48 research outputs found

    Migrant Health Policy in European Union (EU) and a non EU country: Current situation and future challenges for improvement

    Get PDF
    Aim: The influx of refugees, asylum seekers and migrants in Europe is an ongoing reality and migrant health has become very important public health problem. The aim of this paper is to analyze and compare the health profile, migrant situation and migration integration health policy in Spain as a European Union (EU) country and Republic of North Macedonia as a country in process of European Union accession. Methods: Migration Integration Policy Index (MIPEX) Health strand questionnaire (2015) was applied to compare health policies for migrant integration in both countries. Results: There are differences between Spain and Macedonia in health care coverage and access to health services for migrants. Spain has health strand total score of 52 and is in the same group with Austria, Ireland, Belgium, Netherlands, Denmark and Sweden. Macedonia has lower health strand total score 38 and is in the same group with Turkey, Cyprus, Slovakia. Targeted migrant health policies are stronger and services more responsive in Spain compared to Macedonia which offers migrants legal entitlements to healthcare, but health services should be more culturally responsive to migrant health needs. Conclusion: Health migration policy in both countries is closely tied to the general immigration policy

    ΠŸΠΎΠ΄ΠΎΠ±Ρ€ΡƒΠ²Π°ΡšΠ΅ Π½Π° Ρ‡ΠΎΠ²Π΅ΠΊΠΎΠ²ΠΈΡ‚Π΅ ΠΏΡ€Π°Π²Π° Π²ΠΎ здравствСната Π·Π°ΡˆΡ‚ΠΈΡ‚Π° Π²ΠΎ Π Π΅ΠΏΡƒΠ±Π»ΠΈΠΊΠ° МакСдонија

    Get PDF
    The rights of patients are based on the general human rights and are an important segment in the process of "Europeanization" of the Republic of Macedonia. The main goal of this study was to analyze the legislative framework of human rights in the health care in the Republic of Macedonia and its implementation in practice. Material and methods: The study was designed as a descriptive-analytical cross sectional study, in which a public health approach, an information-analytical method and evidence synthesis method were applied for the analysis of the relevant legislation. A survey was conducted on a representative stratified sample of patients in the Polog Region in the period from October to November 2017 in the Clinical Hospital Tetovo and the General Hospital Gostivar. Results: The legal system of the Republic of Macedonia was analyzed and compared with 6 transition countries, which had undergone a series of substantial reforms in recent years. The legislative framework in the Republic of Macedonia is a comprehensive frame for protection of patients’ rights, with which the patient is guaranteed legal rights in the process of treatment, respect and protection of his/her personality and integrity. The implementation of patients' rights in practice in this paper was analyzed by implementation of two rights of patients: the right on information about the recommended medical interventions and the right to accept and reject certain medical intervention. 85.2% of the interviewed patients had information on the right to information about the recommended medical interventions, and 14.8% didn’t have. 72.1% of the interviewed patients had personal experience for this right, and 27.9% didn’t have. Regarding the right to accept and reject certain medical intervention, 77% of the interviewed patients had information on this right, while 23% didn’t have. Personal experience was significantly smaller with this right, i.e. only 32.8% of the interviewed patients had personal experience, and 67.2% didn’t have. These differences were significant for both rights, for information and for personal experience. Conclusions: The human rights in the health care in the Republic of Macedonia are reflected in the national legislation, which is harmonized with the European and international legislation. However, it is necessary to improve the implementation of patients' rights in practice by raising the citizens' awareness about the knowledge of patients' rights and encouraging medical staff to respect the rights of patients and their compulsory application in practice.ΠŸΡ€Π°Π²Π°Ρ‚Π° Π½Π° ΠΏΠ°Ρ†ΠΈΠ΅Π½Ρ‚ΠΈΡ‚Π΅ ΠΏΡ€ΠΎΠΈΠ·Π»Π΅Π³ΡƒΠ²Π°Π°Ρ‚ ΠΎΠ΄ ΠΎΠΏΡˆΡ‚ΠΈΡ‚Π΅ Ρ‡ΠΎΠ²Π΅ΠΊΠΎΠ²ΠΈ ΠΏΡ€Π°Π²Π° ΠΈ сС Π²Π°ΠΆΠ΅Π½ сСгмСнт Π²ΠΎ процСсот Π½Π° ,,Π΅Π²Ρ€ΠΎΠΏΠ΅ΠΈΠ·Π°Ρ†ΠΈΡ˜Π°β€œ Π½Π° Π Π΅ΠΏΡƒΠ±Π»ΠΈΠΊΠ° МакСдонија. Π“Π»Π°Π²Π½Π° Ρ†Π΅Π» Π½Π° ΠΎΠ²Π°Π° ΡΡ‚ΡƒΠ΄ΠΈΡ˜Π° бСшС Π΄Π° сС Π°Π½Π°Π»ΠΈΠ·ΠΈΡ€Π° лСгислативната Ρ€Π°ΠΌΠΊΠ° Π½Π° Ρ‡ΠΎΠ²Π΅ΠΊΠΎΠ²ΠΈΡ‚Π΅ ΠΏΡ€Π°Π²Π° Π²ΠΎ здравствСната Π·Π°ΡˆΡ‚ΠΈΡ‚Π° Π²ΠΎ Π Π΅ΠΏΡƒΠ±Π»ΠΈΠΊΠ° МакСдонија ΠΈ ΠΈΠΌΠΏΠ»Π΅ΠΌΠ΅Π½Ρ‚Π°Ρ†ΠΈΡ˜Π°Ρ‚Π° Π²ΠΎ пракса. ΠœΠ°Ρ‚Π΅Ρ€ΠΈΡ˜Π°Π» ΠΈ ΠΌΠ΅Ρ‚ΠΎΠ΄ΠΈ:  Π‘Ρ‚ΡƒΠ΄ΠΈΡ˜Π°Ρ‚Π° Π΅ Π΄ΠΈΠ·Π°Ρ˜Π½ΠΈΡ€Π°Π½Π° ΠΊΠ°ΠΊΠΎ дСскриптивно–аналитичка ΡΡ‚ΡƒΠ΄ΠΈΡ˜Π° Π½Π° прСсСк, Π²ΠΎ која бСшС ΠΏΡ€ΠΈΠΌΠ΅Π½Π΅Ρ‚ Ρ˜Π°Π²Π½ΠΎΠ·Π΄Ρ€Π°Π²ΡΡ‚Π²Π΅Π½ пристап, ΠΈΠ½Ρ„ΠΎΡ€ΠΌΠ°Ρ‚ΠΈΡ‡ΠΊΠΎ-Π°Π½Π°Π»ΠΈΡ‚ΠΈΡ‡Π΅Π½ ΠΌΠ΅Ρ‚ΠΎΠ΄ ΠΈ ΠΌΠ΅Ρ‚ΠΎΠ΄ Π½Π° синтСза Π½Π° Π΅Π²ΠΈΠ΄Π΅Π½Ρ†ΠΈΡ˜Π° (evidence synthesis) Π·Π° Π°Π½Π°Π»ΠΈΠ·Π° Π½Π° Ρ€Π΅Π»Π΅Π²Π°Π½Ρ‚Π½Π°Ρ‚Π° лСгислатива. Π‘Π΅ΡˆΠ΅ спровСдСно  Π°Π½ΠΊΠ΅Ρ‚Π½ΠΎ ΠΈΡΡ‚Ρ€Π°ΠΆΡƒΠ²Π°ΡšΠ΅ Π½Π° Ρ€Π΅ΠΏΡ€Π΅Π·Π΅Π½Ρ‚Π°Ρ‚ΠΈΠ²Π΅Π½ стратифициран ΠΏΡ€ΠΈΠΌΠ΅Ρ€ΠΎΠΊ Π½Π° ΠΏΠ°Ρ†ΠΈΠ΅Π½Ρ‚ΠΈ Π²ΠΎ ΠŸΠΎΠ»ΠΎΡˆΠΊΠΈΠΎΡ‚ Π Π΅Π³ΠΈΠΎΠ½, Π²ΠΎ ΠΏΠ΅Ρ€ΠΈΠΎΠ΄ ΠΎΠ΄ Π΄Π²Π° мСсСци, ΠΎΠΊΡ‚ΠΎΠΌΠ²Ρ€ΠΈ-Π½ΠΎΠ΅ΠΌΠ²Ρ€ΠΈ Π²ΠΎ 2017 Π³ΠΎΠ΄ΠΈΠ½Π°, Π²ΠΎ ΠšΠ»ΠΈΠ½ΠΈΡ‡ΠΊΠ°Ρ‚Π° Π±ΠΎΠ»Π½ΠΈΡ†Π° Π²ΠΎ Π’Π΅Ρ‚ΠΎΠ²ΠΎ ΠΈ ΠžΠΏΡˆΡ‚Π°Ρ‚Π° Π±ΠΎΠ»Π½ΠΈΡ†Π° Π²ΠΎ Гостивар. Π Π΅Π·ΡƒΠ»Ρ‚Π°Ρ‚ΠΈ: Π‘Π΅ΡˆΠ΅ Π°Π½Π°Π»ΠΈΠ·ΠΈΡ€Π°Π½ ΠΏΡ€Π°Π²Π½ΠΈΠΎΡ‚ систСм Π½Π° Π Π΅ΠΏΡƒΠ±Π»ΠΈΠΊΠ° МакСдонија ΠΈ бСшС спорСдСн со 6 Π΄Ρ€ΠΆΠ°Π²ΠΈ Π²ΠΎ Ρ‚Ρ€Π°Π½Π·ΠΈΡ†ΠΈΡ˜Π°, ΠΊΠΎΠΈ ΠΏΡ€Π΅Ρ‚Ρ€ΠΏΠ΅Π° Π½ΠΈΠ·Π° ΡΡƒΡˆΡ‚ΠΈΠ½ΡΠΊΠΈ Ρ€Π΅Ρ„ΠΎΡ€ΠΌΠΈ Π²ΠΎ послСднивС Π³ΠΎΠ΄ΠΈΠ½ΠΈ. ЛСгислативната Ρ€Π°ΠΌΠΊΠ° Π²ΠΎ Π Π΅ΠΏΡƒΠ±Π»ΠΈΠΊΠ° МакСдонија прСтставува сСопфатна Ρ€Π°ΠΌΠΊΠ° Π·Π° Π·Π°ΡˆΡ‚ΠΈΡ‚Π° Π½Π° ΠΏΡ€Π°Π²Π°Ρ‚Π° Π½Π° ΠΏΠ°Ρ†ΠΈΠ΅Π½Ρ‚ΠΎΡ‚, со која Π½Π° ΠΏΠ°Ρ†ΠΈΠ΅Π½Ρ‚ΠΎΡ‚ ΠΌΡƒ сС Π·Π°Π³Π°Ρ€Π°Π½Ρ‚ΠΈΡ€Π°Π½ΠΈ законски ΠΏΡ€Π°Π²Π° Π²ΠΎ процСсот Π½Π° Π»Π΅ΠΊΡƒΠ²Π°ΡšΠ΅Ρ‚ΠΎ, ΠΏΠΎΡ‡ΠΈΡ‚ΡƒΠ²Π°ΡšΠ΅Ρ‚ΠΎ ΠΈ Π·Π°ΡˆΡ‚ΠΈΡ‚Π°Ρ‚Π° Π½Π° Π½Π΅Π³ΠΎΠ²Π°Ρ‚Π° личност ΠΈ ΠΈΠ½Ρ‚Π΅Π³Ρ€ΠΈΡ‚Π΅Ρ‚. Π’ΠΎ овој Ρ‚Ρ€ΡƒΠ΄ ΠΈΠΌΠΏΠ»Π΅ΠΌΠ΅Π½Ρ‚Π°Ρ†ΠΈΡ˜Π°Ρ‚Π° Π½Π° ΠΏΡ€Π°Π²Π°Ρ‚Π° Π½Π° ΠΏΠ°Ρ†ΠΈΠ΅Π½Ρ‚ΠΈΡ‚Π΅ Π²ΠΎ пракса бСшС Π°Π½Π°Π»ΠΈΠ·ΠΈΡ€Π°Π½Π° ΠΏΡ€Π΅ΠΊΡƒ ΠΈΠΌΠΏΠ»Π΅ΠΌΠ΅Π½Ρ‚Π°Ρ†ΠΈΡ˜Π°Ρ‚Π° Π½Π° Π΄Π²Π΅ ΠΏΡ€Π°Π²Π° Π½Π° ΠΏΠ°Ρ†ΠΈΠ΅Π½Ρ‚ΠΈΡ‚Π΅, ΠΈ Ρ‚ΠΎΠ°: ΠΏΡ€Π°Π²ΠΎ Π½Π° информираност Π·Π° ΠΏΡ€Π΅ΠΏΠΎΡ€Π°Ρ‡Π°Π½ΠΈΡ‚Π΅ мСдицински ΠΈΠ½Ρ‚Π΅Ρ€Π²Π΅Π½Ρ†ΠΈΠΈ ΠΈ ΠΏΡ€Π°Π²ΠΎ Π½Π° ΠΏΡ€ΠΈΡ„Π°ΡœΠ°ΡšΠ΅ ΠΈ одбивањС Π½Π° ΠΎΠΏΡ€Π΅Π΄Π΅Π»Π΅Π½Π° мСдицинска ΠΈΠ½Ρ‚Π΅Ρ€Π²Π΅Π½Ρ†ΠΈΡ˜Π°. 85,2% ΠΎΠ΄ Π°Π½ΠΊΠ΅Ρ‚ΠΈΡ€Π°Π½ΠΈΡ‚Π΅ ΠΏΠ°Ρ†ΠΈΠ΅Π½Ρ‚ΠΈ ΠΈΠΌΠ°Π»Π΅ ΠΈΠ½Ρ„ΠΎΡ€ΠΌΠ°Ρ†ΠΈΠΈ Π·Π° ΠΏΡ€Π°Π²ΠΎΡ‚ΠΎ Π½Π° информираност Π·Π° ΠΏΡ€Π΅ΠΏΠΎΡ€Π°Ρ‡Π°Π½ΠΈΡ‚Π΅ мСдицински ΠΈΠ½Ρ‚Π΅Ρ€Π²Π΅Π½Ρ†ΠΈΠΈ, Π° 14,8% Π½Π΅ΠΌΠ°Π»Π΅. 72,1% ΠΎΠ΄ Π°Π½ΠΊΠ΅Ρ‚ΠΈΡ€Π°Π½ΠΈΡ‚Π΅ ΠΏΠ°Ρ†ΠΈΠ΅Π½Ρ‚ΠΈ ΠΈΠΌΠ°Π»Π΅ Π»ΠΈΡ‡Π½ΠΎ искуство Π·Π° ΠΎΠ²Π° ΠΏΡ€Π°Π²ΠΎ, Π΄ΠΎΠ΄Π΅ΠΊΠ° 27,9% Π½Π΅ΠΌΠ°Π»Π΅. Π’ΠΎ однос Π½Π° ΠΏΡ€Π°Π²ΠΎΡ‚ΠΎ Π½Π° ΠΏΡ€ΠΈΡ„Π°ΡœΠ°ΡšΠ΅ ΠΈ одбивањС Π½Π° ΠΎΠΏΡ€Π΅Π΄Π΅Π»Π΅Π½Π° мСдицинска ΠΈΠ½Ρ‚Π΅Ρ€Π²Π΅Π½Ρ†ΠΈΡ˜Π°, 77% ΠΎΠ΄ Π°Π½ΠΊΠ΅Ρ‚ΠΈΡ€Π°Π½ΠΈΡ‚Π΅ ΠΏΠ°Ρ†ΠΈΠ΅Π½Ρ‚ΠΈ ΠΈΠΌΠ°Π»Π΅ ΠΈΠ½Ρ„ΠΎΡ€ΠΌΠ°Ρ†ΠΈΠΈ Π·Π° ΠΎΠ²Π° ΠΏΡ€Π°Π²ΠΎ, Π° 23% Π½Π΅ΠΌΠ°Π»Π΅. Π—Π½Π°Ρ‡ΠΈΡ‚Π΅Π»Π½ΠΎ ΠΏΠΎΠΌΠ°Π»ΠΎ бСшС Π»ΠΈΡ‡Π½ΠΎΡ‚ΠΎ искуство Π·Π° ΠΎΠ²Π° ΠΏΡ€Π°Π²ΠΎ, односно само 32,8% ΠΎΠ΄ Π°Π½ΠΊΠ΅Ρ‚ΠΈΡ€Π°Π½ΠΈΡ‚Π΅ ΠΏΠ°Ρ†ΠΈΠ΅Π½Ρ‚ΠΈ ΠΈΠΌΠ°Π»Π΅ Π»ΠΈΡ‡Π½ΠΎ искуство, Π° 67,2% Π½Π΅ΠΌΠ°Π»Π΅. Π Π°Π·Π»ΠΈΠΊΠΈΡ‚Π΅ Π±Π΅Π° сигнификантни Π²ΠΎ ΠΎΠ΄Π³ΠΎΠ²ΠΎΡ€ΠΈΡ‚Π΅ Π·Π° Π΄Π²Π΅Ρ‚Π΅ ΠΏΡ€Π°Π²Π°, ΠΈ Π·Π° ΠΈΠ½Ρ„ΠΎΡ€ΠΌΠ°Ρ†ΠΈΡ˜Π°Ρ‚Π° ΠΈ Π·Π° Π»ΠΈΡ‡Π½ΠΎΡ‚ΠΎ искуство. Π—Π°ΠΊΠ»ΡƒΡ‡ΠΎΠΊ: Π§ΠΎΠ²Π΅ΠΊΠΎΠ²ΠΈΡ‚Π΅ ΠΏΡ€Π°Π²Π° Π²ΠΎ здравствСната Π·Π°ΡˆΡ‚ΠΈΡ‚Π° Π²ΠΎ Π Π΅ΠΏΡƒΠ±Π»ΠΈΠΊΠ° МакСдонија сС Ρ€Π΅Ρ„Π»Π΅ΠΊΡ‚ΠΈΡ€Π°Π½ΠΈ Π²ΠΎ Π½Π°Ρ†ΠΈΠΎΠ½Π°Π»Π½Π°Ρ‚Π° лСгислатива која Π΅ Ρ…Π°Ρ€ΠΌΠΎΠ½ΠΈΠ·ΠΈΡ€Π°Π½Π° со Свропската ΠΈ ΠΌΠ΅Ρ“ΡƒΠ½Π°Ρ€ΠΎΠ΄Π½Π°Ρ‚Π°. ΠœΠ΅Ρ“ΡƒΡ‚ΠΎΠ°,  ΠΏΠΎΡ‚Ρ€Π΅Π±Π½ΠΎ Π΅ ΠΏΠΎΠ΄ΠΎΠ±Ρ€ΡƒΠ²Π°ΡšΠ΅ Π½Π° ΠΈΠΌΠΏΠ»Π΅ΠΌΠ΅Π½Ρ‚Π°Ρ†ΠΈΡ˜Π°Ρ‚Π° Π½Π° ΠΏΡ€Π°Π²Π°Ρ‚Π° Π½Π° ΠΏΠ°Ρ†ΠΈΠ΅Π½Ρ‚ΠΈΡ‚Π΅ Π²ΠΎ пракса, ΠΏΡ€Π΅ΠΊΡƒ ΠΏΠΎΠ΄ΠΈΠ³Π½ΡƒΠ²Π°ΡšΠ΅ Π½Π° свСста Π½Π° Π³Ρ€Π°Ρ“Π°Π½ΠΈΡ‚Π΅ Π·Π° познавањС Π½Π° ΠΏΡ€Π°Π²Π°Ρ‚Π° Π½Π° ΠΏΠ°Ρ†ΠΈΠ΅Π½Ρ‚ΠΈΡ‚Π΅ ΠΈ ΠΏΠΎΡ‚Ρ‚ΠΈΠΊΠ½ΡƒΠ²Π°ΡšΠ΅ Π½Π° мСдицинскиот пСрсонал Π·Π° ΠΏΠΎΡ‡ΠΈΡ‚ΡƒΠ²Π°ΡšΠ΅ Π½Π° ΠΏΡ€Π°Π²Π°Ρ‚Π° Π½Π° ΠΏΠ°Ρ†ΠΈΠ΅Π½Ρ‚ΠΈΡ‚

    Migrant Health Policy in European Union (EU) and a non EU country: Current situation and future challenges for improvement

    Get PDF
    Aim: The influx of refugees, asylum seekers and migrants in Europe is an ongoing reality and migrant health has become very important public health problem. The aim of this paper is to analyze and compare the health profile, migrant situation and migration integration health policy in Spain as a European Union (EU) country and Republic of North Macedonia as a country in process of European Union accession. Methods: Migration Integration Policy Index (MIPEX) Health strand questionnaire (2015) was applied to compare health policies for migrant integration in both countries. Results: There are differences between Spain and Macedonia in health care coverage and access to health services for migrants. Spain has health strand total score of 52 and is in the same group with Austria, Ireland, Belgium, Netherlands, Denmark and Sweden. Macedonia has lower health strand total score 38 and is in the same group with Turkey, Cyprus, Slovakia. Targeted migrant health policies are stronger and services more responsive in Spain compared to Macedonia which offers migrants legal entitlements to healthcare, but health services should be more culturally responsive to migrant health needs. Conclusion: Health migration policy in both countries is closely tied to the general immigration policy.   Conflicts of interest: None declared

    ΠŸΡ€ΠΎΡ†Π΅Π½ΠΊΠ° Π½Π° Π΅ΠΏΠΈΠ΄Π΅ΠΌΠΈΠΎΠ»ΠΎΡˆΠΊΠ°Ρ‚Π° ΡΠΎΡΡ‚ΠΎΡ˜Π±Π° ΠΈ оптоварСноста со COVID-19 Π½Π° Π³Π»ΠΎΠ±Π°Π»Π½ΠΎ, Ρ€Π΅Π³ΠΈΠΎΠ½Π°Π»Π½ΠΎ ΠΈ Π½Π°Ρ†ΠΈΠΎΠ½Π°Π»Π½ΠΎ Π½ΠΈΠ²ΠΎ

    Get PDF
    The current pandemic of corona virus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is an infectious disease caused by a newly discovered severe acute respiratory syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Global COVID-19 burden is characterized by a high variability in death rate across countries. Several possible explanations have been proposed, but it is not clear whether this variability is due to a single predominant factor or instead to multiple causes. The aim of this paper was to present and analyze the epidemiological situation and burden of the COVID-19 pandemic in Kosovo compared to other countries in Europe and the world. Material and methods: Public health approach and desk review were applied to present and analyze the trends over time of selected epidemiological indicators for COVID-19 based on multiple sources of data as well as WHO epidata and literature review. The assessment of the epidemiological situation in EU/EEA member states was done using the surveillance data routinely collected by ECDC. Official medical records from the National Institute of Public Health, other relevant health institutions; State Statistical Office and Ministry of Health in Kosovo were used. Results: According to ECDC as of 11 February 2021, 106,472,660 cases of COVID-19 (in accordance with the applied case definitions and testing strategies in the affected countries) have been reported, including 2,323,103 deaths. COVID-19 cases have been reported from: Africa: 3,673,181 cases, Asia: 20,438,608 cases, Europe: 34,681,426 cases, America: 47,620,931 cases; Oceania: 57,809 cases, Others: 705 cases. Deaths have been reported from: Africa 95,128 deaths, Asia 343,886, America 1,107,066, Europe 775,883, Oceania 1,210 and Other 6 deaths. In Kosovo from 13 March 2020 until 15th February 2021 there have been 64,298 cases of COVID- 19 with 1534 deaths. Absolute values of the indicators remain high in all countries in Europe, including those with stable or decreasing trends in these indicators, suggesting that transmission is still wide spread. The epidemic trajectory over the next months will be determined by the balance of four factors, with many different outcomes possible: the continued scale-up of vaccination, declining seasonality, the spread of new variants and increased behaviors that favor COVID-19 transmission. Conclusion: Findings from this paper can help to develop evidence-based policy interventions in Kosovo for risk assessment of COVID-19 and protection of general population and especially vulnerable groups with higher risk from COVID 19.Π’Π΅ΠΊΠΎΠ²Π½Π°Ρ‚Π° пандСмија со ΠΊΠΎΡ€ΠΎΠ½Π° вирус ΠΎΠ΄ 2019Π³.(COVID-19) Π΅ ΠΈΠ½Ρ„Π΅ΠΊΡ‚ΠΈΠ²Π½ΠΎ Π·Π°Π±ΠΎΠ»ΡƒΠ²Π°ΡšΠ΅ ΠΏΡ€Π΅Π΄ΠΈΠ·Π²ΠΈΠΊΠ°Π½ΠΎ ΠΎΠ΄ Π½ΠΎΠ²ΠΎΠΎΡ‚ΠΊΡ€ΠΈΠ΅Π½ΠΈΠΎΡ‚ ΠΊΠΎΡ€ΠΎΠ½Π° вирус 2 кој ΠΏΡ€Π΅Π΄ΠΈΠ·Π²ΠΈΠΊΡƒΠ²Π°  Ρ‚Π΅ΠΆΠΎΠΊ Π°ΠΊΡƒΡ‚Π΅Π½ рСспираторСн синдром (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Π“Π»ΠΎΠ±Π°Π»Π½ΠΈΠ°Ρ‚Π° оптоварСност со COVID-19 сС ΠΊΠ°Ρ€Π°ΠΊΡ‚Π΅Ρ€ΠΈΠ·ΠΈΡ€Π° со Π³ΠΎΠ»Π΅ΠΌΠ° Π²Π°Ρ€ΠΈΡ˜Π°Π±ΠΈΠ»Π½ΠΎΡΡ‚ Π²ΠΎ стапката Π½Π° смртност Π²ΠΎ Π΄Ρ€ΠΆΠ°Π²ΠΈΡ‚Π΅. ΠŸΡ€Π΅Π΄Π»ΠΎΠΆΠ΅Π½ΠΈ сС Π½Π΅ΠΊΠΎΠ»ΠΊΡƒ ΠΌΠΎΠΆΠ½ΠΈ ΠΎΠ±Ρ˜Π°ΡΠ½ΡƒΠ²Π°ΡšΠ°, Π½ΠΎ Π½Π΅ Π΅ јасно Π΄Π°Π»ΠΈ ΠΎΠ²Π°Π° Π²Π°Ρ€ΠΈΡ˜Π°Π±ΠΈΠ»Π½ΠΎΡΡ‚ сС Π΄ΠΎΠ»ΠΆΠΈ Π½Π° СдинствСн Π΄ΠΎΠΌΠΈΠ½Π°Π½Ρ‚Π΅Π½ Ρ„Π°ΠΊΡ‚ΠΎΡ€ ΠΈΠ»ΠΈ Π½Π° повСќС ΠΏΡ€ΠΈΡ‡ΠΈΠ½ΠΈ. Π¦Π΅Π»Ρ‚Π° Π½Π° овој Ρ‚Ρ€ΡƒΠ΄ бСшС Π΄Π° сС ΠΏΡ€Π΅Π·Π΅Π½Ρ‚ΠΈΡ€Π° ΠΈ Π°Π½Π°Π»ΠΈΠ·ΠΈΡ€Π° Π΅ΠΏΠΈΠ΄Π΅ΠΌΠΈΠΎΠ»ΠΎΡˆΠΊΠ°Ρ‚Π° ΡΠΎΡΡ‚ΠΎΡ˜Π±Π° ΠΈ оптоварСноста со  ΠΏΠ°Π½Π΄Π΅ΠΌΠΈΡ˜Π°Ρ‚Π° COVID-19 Π²ΠΎ Косово ΠΈ Π΄Π° сС спорСди со Π΄Ρ€ΡƒΠ³ΠΈΡ‚Π΅ зСмји Π²ΠΎ Π•Π²Ρ€ΠΎΠΏΠ° ΠΈ свСтот. ΠœΠ°Ρ‚Π΅Ρ€ΠΈΡ˜Π°Π» ΠΈ ΠΌΠ΅Ρ‚ΠΎΠ΄ΠΈ: ΠˆΠ°Π²Π½ΠΎΠ·Π΄Ρ€Π°Π²ΡΡ‚Π²Π΅Π½ пристап ΠΈ ΠΏΡ€Π΅Π³Π»Π΅Π΄ΠΎΡ‚ Π½Π° Π΄ΠΎΠΊΡƒΠΌΠ΅Π½Ρ‚ΠΈ сС ΠΏΡ€ΠΈΠΌΠ΅Π½Π΅Ρ‚ΠΈ Π·Π° Π΄Π° сС ΠΏΡ€Π΅Π·Π΅Π½Ρ‚ΠΈΡ€Π° ΠΈ Π°Π½Π°Π»ΠΈΠ·ΠΈΡ€Π° Ρ‚Ρ€Π΅Π½Π΄ΠΎΡ‚ Π½Π° ΠΈΠ·Π±Ρ€Π°Π½ΠΈΡ‚Π΅ СпидСмиолошки ΠΈΠ½Π΄ΠΈΠΊΠ°Ρ‚ΠΎΡ€ΠΈ Π·Π° COVID-19 Π²Ρ€Π· основа Π½Π° ΠΏΠΎΠ΄Π°Ρ‚ΠΎΡ†ΠΈ ΠΎΠ΄ повСќС ΠΈΠ·Π²ΠΎΡ€ΠΈ, ΠΊΠ°ΠΊΠΎ ΠΈ Π΅ΠΏΠΈΠ΄Π°Ρ‚Π° Π½Π° Π‘Π—Πž ΠΈ ΠΏΡ€Π΅Π³Π»Π΅Π΄ Π½Π° Π»ΠΈΡ‚Π΅Ρ€Π°Ρ‚ΡƒΡ€Π°. ΠŸΡ€ΠΎΡ†Π΅Π½ΠΊΠ°Ρ‚Π° Π½Π° Π΅ΠΏΠΈΠ΄Π΅ΠΌΠΈΠΎΠ»ΠΎΡˆΠΊΠ°Ρ‚Π° ΡΠΎΡΡ‚ΠΎΡ˜Π±Π° Π²ΠΎ Π·Π΅ΠΌΡ˜ΠΈΡ‚Π΅-Ρ‡Π»Π΅Π½ΠΊΠΈ Π½Π° Π•Π£/ЕЕА бСшС Π½Π°ΠΏΡ€Π°Π²Π΅Π½Π° со ΠΊΠΎΡ€ΠΈΡΡ‚Π΅ΡšΠ΅ Π½Π° ΠΏΠΎΠ΄Π°Ρ‚ΠΎΡ†ΠΈΡ‚Π΅ Π·Π° слСдСњС, рутински собрани ΠΎΠ΄ ECDC. Π‘Π΅Π° користСни ΠΎΡ„ΠΈΡ†ΠΈΡ˜Π°Π»Π½ΠΈ мСдицински ΠΈΠ·Π²Π΅ΡˆΡ‚Π°ΠΈ ΠΎΠ΄ Националниот институт Π·Π° јавно Π·Π΄Ρ€Π°Π²Ρ˜Π΅, Π΄Ρ€ΡƒΠ³ΠΈ Ρ€Π΅Π»Π΅Π²Π°Π½Ρ‚Π½ΠΈ здравствСни институции; Π”Ρ€ΠΆΠ°Π²Π½ΠΈΠΎΡ‚ Π·Π°Π²ΠΎΠ΄ Π·Π° статистика ΠΈ ΠœΠΈΠ½ΠΈΡΡ‚Π΅Ρ€ΡΡ‚Π²ΠΎΡ‚ΠΎ Π·Π° здравство Π½Π° Косово. Π Π΅Π·ΡƒΠ»Ρ‚Π°Ρ‚ΠΈ: Π‘ΠΏΠΎΡ€Π΅Π΄ ECDC Π·Π°ΠΊΠ»ΡƒΡ‡Π½ΠΎ со 11 Ρ„Π΅Π²Ρ€ΡƒΠ°Ρ€ΠΈ 2021 Π³ΠΎΠ΄ΠΈΠ½Π°, Π²ΠΎ свСтот ΠΏΡ€ΠΈΡ˜Π°Π²Π΅Π½ΠΈ сС 106.472.660 случаи Π½Π° COVID-19 (Π²ΠΎ согласност со ΠΏΡ€ΠΈΠΌΠ΅Π½Π΅Ρ‚ΠΈΡ‚Π΅ Π΄Π΅Ρ„ΠΈΠ½ΠΈΡ†ΠΈΠΈ Π½Π° случаи ΠΈ стратСгии Π·Π° Ρ‚Π΅ΡΡ‚ΠΈΡ€Π°ΡšΠ΅ Π²ΠΎ ΠΏΠΎΠ³ΠΎΠ΄Π΅Π½ΠΈΡ‚Π΅ зСмји), Π²ΠΊΠ»ΡƒΡ‡ΠΈΡ‚Π΅Π»Π½ΠΎ ΠΈ 2.323.103 смртни случаи. ΠŸΡ€ΠΈΡ˜Π°Π²Π΅Π½ΠΈ сС случаи со COVID-19 ΠΎΠ΄: Африка: 3.673.181 случаи, Азија: 20.438.608 случаи, Π•Π²Ρ€ΠΎΠΏΠ°: 34.681.426 случаи, АмСрика: 47.620.931 случаи; ОкСанија: 57 809 случаи, Π΄Ρ€ΡƒΠ³ΠΈ: 705 случаи. ΠŸΡ€ΠΈΡ˜Π°Π²Π΅Π½ΠΈ сС смртни случаи ΠΎΠ΄: Африка 95.128 смртни случаи, Азија 343.886, АмСрика 1.107.066, Π•Π²Ρ€ΠΎΠΏΠ° 775.883, ОкСанија 1.210 ΠΈ Π΄Ρ€ΡƒΠ³ΠΈ 6 смртни случаи. Π’ΠΎ Косово ΠΎΠ΄ 13 ΠΌΠ°Ρ€Ρ‚ 2020 Π³ΠΎΠ΄ΠΈΠ½Π° Π΄ΠΎ 15 Ρ„Π΅Π²Ρ€ΡƒΠ°Ρ€ΠΈ 2021 Π³ΠΎΠ΄ΠΈΠ½Π° ΠΏΡ€ΠΈΡ˜Π°Π²Π΅Π½ΠΈ сС 64.298 случаи Π½Π° COVID-19 ΠΈ 1.534 смртни случаи. АпсолутнитС врСдности Π½Π° ΠΈΠ½Π΄ΠΈΠΊΠ°Ρ‚ΠΎΡ€ΠΈΡ‚Π΅ остануваат високи Π²ΠΎ ситС зСмји Π²ΠΎ Π•Π²Ρ€ΠΎΠΏΠ°, Π²ΠΊΠ»ΡƒΡ‡ΠΈΡ‚Π΅Π»Π½ΠΎ ΠΈ ΠΎΠ½ΠΈΠ΅ со стабилни ΠΈΠ»ΠΈ Ρ‚Ρ€Π΅Π½Π΄ΠΎΠ²ΠΈ Π½Π° ΠΎΠΏΠ°Ρ“Π°ΡšΠ΅, ΡˆΡ‚ΠΎ ΡƒΠΊΠ°ΠΆΡƒΠ²Π° Π΄Π΅ΠΊΠ° Ρ‚Ρ€Π°Π½ΡΠΌΠΈΡΠΈΡ˜Π°Ρ‚Π° Π΅ сè ΡƒΡˆΡ‚Π΅ ΡˆΠΈΡ€ΠΎΠΊΠΎ распространСта. Π’Π΅ΠΊΠΎΡ‚ Π½Π° Π΅ΠΏΠΈΠ΄Π΅ΠΌΠΈΡ˜Π°Ρ‚Π° Π²ΠΎ слСднитС мСсСци ќС Π±ΠΈΠ΄Π΅ ΠΎΠ΄Ρ€Π΅Π΄Π΅Π½ ΠΎΠ΄ Ρ€Π°ΠΌΠ½ΠΎΡ‚Π΅ΠΆΠ°Ρ‚Π° ΠΏΠΎΠΌΠ΅Ρ“Ρƒ Ρ‡Π΅Ρ‚ΠΈΡ€ΠΈ Ρ„Π°ΠΊΡ‚ΠΎΡ€ΠΈ, со ΠΌΠΎΠΆΠ½ΠΈ  Ρ€Π°Π·Π»ΠΈΡ‡Π½ΠΈ исходи: ΠΊΠΎΠ½Ρ‚ΠΈΠ½ΡƒΠΈΡ€Π°Π½ΠΎ Π·Π³ΠΎΠ»Π΅ΠΌΡƒΠ²Π°ΡšΠ΅ Π½Π° Π²Π°ΠΊΡ†ΠΈΠ½Π°Ρ†ΠΈΡ˜Π°Ρ‚Π°, сСзонско Π½Π°ΠΌΠ°Π»ΡƒΠ²Π°ΡšΠ΅, ΡˆΠΈΡ€Π΅ΡšΠ΅ Π½Π° Π½ΠΎΠ²ΠΈΡ‚Π΅ Π²Π°Ρ€ΠΈΡ˜Π°Π½Ρ‚ΠΈ Π½Π° вирусот ΠΈ Π·Π³ΠΎΠ»Π΅ΠΌΠ΅Π½ΠΎ ΠΎΠ΄Π½Π΅ΡΡƒΠ²Π°ΡšΠ΅ ΡˆΡ‚ΠΎ придонСсува Π·Π° прСносот Π½Π° COVID-19. Π—Π°ΠΊΠ»ΡƒΡ‡ΠΎΠΊ: НаодитС ΠΎΠ΄ овој Ρ‚Ρ€ΡƒΠ΄ ΠΌΠΎΠΆΠ°Ρ‚ Π΄Π° ΠΏΠΎΠΌΠΎΠ³Π½Π°Ρ‚ Π΄Π° сС Ρ€Π°Π·Π²ΠΈΡ˜Π°Ρ‚ ΠΏΠΎΠ»ΠΈΡ‚ΠΈΠΊΠΈ ΠΈ ΠΈΠ½Ρ‚Π΅Ρ€Π²Π΅Π½Ρ†ΠΈΠΈ засновани Π½Π° Π΄ΠΎΠΊΠ°Π·ΠΈ Π²ΠΎ Косово, Π·Π° ΠΏΡ€ΠΎΡ†Π΅Π½ΠΊΠ° Π½Π° Ρ€ΠΈΠ·ΠΈΠΊ Π·Π° COVID-19 ΠΈ Π·Π°ΡˆΡ‚ΠΈΡ‚Π° Π½Π° ΠΎΠΏΡˆΡ‚Π°Ρ‚Π° ΠΏΠΎΠΏΡƒΠ»Π°Ρ†ΠΈΡ˜Π° ΠΈ особСно Π½Π° Ρ€Π°Π½Π»ΠΈΠ²ΠΈΡ‚Π΅ Π³Ρ€ΡƒΠΏΠΈ со ΠΏΠΎΠ³ΠΎΠ»Π΅ΠΌ Ρ€ΠΈΠ·ΠΈΠΊ ΠΎΠ΄ COVID 19

    Estimating health impacts and economic costs of air pollution in the Republic of Macedonia

    Get PDF
    Aim: This paper assesses the magnitude of health impacts and economic costs of fine particulate matter (PM) air pollution in the Republic of Macedonia. Methods: Ambient PM10 and PM2.5 monitoring data were combined with population characteristics and exposure-response functions to calculate the incidence of several health end-points known to be highly influenced by air pollution. Health impacts were converted to Disability-Adjusted Life Years (DALYs) and then translated into economic terms using three valuation approaches to form lower and higher bounds: the (adjusted) Human Capital Approach (HCA), Value of a Statistical Life (VSL) and the COI (cost of illness). Results: Fine particulate matter frequently exceeds daily and annual limit values andinfluences a personβ€Ÿs day-to-day health and their ability to work. Converting lost years of life and disabilities into DALYs - these health effects represent an annual economic cost of approximately €253 million or 3.2% of GDP (midpoint estimate). Premature death accounts for over 90% of the total health burden since this represents a loss of total life-long income. A reduction of even 1ΞΌg/m3 in ambient PM10 or PM 2.5 would imply 195 fewer deaths and represent an economic savings of €34 million per year in reduced health costs. Conclusion: Interventions that reduce ambient PM10 or PM2.5 have significant economic savings in both the short and long run. Currently, these benefits (costs) are β€žhiddenβ€Ÿ due to the lack of information linking air quality and health outcomes and translating this into economic terms. Policymakers seeking ways to improve the publicβ€Ÿs health and lessen the burden on the health system could focus on a narrow set of air pollution sources to achieve these goal

    Π€Π°ΠΊΡ‚ΠΎΡ€ΠΈ ΠΊΠΎΠΈ Π²Π»ΠΈΡ˜Π°Π°Ρ‚ Π½Π° ΠΏΡ€ΠΈΡ€ΠΎΠ΄Π½ΠΎΡ‚ΠΎ двиТСњС Π½Π° насСлСниСто Π²ΠΎ Π Π΅ΠΏΡƒΠ±Π»ΠΈΠΊΠ° Π‘Π΅Π²Π΅Ρ€Π½Π° МакСдонија

    Get PDF
    The planning of public health programmes is directly related with the demographic characteristics and  the population change has longterm impact on the health, health care and community interventions. The objective of this paper is to analyze the factors influencing the trend of population change  in the Republic of North Macedonia. Material and methods: Data from the National Statistical Office and World Health Organization have been used. Literature review was conducted applying public health approach and descriptive method. Results: The natural population change in North Macedonia has negative trend in the last 10 years, the birth rate has declined, while the mortality is increasing. The biological factors and fertility rate have significantly influenced the birth rate, while the burden of chronic noncommunicable diseases, road injures, violence and COVID-19 are lead causes of mortality.  Numerous factors indirectly affect the negative trend of population change such as the high rate of unemployment, poverty, socioeconomic and political context, migration and availability and quality of health care. Conclusion: А detailed analysis of the factors affecting the natural population change and an appropriate national response with the aim of reducing the negative trends is needed.ΠŸΠ»Π°Π½ΠΈΡ€Π°ΡšΠ΅Ρ‚ΠΎ Π½Π° Ρ˜Π°Π²Π½ΠΎΠ·Π΄Ρ€Π°Π²ΡΡ‚Π²Π΅Π½ΠΈΡ‚Π΅ ΠΏΡ€ΠΎΠ³Ρ€Π°ΠΌΠΈ Π΅ Π΄ΠΈΡ€Π΅ΠΊΡ‚Π½ΠΎ ΠΏΠΎΠ²Ρ€Π·Π°Π½ΠΎ со дСмографскитС карактСристикии ΠΏΡ€ΠΈΡ€ΠΎΠ΄Π½ΠΎΡ‚ΠΎ двиТСњС Π½Π° насСлСниСто ΠΈ ΠΈΠΌΠ° Π΄ΠΎΠ»Π³ΠΎΡ€ΠΎΡ‡Π½ΠΎ влијаниС Π²Ρ€Π· Π·Π΄Ρ€Π°Π²Ρ˜Π΅Ρ‚ΠΎ,здравствСната Π·Π°ΡˆΡ‚ΠΈΡ‚Π° ΠΈ ΠΈΠ½Ρ‚Π΅Ρ€Π²Π΅Π½Ρ†ΠΈΠΈΡ‚Π΅ Π²ΠΎ Π·Π°Π΅Π΄Π½ΠΈΡ†Π°Ρ‚Π°. Π¦Π΅Π»Ρ‚Π° Π½Π° овој Ρ‚Ρ€ΡƒΠ΄ Π΅ Π΄Π° сС Π°Π½Π°Π»ΠΈΠ·ΠΈΡ€Π°Π°Ρ‚ Ρ„Π°ΠΊΡ‚ΠΎΡ€ΠΈΡ‚Π΅ ΠΊΠΎΠΈ Π²Π»ΠΈΡ˜Π°Π°Ρ‚ Π½Π° Ρ‚Ρ€Π΅Π½Π΄ΠΎΡ‚ Π½Π° ΠΏΡ€ΠΈΡ€ΠΎΠ΄Π½ΠΎΡ‚ΠΎ двиТСњС Π½Π° насСлСниСто Π²ΠΎ Π Π΅ΠΏΡƒΠ±Π»ΠΈΠΊΠ° Π‘Π΅Π²Π΅Ρ€Π½Π° МакСдонија.  ΠœΠ°Ρ‚Π΅Ρ€ΠΈΡ˜Π°Π» ΠΈ ΠΌΠ΅Ρ‚ΠΎΠ΄ΠΈ: ΠšΠΎΡ€ΠΈΡΡ‚Π΅Π½ΠΈ сС ΠΏΠΎΠ΄Π°Ρ‚ΠΎΡ†ΠΈ ΠΎΠ΄ Π΄Π°Ρ‚Π°Π±Π°Π·Π°Ρ‚Π° Π½Π° Π”Ρ€ΠΆΠ°Π²Π½ΠΈΠΎΡ‚ Π·Π°Π²ΠΎΠ΄ Π·Π° статистика иБвСтската здравствСна ΠΎΡ€Π³Π°Π½ΠΈΠ·Π°Ρ†ΠΈΡ˜Π°, ΠΊΠΎΠΈ сС статистичкиобработСни ΠΈ ΠΏΡ€ΠΈΠΊΠ°ΠΆΠ°Π½ΠΈ Ρ‚Π°Π±Π΅Π»Π°Ρ€Π½ΠΎ ΠΈ Π³Ρ€Π°Ρ„ΠΈΡ‡ΠΊΠΈ. Π˜Π·Π²Ρ€ΡˆΠ΅Π½ Π΅ ΠΏΡ€Π΅Π³Π»Π΅Π΄ Π½Π° Π»ΠΈΡ‚Π΅Ρ€Π°Ρ‚ΡƒΡ€Π°, Π° ΠΏΡ€ΠΈΠΌΠ΅Π½Π΅Ρ‚ Π΅ Ρ˜Π°Π²Π½ΠΎΠ·Π΄Ρ€Π°Π²ΡΡ‚Π²Π΅Π½ пристап ΠΈ ΠΌΠ΅Ρ‚ΠΎΠ΄ Π½Π° дСскриптивна Π°Π½Π°Π»ΠΈΠ·Π°. Π Π΅Π·ΡƒΠ»Ρ‚Π°Ρ‚ΠΈ: ΠŸΡ€ΠΈΡ€ΠΎΠ΄Π½ΠΎΡ‚ΠΎ двиТСњС Π½Π° насСлСниСто Π²ΠΎ МакСдонија ΠΏΠΎΠΊΠ°ΠΆΡƒΠ²Π° Π½Π΅Π³Π°Ρ‚ΠΈΠ²Π΅Π½ Ρ‚Ρ€Π΅Π½Π΄ Π²ΠΎ послСднитС дСсСт Π³ΠΎΠ΄ΠΈΠ½ΠΈ, односно сС Π½Π°ΠΌΠ°Π»ΡƒΠ²Π° Π½Π°Ρ‚Π°Π»ΠΈΡ‚Π΅Ρ‚ΠΎΡ‚ Π΄ΠΎΠ΄Π΅ΠΊΠ° ΠΌΠΎΡ€Ρ‚Π°Π»ΠΈΡ‚Π΅Ρ‚ΠΎΡ‚ Π΅ Π²ΠΎ ΠΏΠΎΠ·ΠΈΡ‚ΠΈΠ²Π½Π° насока, со Π·Π³ΠΎΠ»Π΅ΠΌΠ΅Π½  Π±Ρ€ΠΎΡ˜ Π½Π° ΠΏΠΎΡ‡ΠΈΠ½Π°Ρ‚ΠΈ Π»ΠΈΡ†Π°. Π‘ΠΈΠΎΠ»ΠΎΡˆΠΊΠΈΡ‚Π΅ Ρ„Π°ΠΊΡ‚ΠΎΡ€ΠΈ ΠΈ стапката Π½Π° Ρ„Π΅Ρ€Ρ‚ΠΈΠ»ΠΈΡ‚Π΅Ρ‚ Π·Π½Π°Ρ‡Π°Ρ˜Π½ΠΎ Π²Π»ΠΈΡ˜Π°Π°Ρ‚ Π½Π° Π½Π°ΠΌΠ°Π»ΡƒΠ²Π°ΡšΠ΅ Π½Π° Π½Π°Ρ‚Π°Π»ΠΈΡ‚Π΅Ρ‚ΠΎΡ‚, Π° ΠΎΠ΄ Π΄Ρ€ΡƒΠ³Π° страна оптоварСноста со Ρ…Ρ€ΠΎΠ½ΠΈΡ‡Π½ΠΈΡ‚Π΅ Π½Π΅Π·Π°Ρ€Π°Π·Π½ΠΈ болСсти, ΡΠΎΠΎΠ±Ρ€Π°ΡœΠ°Ρ˜Π½ΠΈΡ‚Π΅ Π½Π΅ΡΡ€Π΅ΡœΠΈ, насилството ΠΈ Ковид-19 сС Π³Π»Π°Π²Π½ΠΈΡ‚Π΅ ΠΏΡ€ΠΈΡ‡ΠΈΠ½ΠΈ Π·Π° Π·Π³ΠΎΠ»Π΅ΠΌΠ΅Π½Π°Ρ‚Π° смртност. Π‘Ρ€ΠΎΡ˜Π½ΠΈ ΠΈΠ½Π΄ΠΈΡ€Π΅ΠΊΡ‚Π½ΠΈ Ρ„Π°ΠΊΡ‚ΠΎΡ€ΠΈ Π²Π»ΠΈΡ˜Π°Π°Ρ‚ Π½Π° Π½Π΅Π³Π°Ρ‚ΠΈΠ²Π½ΠΈΠΎΡ‚ Ρ‚Ρ€Π΅Π½Π΄ Π½Π° ΠΏΡ€ΠΈΡ€ΠΎΠ΄Π½ΠΎΡ‚ΠΎ двиТСњС Π½Π° насСлСниСто, ΠΊΠ°ΠΊΠΎ ΡˆΡ‚ΠΎ сС високата стапка Π½Π° ΡΠΈΡ€ΠΎΠΌΠ°ΡˆΡ‚ΠΈΡ˜Π° ΠΈ нСвработСност, социоСкономскиот ΠΈ ΠΏΠΎΠ»ΠΈΡ‚ΠΈΡ‡ΠΊΠΈ контСкст, ΠΌΠΈΠ³Ρ€Π°Ρ†ΠΈΠΈΡ‚Π΅ ΠΈ пристапот ΠΈ ΠΊΠ²Π°Π»ΠΈΡ‚Π΅Ρ‚ΠΎΡ‚ Π½Π° здравствСна Π·Π°ΡˆΡ‚ΠΈΡ‚Π°. Π—Π°ΠΊΠ»ΡƒΡ‡ΠΎΠΊ: ΠŸΠΎΡ‚Ρ€Π΅Π±Π½Π° Π΅ Π΄Π΅Ρ‚Π°Π»Π½Π° Π°Π½Π°Π»ΠΈΠ·Π° Π½Π° Ρ„Π°ΠΊΡ‚ΠΎΡ€ΠΈΡ‚Π΅ ΠΊΠΎΠΈ Π²Π»ΠΈΡ˜Π°Π°Ρ‚ Π½Π° ΠΏΡ€ΠΈΡ€ΠΎΠ΄Π½ΠΎΡ‚ΠΎ двиТСњС Π½Π° насСлСнСто ΠΈ соодвСтСн Π½Π°Ρ†ΠΈΠΎΠ½Π°Π»Π΅Π½ ΠΎΠ΄Π³ΠΎΠ²ΠΎΡ€ со Ρ†Π΅Π» Π½Π°ΠΌΠ°Π»ΡƒΠ²Π°ΡšΠ΅ Π½Π° Π½Π΅Π³Π°Ρ‚ΠΈΠ²Π½ΠΈΠΎΡ‚ Ρ‚Ρ€Π΅Π½Π΄

    Stigma Associated with Tuberculosis Disease in Republic of Macedonia Γ’β‚¬β€œ Results from a Cross-Sectional Study

    Get PDF
    BACKGROUND: Stigma and discrimination are interrelated and are breaking the fundamental human rights. Both are associated with tuberculosis (TB) disease since ever and have negative influence on activities aimed at TB prevention, treatment and control, both at individual, community and societal level.AIM: To determine the magnitude of TB stigma in Republic of Macedonia, identify root causes and detect main determinants associated with it.MATERIAL AND METHODS: Cross-sectional study was performed on 315 TB patients registered in the period Jul, 2012-Jun, 2013, using selected module from World Health Survey questionnaire. Self-reported data is collected through face to face interview conducted by trained directly observed treatment (DOT) nurses in the patientsÒ€ℒ home.RESULTS: 16.7% TB patients have not received any assistance when diagnosed with TB and 8.4% were treated badly by a member of the family or close friends because of the disease, consequences ranging from living the patient completely, refusal to talk or telling other people that the person is infected. An odd for such behavior were higher if the patient is male, married, have no formal education or have completed only primary school, is unemployed and lives in rural area.CONCLUSION: Understanding the origins of TB stigma is integral to reducing its impact on health. Our survey has provided a baseline on the magnitude of existent stigma associated with TB disease and has identified main determinants that trigger stigmatizing behavior

    Estimating health impacts and economic costs of air pollution in the Republic of Macedonia

    Get PDF
    Aim: This paper assesses the magnitude of health impacts and economic costs of fine particulate matter (PM) air pollution in the Republic of Macedonia.Methods: Ambient PM10 and PM2.5 monitoring data were combined with population characteristics and exposure-response functions to calculate the incidence of several health end-points known to be highly influenced by air pollution. Health impacts were converted to Disability-Adjusted Life Years (DALYs) and then translated into economic terms using three valuation approaches to form lower and higher bounds: the (adjusted) Human Capital Approach (HCA), Value of a Statistical Life (VSL) and the COI (cost of illness).Results: Fine particulate matter frequently exceeds daily and annual limit values andinfluences a personβ€Ÿs day-to-day health and their ability to work. Converting lost years of life and disabilities into DALYs - these health effects represent an annual economic cost of approximately €253 million or 3.2% of GDP (midpoint estimate). Premature death accounts for over 90% of the total health burden since this represents a loss of total life-long income. A reduction of even 1ΞΌg/m3 in ambient PM10 or PM 2.5 would imply 195 fewer deaths and represent an economic savings of €34 million per year in reduced health costs.Conclusion: Interventions that reduce ambient PM10 or PM2.5 have significant economic savings in both the short and long run. Currently, these benefits (costs) are β€žhiddenβ€Ÿ due to the lack of information linking air quality and health outcomes and translating this into economic terms. Policymakers seeking ways to improve the publicβ€Ÿs health and lessen the burden on the health system could focus on a narrow set of air pollution sources to achieve these goals

    Social determinants of equity in access to healthcare for tuberculosis patients in Republic of Macedonia – results from a case-control study

    Get PDF
    Background: Health is a complex phenomenon and equity as a basic human right an integral part of constitutions in almost all countries in the world. In Republic of Macedonia (RM), Tuberculosis (TB) is clustered regionally and in certain ethnic groups. The main objective of this study was to analyze Social Determinants of Health (SDH) and equity in access to healthcare services for TB patients in RM, aimed at complex analysis of factors that cause inequities. Methods: Case-control study was conducted in the period March–December, 2013; β€œcases” are households of TB patients registered in the period July, 2012–June, 2013 and controls are households with no TB patients in their immediate vicinity. World Health Organization (WHO) World Health Survey questionnaire was used to collect data. Results: Analysis of SDH of TB patients shows that patients are mostly males, of lower socio-economic status, are less educated, unemployed and TB is clustered in certain ethnic groups. Analysis of access has identified these determinants as important barriers in access to health services. Conclusion: The study has documented the basic SDH of TB patients in RM, as well as barriers in access to healthcare, providing useful baseline information to facilitate determination where to concentrate future efforts

    ΠŸΡ€ΠΈΠΎΡ€ΠΈΡ‚ΠΈΠ·Π°Ρ†ΠΈΡ˜Π° Π½Π° Π·ΠΎΠΎΠ½ΠΎΠ·ΠΈΡ‚Π΅ Π²ΠΎ Π Π΅ΠΏΡƒΠ±Π»ΠΈΠΊΠ° Π‘Π΅Π²Π΅Ρ€Π½Π° МакСдонија – Π΄Π°Π»ΠΈ Π΅ ΠΏΠΎΡ‚Ρ€Π΅Π±Π΅Π½ пристап Π½Π° Π•Π΄Π½ΠΎ Π—Π΄Ρ€Π°Π²Ρ˜Π΅

    Get PDF
    Zoonoses have a different impact on public health, determined by geographical and socio-economic factors, which requires their prioritization for prevention and control purposes to be performed at the national level. Prioritization of zoonoses is a mechanism used in policy-making, primarily in allocating available resources. Aim of the paper is to compare two different methods used for prioritization of zoonoses by Institute of public health (IPH) and Food and Veterinary Agency (FVA). Material and methods: IPH used a method prepared by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), - One Health Zoonotic Disease Prioritization (OHZDP) tool, adapted to national conditions (2019). FVA used a standardized semi-quantitative method based on the OIE Methodological Manual (List and Categorization of priority diseases in animals including and those transmitted to humans). A total of 21 zoonoses have been selected, based on their importance for the human and veterinary sector. These diseases are ranked according to the stated criteria of the two previously conducted prioritizations and their comparison is performed. Results: With the prioritization conducted by IPH and FVA the first 5 ranked zoonoses are: Hemorrhagic fevers with renal syndrome, Leishmaniasis, Tularemia, Brucellosis and Listeriosis. With the prioritization carried out by the FVA the first 5 ranked zoonoses are: Bovine brucellosis, Bovine tuberculosis, Salmonellosis, Avian influenza and West Nile fever. A Cumulative Annual Incidence is taken as a control parameter. Regarding this, the 5 first ranked zoonoses are Echinococcosis, Brucellosis, Lyme fever, Leishmaniasis and Tularemia. Conclusions: A comparative analysis of the separate lists of priorities for human and veterinary medicine shows that only a certain percentage overlap. Also, the presence of a number of zoonoses with endemic character, but also a more pronounced risk of new emergent diseases, determines the need to provide consensus on the methodology of prioritization of zoonoses, and its formalization and institutionalization, as a crucial step towards identification and prioritization of zoonoses that would be the subject of joint programs and interventions.Π—ΠΎΠΎΠ½ΠΎΠ·ΠΈΡ‚Π΅ ΠΈΠΌΠ°Π°Ρ‚ Ρ€Π°Π·Π»ΠΈΡ‡Π΅Π½ ΠΈΠΌΠΏΠ°ΠΊΡ‚ Π½Π° Ρ˜Π°Π²Π½ΠΎΡ‚ΠΎ здравство, Π΄Π΅Ρ‚Π΅Ρ€ΠΌΠΈΠ½ΠΈΡ€Π°Π½ΠΎ ΠΎΠ΄ гСографскитС ΠΈ социо-СкономскитС Ρ„Π°ΠΊΡ‚ΠΎΡ€ΠΈ, ΡˆΡ‚ΠΎ условува Π½ΠΈΠ²Π½Π°Ρ‚Π° ΠΏΡ€ΠΈΠΎΡ€ΠΈΡ‚ΠΈΠ·Π°Ρ†ΠΈΡ˜Π° Π·Π° Ρ†Π΅Π»ΠΈ Π½Π° ΠΏΡ€Π΅Π²Π΅Π½Ρ‚ΠΈΠ²Π° ΠΈ ΠΊΠΎΠ½Ρ‚Ρ€ΠΎΠ»Π° Π΄Π° Π±ΠΈΠ΄Π΅ ΠΈΠ·Π²Π΅Π΄Π΅Π½Π° Π½Π° Π½Π°Ρ†ΠΈΠΎΠ½Π°Π»Π½ΠΎ Π½ΠΈΠ²ΠΎ. Π¦Π΅Π»Ρ‚Π° Π½Π° Ρ‚Ρ€ΡƒΠ΄ΠΎΡ‚ Π΅ Π΄Π° сС спорСдат Π΄Π²Π° Ρ€Π°Π·Π»ΠΈΡ‡Π½ΠΈ ΠΌΠ΅Ρ‚ΠΎΠ΄ΠΈ ΡˆΡ‚ΠΎ сС користат Π·Π° ΠΏΡ€ΠΈΠΎΡ€ΠΈΡ‚ΠΈΠ·ΠΈΡ€Π°ΡšΠ΅ Π½Π° Π·ΠΎΠΎΠ½ΠΎΠ·ΠΈΡ‚Π΅ ΠΎΠ΄ Π˜Π½ΡΡ‚ΠΈΡ‚ΡƒΡ‚ΠΎΡ‚ Π·Π° јавно Π·Π΄Ρ€Π°Π²Ρ˜Π΅ (Π˜ΠˆΠ—) ΠΈ ΠΠ³Π΅Π½Ρ†ΠΈΡ˜Π°Ρ‚Π° Π·Π° Ρ…Ρ€Π°Π½Π° ΠΈ вСтСринарство (АΠ₯Π’). ΠœΠ°Ρ‚Π΅Ρ€ΠΈΡ˜Π°Π» ΠΈ ΠΌΠ΅Ρ‚ΠΎΠ΄ΠΈ: Π˜ΠˆΠ— ΠΊΠΎΡ€ΠΈΡΡ‚Π΅ΡˆΠ΅ ΠΌΠ΅Ρ‚ΠΎΠ΄ ΠΏΠΎΠ΄Π³ΠΎΡ‚Π²Π΅Π½ ΠΎΠ΄ U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), - One Health Zoonotic Disease Prioritization (OHZDP) tool, ΠΏΡ€ΠΈΠ»Π°Π³ΠΎΠ΄Π΅Π½Π° Π½Π° Π½Π°Ρ†ΠΈΠΎΠ½Π°Π»Π½ΠΈΡ‚Π΅ услови (2019). АΠ₯Π’ ΠΊΠΎΡ€ΠΈΡΡ‚Π΅ΡˆΠ΅ стандардизиран ΠΏΠΎΠ»Ρƒ-ΠΊΠ²Π°Π½Ρ‚ΠΈΡ‚Π°Ρ‚ΠΈΠ²Π΅Π½ ΠΌΠ΅Ρ‚ΠΎΠ΄ заснован Π½Π° ΠΌΠ΅Ρ‚ΠΎΠ΄ΠΎΠ»ΠΎΡˆΠΊΠΈΠΎΡ‚ ΠΏΡ€ΠΈΡ€Π°Ρ‡Π½ΠΈΠΊ Π½Π° OIE  (List and Categorization of priority diseases in animals including and those transmitted to humans). Π‘Π΅Π»Π΅ΠΊΡ‚ΠΈΡ€Π°Π½ΠΈ сС Π²ΠΊΡƒΠΏΠ½ΠΎ 21 Π·ΠΎΠΎΠ½ΠΎΠ·ΠΈ, Π²Ρ€Π· основа Π½Π° Π½ΠΈΠ²Π½Π°Ρ‚Π° ваТност Π·Π° Ρ…ΡƒΠΌaΠ½ΠΈΠΎΡ‚ ΠΈ Π²Π΅Ρ‚Π΅Ρ€ΠΈΠ½Π°Ρ€Π½ΠΈΠΎΡ‚ сСктор. ОвиС Π·ΠΎΠΎΠ½ΠΎΠ·ΠΈ сС Ρ€Π°Π½Π³ΠΈΡ€Π°Π½ΠΈ спорСд Π½Π°Π²Π΅Π΄Π΅Π½ΠΈΡ‚Π΅ ΠΊΡ€ΠΈΡ‚Π΅Ρ€ΠΈΡƒΠΌΠΈ Π½Π° Π΄Π²Π΅Ρ‚Π΅ ΠΏΡ€Π΅Ρ‚Ρ…ΠΎΠ΄Π½ΠΎ спровСдСни ΠΏΡ€ΠΈΠΎΡ€ΠΈΡ‚ΠΈΠ·Π°Ρ†ΠΈΠΈ ΠΈ Π΅ ΠΈΠ·Π²Ρ€ΡˆΠ΅Π½Π° Π½ΠΈΠ²Π½Π° спорСдба. Π Π΅Π·ΡƒΠ»Ρ‚Π°Ρ‚ΠΈ Π‘ΠΎ ΠΏΡ€ΠΈΠΎΡ€ΠΈΡ‚ΠΈΠ·Π°Ρ†ΠΈΡ˜Π° спровСдСна ΠΎΠ΄ Π˜ΠˆΠ— ΠΈ АΠ₯Π’ (сСми-ΠΊΠ²Π°Π½Ρ‚ΠΈΡ‚Π°Ρ‚ΠΈΠ²Π½Π° ΠΌΠ΅Ρ‚ΠΎΠ΄Π° Rist CDC), ΠΏΡ€Π²ΠΈ 5 Ρ€Π°Π½Π³ΠΈΡ€Π°Π½ΠΈ Π·ΠΎΠΎΠ½ΠΎΠ·ΠΈ сС: Π₯Π΅ΠΌΠΎΡ€Π°Π³ΠΈΡ‡Π½ΠΈ трСски со Π±ΡƒΠ±Ρ€Π΅ΠΆΠ΅Π½ синдром, Π›Π°Ρ˜ΡˆΠΌΠ°Π½ΠΈΡ˜Π°Π·Π°, Π’ΡƒΠ»Π°Ρ€Π΅ΠΌΠΈΡ˜Π°, Π‘Ρ€ΡƒΡ†Π΅Π»ΠΎΠ·Π° ΠΈ ЛистСриоза. Π‘ΠΎ ΠΏΡ€ΠΈΠΎΡ€ΠΈΡ‚ΠΈΠ·Π°Ρ†ΠΈΡ˜Π° спровСдСна ΠΎΠ΄ АΠ₯Π’ (ΠΌΠΎΠ΄ΠΈΡ„ΠΈΠΊΠ°Ρ†ΠΈΡ˜Π° Π½Π° ΠΊΠ²Π°Π½Ρ‚ΠΈΡ‚Π°Ρ‚ΠΈΠ²Π½ΠΈΠΎΡ‚ ΠΌΠ΅Ρ‚ΠΎΠ΄ΠΎΡ‚ Π½Π° OIE), ΠΏΡ€Π²ΠΈ 5 Ρ€Π°Π½Π³ΠΈΡ€Π°Π½ΠΈ Π·ΠΎΠΎΠ½ΠΎΠ·ΠΈ сС: Π±Ρ€ΡƒΡ†Π΅Π»ΠΎΠ·Π° кај Π³ΠΎΠ²Π΅Π΄Π°, Ρ‚ΡƒΠ±Π΅Ρ€ΠΊΡƒΠ»ΠΎΠ·Π° кај Π³ΠΎΠ²Π΅Π΄Π°, салмонСлоза, Π°Π²ΠΈΡ˜Π°Ρ€Π½Π° ΠΈΠ½Ρ„Π»ΡƒΠ΅Π½Π·Π° ΠΈ западнонилска трСска. Како ΠΊΠΎΠ½Ρ‚Ρ€ΠΎΠ»Π΅Π½ ΠΏΠ°Ρ€Π°ΠΌΠ΅Ρ‚Π°Ρ€ Π΅ Π·Π΅ΠΌΠ΅Π½ ΠΊΡƒΠΌΡƒΠ»Π°Ρ‚ΠΈΠ²Π½Π° годишна ΠΈΠ½Ρ†ΠΈΠ΄Π΅Π½Ρ†Π° (ΠšΠ“Π˜). ΠŸΡ€Π²ΠΈΡ‚Π΅ 5 Ρ€Π°Π½Π³ΠΈΡ€Π°Π½ΠΈ Π·ΠΎΠΎΠ½ΠΎΠ·ΠΈ согласно ΠšΠ“Π˜ сС: Π•Ρ…ΠΈΠ½ΠΎΠΊΠΎΠΊΠΎΠ·Π°, Π‘Ρ€ΡƒΡ†Π΅Π»ΠΎΠ·Π°, Π›Π°Ρ˜ΠΌΡΠΊΠ° трСска, Π›Π°Ρ˜ΡˆΠΌΠ°Π½ΠΈΡ˜Π°Π·Π° ΠΈ Π’ΡƒΠ»Π°Ρ€Π΅ΠΌΠΈΡ˜Π°. Π—Π°ΠΊΠ»ΡƒΡ‡ΠΎΡ†ΠΈ: Π‘ΠΏΠΎΡ€Π΅Π΄Π±Π΅Π½Π°Ρ‚Π° Π°Π½Π°Π»ΠΈΠ·Π° Π½Π° ΠΎΠ΄Π΄Π΅Π»Π½ΠΈΡ‚Π΅ листи Π½Π° ΠΏΡ€ΠΈΠΎΡ€ΠΈΡ‚Π΅Ρ‚Π½ΠΈ Π·ΠΎΠΎΠ½ΠΎΠ·ΠΈ Π·Π° Ρ…ΡƒΠΌΠ°Π½Π° ΠΈ Π²Π΅Ρ‚Π΅Ρ€ΠΈΠ½Π°Ρ€Π½Π° ΠΌΠ΅Π΄ΠΈΡ†ΠΈΠ½Π° ΠΏΠΎΠΊΠ°ΠΆΡƒΠ²Π° Π΄Π΅ΠΊΠ° само ΠΎΠ΄Ρ€Π΅Π΄Π΅Π½ΠΈ Π·ΠΎΠΎΠ½ΠΎΠ·ΠΈ сС ΠΏΡ€Π΅ΠΊΠ»ΠΎΠΏΡƒΠ²Π°Π°Ρ‚. Π˜ΡΡ‚ΠΎ Ρ‚Π°ΠΊΠ°, присуството Π½Π° Π³ΠΎΠ»Π΅ΠΌ Π±Ρ€ΠΎΡ˜ Π·ΠΎΠΎΠ½ΠΎΠ·ΠΈ со Π΅Π½Π΄Π΅ΠΌΠΈΡ‡Π΅Π½ ΠΊΠ°Ρ€Π°ΠΊΡ‚Π΅Ρ€, Π½ΠΎ ΠΈ ΠΏΠΎΠΈΠ·Ρ€Π°Π·Π΅Π½ Ρ€ΠΈΠ·ΠΈΠΊ ΠΎΠ΄ појава Π½Π° Π½ΠΎΠ²ΠΈ Π·Π°Π±ΠΎΠ»ΡƒΠ²Π°ΡšΠ°, ја ΠΎΠ΄Ρ€Π΅Π΄ΡƒΠ²Π° ΠΏΠΎΡ‚Ρ€Π΅Π±Π°Ρ‚Π° Π΄Π° сС ΠΎΠ±Π΅Π·Π±Π΅Π΄ΠΈ консСнзус Π·Π° ΠΌΠ΅Ρ‚ΠΎΠ΄ΠΎΠ»ΠΎΠ³ΠΈΡ˜Π°Ρ‚Π° Π½Π° ΠΏΡ€ΠΈΠΎΡ€ΠΈΡ‚ΠΈΠ·Π°Ρ†ΠΈΡ˜Π° Π½Π° Π·ΠΎΠΎΠ½ΠΎΠ·ΠΈ, ΠΊΠ°ΠΊΠΎ ΠΈ нСјзина Ρ„ΠΎΡ€ΠΌΠ°Π»ΠΈΠ·ΠΈΡ€Π°ΡšΠ΅ ΠΈ ΠΈΠ½ΡΡ‚ΠΈΡ‚ΡƒΡ†ΠΈΠΎΠ½Π°Π»ΠΈΠ·Π°Ρ†ΠΈΡ˜Π°, ΠΊΠ°ΠΊΠΎ ΠΊΠ»ΡƒΡ‡Π΅Π½ Ρ‡Π΅ΠΊΠΎΡ€ ΠΊΠΎΠ½ ΠΈΠ΄Π΅Π½Ρ‚ΠΈΡ„ΠΈΠΊΡƒΠ²Π°ΡšΠ΅ ΠΈ ΠΏΡ€ΠΈΠΎΡ€ΠΈΡ‚ΠΈΠ·ΠΈΡ€Π°ΡšΠ΅ Π½Π° Π·ΠΎΠΎΠ½ΠΎΠ·ΠΈ ΠΊΠΎΠΈ Π±ΠΈ Π±ΠΈΠ»Π΅ ΠΏΡ€Π΅Π΄ΠΌΠ΅Ρ‚ Π½Π° Π·Π°Π΅Π΄Π½ΠΈΡ‡ΠΊΠΈ ΠΏΡ€ΠΎΠ³Ρ€Π°ΠΌΠΈ ΠΈ ΠΈΠ½Ρ‚Π΅Ρ€Π²Π΅Π½Ρ†ΠΈΠΈ
    corecore