| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
- Dieleman, J., et al.
(författare)
-
Evolution and patterns of global health financing 1995-2014 : Development assistance for health, and government, prepaid private, and out-of-pocket health spending in 184 countries
- 2017
-
Ingår i: The Lancet. - : Lancet Publishing Group. - 0140-6736 .- 1474-547X. ; 389:10083, s. 1981-2004
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: An adequate amount of prepaid resources for health is important to ensure access to health services and for the pursuit of universal health coverage. Previous studies on global health financing have described the relationship between economic development and health financing. In this study, we further explore global health financing trends and examine how the sources of funds used, types of services purchased, and development assistance for health disbursed change with economic development. We also identify countries that deviate from the trends. Methods: We estimated national health spending by type of care and by source, including development assistance for health, based on a diverse set of data including programme reports, budget data, national estimates, and 964 National Health Accounts. These data represent health spending for 184 countries from 1995 through 2014. We converted these data into a common inflation-adjusted and purchasing power-adjusted currency, and used non-linear regression methods to model the relationship between health financing, time, and economic development. Findings: Between 1995 and 2014, economic development was positively associated with total health spending and a shift away from a reliance on development assistance and out-of-pocket (OOP) towards government spending. The largest absolute increase in spending was in high-income countries, which increased to purchasing power-adjusted $5221 per capita based on an annual growth rate of 3.0%. The largest health spending growth rates were in upper-middle-income (5.9) and lower-middle-income groups (5.0), which both increased spending at more than 5% per year, and spent $914 and $267 per capita in 2014, respectively. Spending in low-income countries grew nearly as fast, at 4.6%, and health spending increased from $51 to $120 per capita. In 2014, 59.2% of all health spending was financed by the government, although in low-income and lower-middle-income countries, 29.1% and 58.0% of spending was OOP spending and 35.7% and 3.0% of spending was development assistance. Recent growth in development assistance for health has been tepid; between 2010 and 2016, it grew annually at 1.8%, and reached US$37.6 billion in 2016. Nonetheless, there is a great deal of variation revolving around these averages. 29 countries spend at least 50% more than expected per capita, based on their level of economic development alone, whereas 11 countries spend less than 50% their expected amount. Interpretation: Health spending remains disparate, with low-income and lower-middle-income countries increasing spending in absolute terms the least, and relying heavily on OOP spending and development assistance. Moreover, tremendous variation shows that neither time nor economic development guarantee adequate prepaid health resources, which are vital for the pursuit of universal health coverage. © The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.
|
|
| 5. |
- Abbafati, Cristiana, et al.
(författare)
-
- 2020
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
| 7. |
- Saulnier, DD, et al.
(författare)
-
A health systems resilience research agenda: moving from concept to practice
- 2021
-
Ingår i: BMJ global health. - : BMJ. - 2059-7908. ; 6:8
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Health system resilience, known as the ability for health systems to absorb, adapt or transform to maintain essential functions when stressed or shocked, has quickly gained popularity following shocks like COVID-19. The concept is relatively new in health policy and systems research and the existing research remains mostly theoretical. Research to date has viewed resilience as an outcome that can be measured through performance outcomes, as an ability of complex adaptive systems that is derived from dynamic behaviour and interactions, or as both. However, there is little congruence on the theory and the existing frameworks have not been widely used, which as diluted the research applications for health system resilience. A global group of health system researchers were convened in March 2021 to discuss and identify priorities for health system resilience research and implementation based on lessons from COVID-19 and other health emergencies. Five research priority areas were identified: (1) measuring and managing systems dynamic performance, (2) the linkages between societal resilience and health system resilience, (3) the effect of governance on the capacity for resilience, (4) creating legitimacy and (5) the influence of the private sector on health system resilience. A key to filling these research gaps will be longitudinal and comparative case studies that use cocreation and coproduction approaches that go beyond researchers to include policy-makers, practitioners and the public.
|
|
| 8. |
- Saulnier, Dell, et al.
(författare)
-
Re-evaluating Our Knowledge of Health System Resilience During COVID-19: Lessons From the First Two Years of the Pandemic
- 2023
-
Ingår i: International journal of health policy and management. - : Maad Rayan Publishing Company. - 2322-5939. ; 12:1, s. 6659-
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: Health challenges like coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are becoming increasingly complex, transnational, and unpredictable. Studying health system responses to the COVID-19 pandemic is an opportunity to enhance our understanding of health system resilience and establish a clearer link between theoretical concepts and practical ideas on how to build resilience. Methods: This narrative literature review aims to address four questions using a health system resilience framework: (i) What do we understand about the dimensions of resilience? (ii) What aspects of the resilience dimensions remain uncertain? (iii) What aspects of the resilience dimensions are missing from the COVID-19 discussions? and (iv) What has COVID-19 taught us about resilience that is missing from the framework? A scientific literature database search was conducted in December 2020 and in April 2022 to identify publications that discussed health system resilience in relation to COVID-19, excluding articles on psychological and other types of resilience. A total of 63 publications were included. Results: There is good understanding around information sharing, flexibility and good leadership, learning, maintaining essential services, and the need for legitimate, interdependent systems. Decision-making, localized trust, influences on interdependence, and transformation remain uncertain. Vertical interdependence, monitoring risks beyond the health system, and consequences of changes on the system were not discussed. Teamwork, actor legitimacy, values, inclusivity, trans-sectoral resilience, and the role of the private sector are identified as lessons from COVID-19 that should be further explored for health system resilience. Conclusion: Knowledge of health system resilience has continued to cohere following the pandemic. The eventual consequences of system changes and the resilience of subsystems are underexplored. Through governance, the concept of health system resilience can be linked to wider issues raised by the pandemic, like inclusivity. Our findings show the utility of resilience theory for strengthening health systems for crises and the benefit of continuing to refine existing resilience theory.
|
|
| 9. |
|
|
