中国卫生应急管理体系建设调查分析

  目的  比较分析中国一线城市卫生应急管理评估体系。  方法  全面检索中国知网（CNKI）、万方数据知识服务平台(WANFANG DATA)和维普数据库（VIP））,限定从建库的1988年1月 — 2019年3月,制定纳入、排除标准,采用框架整合法,从卫生应急管理主体分类角度出发,对中国一线城市的卫生应急管理评估体系进行整合。  结果  纳入6篇研究,以政府和卫生行政部门、疾病预防控制机构、医疗卫生机构、卫生监督机构为卫生应急管理主体,共性指标分别为8、10、4和5项。个性指标更为细致化。  结论  共性指标统一性和引领性仍需加强,个性指标兼容性和关联性有待完善,应用性和推广性还需提高。另外,中国卫生应急管理评估体系多为“结果”式评估,“过程”式的评估体系和作用机制的探索还有极大的研究空间。     

The impact of vouchers on the use and quality of health care in developing countries: A systematic review

Abstract

One approach to delivering healthcare in developing countries is through voucher programmes, where vouchers are distributed to a targeted population for free or subsidised health care. Using inclusion/exclusion criteria, a search of databases, key journals and websites review was conducted in October 2010. A narrative synthesis approach was taken to summarise and analyse five outcome categories: targeting, utilisation, cost efficiency, quality and health outcomes. Sub-group and sensitivity analyses were also performed. A total of 24 studies evaluating 16 health voucher programmes were identified. The findings from 64 outcome variables indicates: modest evidence that vouchers effectively target specific populations; insufficient evidence to determine whether vouchers deliver healthcare efficiently; robust evidence that vouchers increase utilisation; modest evidence that vouchers improve quality; no evidence that vouchers have an impact on health outcomes; however, this last conclusion was found to be unstable in a sensitivity analysis. The results in the areas of targeting, utilisation and quality indicate that vouchers have a positive effect on health service delivery. The subsequent link that they improve health was found to be unstable from the data analysed; another finding of a positive effect would result in robust evidence. Vouchers are still new and the number of published studies is limiting.     

Community-based health insurance and access to maternal health services: evidence from three West African countries

Community-based health insurance (CBHI) has been incorporated into the health financing strategies of governments and communities in several Sub-Saharan African countries. Despite the support for and proliferation of CBHI schemes in this region, empirical evidence on how CBHI impacts access to health care, particularly maternal health services, is very limited. We use recent household surveys in three West African countries--Senegal, Mali, and Ghana--to examine the relationship between CBHI membership and access to formal sector maternal health care. We find that membership in a CBHI scheme is positively associated with the use of maternal health services, particularly in areas where utilization rates are very low and for more expensive delivery-related care. Our findings suggest, however, that membership in a CBHI scheme is not sufficient to influence maternal health behaviors - it is the inclusion of maternal health care in the benefits package that makes a difference. While many questions remain about CBHI, this study provides preliminary evidence suggesting that CBHI is a potential demand-side mechanism to increase maternal health care access. However, complementary supply-side interventions to improve quality of and geographic access to health care are also critical for improving health outcomes in this region.     

Multi-sectoral health promotion and public health: the role of evidence

BACKGROUND: Evidence-informed health promotion and public health is an emerging and ever-changing theme in research and practice. A collaborative approach to gathering and applying evidence is crucial to implementing effective multi-sectoral health promotion and public health interventions for improved population outcomes. This paper presents an argument for the development of multi-sector evidence and discusses both facilitators and challenges to this process. METHODS: Sector-specific contacts familiar with decision-making processes were selected from referrals gained through academic, government and non-government networks and interviewed (in-person or via telephone) as part of a small scale study to scope the use of evidence within non-health sectors where decisions are likely to impact on public health. RESULTS: The views gathered are preliminary, and this analysis would benefit from more extensive consultation. Nonetheless, information gathered from the interviews and literature search provide valuable insights into evidence-related decision-making paradigms which demonstrate similarities with, and differences from, those found in the health sector. CONCLUSIONS: Decisions in health promotion and public may benefit from consideration of the ways in which disciplines and sectors can work together to inform policy and practice.     

Appraising evidence on community integration following brain injury: a systematic review

A systematic review of the community integration (CI) literature for persons with traumatic brain injury was undertaken to evaluate: (1) How do we best measure CI? (2) Can we predict CI following rehabilitation? (3) Does social and activity participation have an effect on CI? (4) Does CI have an effect on quality of life/life satisfaction? Seventy‐two articles were analysed. The results demonstrated: (1) strong evidence supporting the use of the Community Integration Questionnaire (CIQ), (2) mixed evidence supporting the ability to predict CI, with the prominent predictive variables being severity of injury, age, gender, education, prior work, living environment, cognition, emotional status, functional performance and disability. The literature search was restricted to articles published in English and the heterogeneity in the outcomes, methods, participants and other characteristics not reported. Further research is needed to examine the complex relationship of person, environment and CI. Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Prioritizing research needs based on a systematic evidence review: a pilot process for engaging stakeholders

Background/context Systematic evidence reviews (SERs) identify knowledge gaps in the literature, a logical starting place for prioritizing future research. Varied methods have been used to elicit diverse stakeholders’ input in such prioritization. Objective To pilot a simple, easily replicable process for simultaneously soliciting consumer, clinician and researcher input in the identification of research priorities, based on the results of the 2009 SER on screening adults for depression in primary care. Methods We recruited 20 clinicians, clinic staff, researchers and patient advocates to participate in a half‐day event in October 2009. We presented SER research methods and the results of the 2009 SER. Participants took part in focus groups, organized by profession; broad themes from these groups were then prioritized in a formal exercise. The focus group content was also subsequently analysed for specific themes. Results Focus group themes generally reacted to the evidence presented; few were articulated as research questions. Themes included the need for resources to respond to positive depression screens, the impact of depression screening on delivery systems, concerns that screening tools do not address comorbid or situational causes of depression and a perceived ‘disconnect’ between screening and treatment. The two highest‐priority themes were the system effects of screening for depression and whether depression screening effectively leads to improved treatment. Conclusion We successfully piloted a simple, half‐day, easily replicable multi‐stakeholder engagement process based on the results of a recent SER. We recommend a number of potential improvements in future endeavours to replicate this process.     

Estimating health insurance impacts under unobserved heterogeneity: the case of Vietnam's health care fund for the poor

Vietnam's health care fund for the poor (HCFP) uses government revenues to finance health care for the poor, ethnic minorities living in selected mountainous provinces, and all households living in communes officially designated as highly disadvantaged. As of 2006, the program, which started in 2003, covered around 60% of those eligible. Those who were covered (about 20% of the population) were disproportionately poor, and around 80% of those covered were eligible. Estimates of the program's impact were obtained using a method that takes into account unobserved heterogeneity – including unobserved idiosyncratic returns – but requires minimal assumptions. The downside is that it provides an estimate only of the program's impact on those covered by it; it cannot therefore answer the question of how those currently uncovered will fare when they are eventually covered. The results suggest that HCFP has had no impact on use of services, but has substantially reduced out‐of‐pocket spending. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.