Journal of evaluation in clinical practice
-
Prescribed opioids are major contributors to the international public health opioid crisis. Such widespread iatrogenic harms usually result from collective decision failures of healthcare organizations rather than solely of individual organizations or professionals. Findings from a system-wide safety analysis of the iatrogenic opioid crisis that includes roles of pertinent healthcare organizations may help avoid or mitigate similar future iatrogenic consequences. In this retrospective exploratory study, we report such an analysis. ⋯ The iatrogenic crisis has multiple intricately linked roots. The major catalyst: pervasive pharma-linked financial conflicts of interest (CoIs) involving most other healthcare organizations. These extensive financial CoIs were likely triggers for a cascade of erroneous decisions and actions that adversely affected patients. The actions and decisions of pharma ranged from unethical to illegal. The iatrogenic opioid crisis may exemplify 'institutional corruption of pharmaceuticals'.
-
Universal health care (UHC) is primarily a financing concern, whereas primary health care (PHC) is primarily concerned with providing the right care at the right time to achieve the best possible health outcomes for individuals and communities. A recent call for contributions by the WHO emphasized that UHC can only be achieved through PHC, and that to achieve this goal will require the strengthening of the three pillars of PHC - (a) enabling primary care and public health to integrate health services, (b) empowering people and communities to create healthy living conditions, and (c) integrating multisectoral policy decisions to ensure UHC that achieves the goal of "health for all." "Pillars" - as a static metaphor - sends the wrong signal to the research and policy-making community. ⋯ Health systems are socially constructed organizational systems that are "functionally layered" in a hierarchical fashion - governments and/or funders at the top-level not only promote the goals of the system (policies) but also constrain the system (rules, regulations, resources) in its ability to deliver. Hence, there is a need to focus on two key system features - political leadership and dynamic bottom-up agency that maintains everyone's focus on the goal to be achieved, and a limitation of system constraints so that communities can shape best adapted primary care services that truly meet the needs of their individuals, families, and community.
-
The health care delivery model in the United States does not work; it perpetuates unequal access to care, favours treatment over prevention, and contributes to persistent health disparities and lack of insurance. The vast majority of those who suffer from preventable diseases and health disparities, and who are at greatest risk of not having insurance, are low-income minorities (Native Americans, Hispanics, and African-Americans) who live in high risk and vulnerable communities. The historical lack of support in the United States for Universal Health Care (UHC) and Primary Health Care (PHC)-with their emphasis on health care for all, population health, and social determinants of health-requires community health scientists to develop innovative local solutions for addressing unmet community health needs. ⋯ Our community health science approach demonstrates that the factors contributing to health can only be addressed by working directly with and in affected communities to co-develop health care solutions across the broad range of causal factors. As the United States begins to consider expanding health care options consistent with PHC and UHC principles, our community health science experience provides useful lessons in how to engage communities to address the deficits of the current system. Perhaps the greatest assets US health care systems have for better addressing population health and the social determinants of health are the important health-related initiatives already underway in most local communities. Building partnerships based on local resources and ongoing social determinants of health initiatives is the key for medicine to meaningfully engage communities for improving health outcomes and reducing health disparities. This has been the greatest lesson we have learned the past two decades, has provided the foundation for our community health science approach, and accounts for whatever success we have achieved.
-
Meta Analysis
Methodological assessment of systematic reviews and meta-analyses on COVID-19: A meta-epidemiological study.
COVID-19 has caused an ongoing public health crisis. Many systematic reviews and meta-analyses have been performed to synthesize evidence for better understanding this new disease. However, some concerns have been raised about rapid COVID-19 research. This meta-epidemiological study aims to methodologically assess the current systematic reviews and meta-analyses on COVID-19. ⋯ The current systematic reviews and meta-analyses on COVID-19 might suffer from low transparency, high heterogeneity, and suboptimal statistical methods. It is recommended that future systematic reviews on COVID-19 strictly follow well-developed guidelines. Sensitivity analyses may be performed to examine how the synthesized evidence might depend on different methods for appraising evidence, assessing publication bias, and implementing meta-analysis models.