Immunity debt or vaccination crisis? A multi-method evidence on vaccine acceptance and media framing for emerging COVID-19 variants

Renewed COVID-19 outbreaks, stemming from the highly infectious Delta and Omicron variants, prompted rising fears of a ‘pandemic among the unvaccinated’. To address this prevalent vaccination crisis, media framing communication strategies can amplify the scientific evidence on COVID-19 vaccines to reach diverse geographic and socio-economic communities. The critical role of media framing strategies to engage and encourage large populations regarding vaccine acceptance has been rarely studied, despite growing evidence on vaccine hesitancy. The present study used a multi-method approach (i.e., content analysis and quasi-experiments) that unpacked the framing practices employed by the mainstream media in Pakistan. The findings of the content analysis revealed that the media extensively used uncertainty, conflict, consequences, and action rather than new evidence and reassurance frames in its COVID-19 related campaigns. In a series of quasi-experiments involving 720 participants, we manipulated these six frames of COVID-19 related news coverage (i.e., uncertainty, conflict, consequences, action, new evidence, and reassurance) to investigate the underlying mechanism that influences vaccine acceptance. The findings established that the message-consistent effects of media frames manifesting fear (e.g., consequence and uncertainty) and action cues made receivers more supportive of vaccination. The present study findings theoretically address the calls for a more inclusive “community-health reporting model”, besides offering new evidence on the media framing strategies to deliver more targeted, meaningful, and effective campaigns to raise public acceptance for COVID-19 vaccines.     

The role of payment and financing in achieving health equity

Objective

The aim was to identify healthcare payment and financing reforms to promote health equity and ways that the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) may promote those reforms.

Data Sources and Study Setting

AHRQ convened a payment and financing workgroup–the authors of this paper–as part of its Health Equity Summit held in July 2022. This workgroup drew from its collective experience with healthcare payment and financing reform, as well as feedback from participants in a session at the Health Equity Summit, to identify the evidence base and promising paths for reforms to promote health equity.

Study Design

The payment and financing workgroup developed an outline of reforms to promote health equity, presented the outline to participants in the payment and financing session of the July 2022 AHRQ Health Equity Summit, and integrated feedback from the participants.

Data Collection/Extraction Methods

This paper did not require novel data collection; the authors collected the data from the existing evidence base.

Principal Findings

The paper outlines root causes of health inequity and corresponding potential reforms in five domains: (1) the differential distribution of resources between healthcare providers serving different communities, (2) scarcity of financing for populations most in need, (3) lack of integration/accountability, (4) patient cost barriers to care, and (5) bias in provider behavior and diagnostic tools.

Conclusions

Additional research is necessary to determine whether the proposed reforms are effective in promoting health equity.     

医疗领域人工智能应用的研究进展＊

人工智能引发了医疗领域的数字革命，在推动行业发展方面具有极大潜力。本研究围绕临床诊疗、医学研究和公共卫生三个基本场景，聚焦人工智能与传统中医药的交叉与融合，并着重介绍人工智能在疾病诊断、决策支持、医学研究以及重大公共卫生事件中的应用。虽然人工智能在诸多方面显示出独特优势，但仍存在透明度不高、缺乏安全性评估和相关法律法规监管等问题需要谨慎解决，以促进人工智能技术在医疗领域的推广。     

TOPSIS法和秩和比法模糊联合在基本公共卫生服务质量综合评价中的应用研究

背景国家基本公共卫生服务项目的开展是我国新医改的重要举措，自2009年国家基本公共卫生服务项目开展后，其服务经费与服务项目不断扩增，由于涉及指标较多，覆盖面较广，探寻科学、客观、全面的基本公共卫生服务综合评价方法十分必要。目的探索适宜的基本公共卫生服务质量综合评价方法，通过质量评价为调整相关政策和提高服务质量提供依据。方法2019年2—4月，采用多阶段立意抽样方式从Z省南部、中部和北部地区共选取24家社区卫生服务中心（乡镇卫生院）作为评价对象，记为机构A~X。采用逼近理想解排序法（TOPSIS法）、秩和比法及二者模糊联合的方法对24家社区卫生服务中心（乡镇卫生院）2018年基层医疗卫生机构基本公共卫生服务质量进行综合评价（参考2018年国家基本公共卫生服务项目选取12项评价指标）。结果在TOPSIS法评价中，Ci值排名前三名的为A（0.917 4）、C（0.875 9）和G（0.787 9），Ci值排名后三名的为I（0.414 2）、W（0.413 7）和N（0.407 7）。在秩和比法评价中，RSR值排名前三名的为A（0.890 6）、G（0.765 6）和C（0.711 8），RSR值排名后三名的为V（0.381 9）、W（0.362 8）和K（0.357 6）。根据模糊集理论，将W1Ci+W2RSR值进行排序，依据"择多原则"，排名前三名的分别为A、C和G，排名后三名的分别为I、K和W，这与TOPSIS法和秩和比法的评价结果基本一致。结论TOPSIS法和秩和比法模糊联合得到的评价结果及影响因素与其他研究结果相一致，并且两者联用能克服单一使用TOPSIS法或秩和比法的局限性，适宜在基本公共卫生服务质量评价中推广应用。     

基于电生理信号的生物医学工程专业课程体系建设

生理电信号作为生物医学工程中的重要信号,其中蕴含了丰富的人体信息。该研究以生理电信号为主线,通过对其信号的学习、获取、分析、处理将生物医学工程的专业课串联起来,使学生将专业知识和实际仪器设计分析结合起来,能较为全面的掌握信号与系统方面的知识,加强学生的实际分析和解决医学问题的能力。     

以就业为导向的脊柱相关疾病的推拿教学策略

目的培养脊柱及相关疾病推拿治疗的应用型人才。方法采用编写应用型教材、把教室转移到诊室和示教室、教材-案例“逼真”教学法、创造学生在临床真实环境下的动手操作机会和产-学-研相结合教学法等手段和方法,在内容改革上纳入目前医院和社会机构多使用的规划教材之外的手法技术、现代康复技术和世界各地的脊柱手法技术,拓宽知识面,与临床应用接轨;发挥考试的导向功能,通过改革考试和评价方法,切实培养应用型人才。结果教学效果良好,有效提升了学生临床适应能力和社会生存能力。结论以就业为导向的脊柱及相关疾病的推拿教学模式值得进一步探索。     

Quality indicators for breast cancer care: A systematic review

ObjectivesWe evaluated breast cancer (BC) care quality indicators (QIs) in clinical pathways and integrated health care processes.MethodsFollowing protocol registration (Prospero n^o: CRD42021228867), relevant documents were identified, without language restrictions, through a systematic search of bibliographic databases (EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science, MEDLINE), health care valuable representatives and the World Wide Web in April 2021. Data concerning QIs, measurement tools and compliance standards were extracted from European and North American sources in duplicate with 98% reviewer agreement.ResultsThere were 89 QIs found from 22 selected documents (QI per document mean 13.5 with standard deviation 11.9). The Belgian (38 QIs) and the EUSOMA (European Society of Breast Cancer Specialists) (34 QIs) documents were the ones that best reported the QIs. No identical QI was identified in all the documents analysed. There were 67/89 QIs covering processes (75.3%) and 11/89 (12.4%) for each structure and outcomes QIs. There were 21/89 QIs for diagnosis (30.3%), 43/89 for treatment (48.3%), and 19/89 for staging, counselling, follow-up and rehabilitation (21.4%). Of 67 process QIs and 11 outcome QIs, 20/78 (26%) did not report a minimum standard of care. Shared decision making was only included as a QI in the Italian document.ConclusionMore than half of countries have not established a national clinical pathway or integrated breast cancer care process to achieve the excellence of BC care. There was heterogeneity in QIs for the evaluation of BC care quality. Over two-thirds of the clinical pathways and integrated health care processes did not provide a minimum auditable standard of care for compliance, leaving open the definition of best practice. There is a need for harmonisation of BC care QIs.