −11(9511 (95% CI: −15 to −6)differenceincosts.InSouthAfrica,theaveragecostforhighFiO2was6) difference in costs. In South Africa, the average cost for high FiO2 was 1164 compared with 1257forlowFiO2leadingtoa 1257 for low FiO2 leading to a −93 (95% CI: −132to 132 to −65) difference in costs. The high FiO2 arm had few SSIs, 7.33% compared with 8.38% for low FiO2, leading to a −1.05 (95% CI: −1.14 to −0.90) percentage point reduction in SSIs. Conclusion: High FiO2 could be cost-effective at preventing SSIs in the three countries but further data from large clinical trials are required to confirm this

    Global economic burden of unmet surgical need for appendicitis

    No full text
    Background There is a substantial gap in provision of adequate surgical care in many low- and middle-income countries. This study aimed to identify the economic burden of unmet surgical need for the common condition of appendicitis. Methods Data on the incidence of appendicitis from 170 countries and two different approaches were used to estimate numbers of patients who do not receive surgery: as a fixed proportion of the total unmet surgical need per country (approach 1); and based on country income status (approach 2). Indirect costs with current levels of access and local quality, and those if quality were at the standards of high-income countries, were estimated. A human capital approach was applied, focusing on the economic burden resulting from premature death and absenteeism. Results Excess mortality was 4185 per 100 000 cases of appendicitis using approach 1 and 3448 per 100 000 using approach 2. The economic burden of continuing current levels of access and local quality was US 92492millionusingapproach1and92 492 million using approach 1 and 73 141 million using approach 2. The economic burden of not providing surgical care to the standards of high-income countries was 95004millionusingapproach1and95 004 million using approach 1 and 75 666 million using approach 2. The largest share of these costs resulted from premature death (97.7 per cent) and lack of access (97.0 per cent) in contrast to lack of quality. Conclusion For a comparatively non-complex emergency condition such as appendicitis, increasing access to care should be prioritized. Although improving quality of care should not be neglected, increasing provision of care at current standards could reduce societal costs substantially

    Effects of hospital facilities on patient outcomes after cancer surgery: an international, prospective, observational study

    No full text
    © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 licenseBackground: Early death after cancer surgery is higher in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) compared with in high-income countries, yet the impact of facility characteristics on early postoperative outcomes is unknown. The aim of this study was to examine the association between hospital infrastructure, resource availability, and processes on early outcomes after cancer surgery worldwide. Methods: A multimethods analysis was performed as part of the GlobalSurg 3 study—a multicentre, international, prospective cohort study of patients who had surgery for breast, colorectal, or gastric cancer. The primary outcomes were 30-day mortality and 30-day major complication rates. Potentially beneficial hospital facilities were identified by variable selection to select those associated with 30-day mortality. Adjusted outcomes were determined using generalised estimating equations to account for patient characteristics and country-income group, with population stratification by hospital. Findings: Between April 1, 2018, and April 23, 2019, facility-level data were collected for 9685 patients across 238 hospitals in 66 countries (91 hospitals in 20 high-income countries; 57 hospitals in 19 upper-middle-income countries; and 90 hospitals in 27 low-income to lower-middle-income countries). The availability of five hospital facilities was inversely associated with mortality: ultrasound, CT scanner, critical care unit, opioid analgesia, and oncologist. After adjustment for case-mix and country income group, hospitals with three or fewer of these facilities (62 hospitals, 1294 patients) had higher mortality compared with those with four or five (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 3·85 [95% CI 2·58–5·75]; p<0·0001), with excess mortality predominantly explained by a limited capacity to rescue following the development of major complications (63·0% vs 82·7%; OR 0·35 [0·23–0·53]; p<0·0001). Across LMICs, improvements in hospital facilities would prevent one to three deaths for every 100 patients undergoing surgery for cancer. Interpretation: Hospitals with higher levels of infrastructure and resources have better outcomes after cancer surgery, independent of country income. Without urgent strengthening of hospital infrastructure and resources, the reductions in cancer-associated mortality associated with improved access will not be realised. Funding: National Institute for Health and Care Research
    corecore