Explore the vast range of titles available.

ObjectiveThe 2016 Global Strategy on Human Resources for Health: Workforce 2030 projected a global shortage of 18 million health workers by 2030. This article provides an assessment of the health workforce stock in 2020 and presents a revised estimate of the projected shortage by 2030.MethodsLatest data reported through WHO’s National Health Workforce Accounts (NHWA) were extracted to assess health workforce stock for 2020. Using a stock and flow model, projections were computed for the year 2030. The global health workforce shortage estimation was revised.ResultsIn 2020, the global workforce stock was 29.1 million nurses, 12.7 million medical doctors, 3.7 million pharmacists, 2.5 million dentists, 2.2 million midwives and 14.9 million additional occupations, tallying to 65.1 million health workers. It was not equitably distributed with a 6.5-fold difference in density between high-income and low-income countries. The projected health workforce size by 2030 is 84 million health workers. This represents an average growth of 29% from 2020 to 2030 which is faster than the population growth rate (9.7%). This reassessment presents a revised global health workforce shortage of 15 million health workers in 2020 decreasing to 10 million health workers by 2030 (a 33% decrease globally). WHO African and Eastern Mediterranean regions’ shortages are projected to decrease by only 7% and 15%, respectively.ConclusionsThe latest NHWA data show progress in the increasing size of the health workforce globally as more jobs are and will continue to be created in the health economy. It however masks considerable inequities, particularly in WHO African and Eastern Mediterranean regions, and alarmingly among the 47 countries on the WHO Support and Safeguards List. Progress should be acknowledged with caution considering the immeasurable impact of COVID-19 pandemic on health workers globally.

Aims A systematic review was conducted of randomized trials which evaluated the impact of physical activity on the change in fasting glucose and HbA1c. Methods A literature search was conducted in PubMed until December 2015. Studies reporting glucose or HbA1c at baseline and at the end of study were included, and the change and its variance were estimated from studies with complete data. Mixed-effect random models were used to estimate the change of fasting glucose (mg/dl) and HbA1c (%) per additional minutes of physical activity per week. Results A total of 125 studies were included in the meta-analysis. Based on 105 studies, an increase of 100 min in physical activity per week was associated with an average change of −2.75 mg/dl of fasting glucose (95% CI −3.96; −1.55), although there was a high degree of heterogeneity (83.5%). When restricting the analysis on type 2 diabetes and prediabetes subjects (56 studies), the average change in fasting glucose was −4.71 mg/dl (95% CI −7.42; −2.01). For HbA1c, among 76 studies included, an increase of 100 min in physical activity per week was associated with an average change of −0.14% of HbA1c (95% CI −0.18; −0.09) with heterogeneity (73%). A large degree of publication bias was identified (Egger test p  < 0.001). When restricting the analysis on type 2 diabetes and prediabetes subjects (60 studies), the average change in HbA1c was −0.16% (95% CI −0.21; −0.11). Conclusions This analysis demonstrates that moderate increases in physical activity are associated with significant reductions in both fasting glucose and HbA1c.

There is increasing global recognition that national cancer plans are crucial to effectively address the cancer burden and to prioritise and coordinate programmes. We did a global analysis of available national cancer-related health plans using a standardised assessment questionnaire to assess their inclusion of elements that characterise an effective cancer plan and, thereby, improve understanding of the strengths and limitations of existing plans. The results show progress in the development of cancer plans, as well as in the inclusion of stakeholders in plan development, but little evidence of their implementation. Areas of continued unmet need include setting of realistic priorities, specification of programmes for cancer management, allocation of appropriate budgets, monitoring and evaluation of plan implementation, promotion of research, and strengthening of information systems. We found that countries with a non-communicable disease (NCD) plan but no national cancer control plan (NCCP) were less likely than countries with an NCCP and NCP plan or an NCCP only to have comprehensive, coherent, or consistent plans. As countries move towards universal health coverage, greater emphasis is needed on developing NCCPs that are evidence based, financed, and implemented to ensure translation into action.

Background Nursing personnel are critical for enabling access to health service in primary health care. However, the State of the World’s Nursing 2020 report showed important inequalities in nurse availability between countries. Methods The purpose of this study/analysis was to describe the differences in nurse-to-population density in 58 countries from six regional areas and the relationship between differences in access to nurses and other indicators of health equity. Results All countries and income groups showed subnational inequalities in the distribution of nursing personnel with Gini coefficients ranging from 1 to 39. The latter indicated situation such as 13% of the population having access to 45% of nurses in a country. The average max-to-min ratio was on average of 11-fold. In our sample, the African region had the highest level of subnational inequalities with the average Gini coefficient of 19.6. The European Region had the lowest level of within-country inequalities with the average Gini coefficient being 5.6. A multivariate analysis showed a clustering of countries in three groups: (1) high Gini coefficients comprised mainly African countries; (2) moderate Gini coefficients comprised mainly South-East Asian, Central and South American countries; (3) low Gini coefficients comprised mainly Western countries, Japan, and Korea. The analysis also showed that inequality in distribution of nurses was correlated with other indices of health and inequality such as the Human Development Index, maternal mortality, and life expectancy. Conclusions This study showed that there is a high level of geographic inequality in the distribution of nurses at subnational level. Inequalities in nursing distribution are multifactorial, to improve access to nurses, policies should be bundled, tailored to the local context and tackle the various root causes for inequalities.

Radiotherapy is used for cure or palliation in around half of patients with cancer. We analysed data on radiotherapy equipment in 33 European countries registered in the Directory of Radiotherapy Centres (DIRAC) database, managed by the International Atomic Energy Agency. As of July, 2012, Europe had 1286 active radiotherapy centres. The average number of teletherapy machines per radiotherapy centre ranged from 1·2 to 7·0 in different countries. Nordic countries, the UK, the Netherlands, and Slovenia all have large centres with four to ten teletherapy machines. Most western and southern European countries have several small centres with one or two machines, with few larger centres. The fragmentation in radiotherapy services that prevails in many European countries might affect the economic burden of radiotherapy and its quality. Eastern and southeastern European countries need to expand and modernise their radiotherapy equipment.

Background Health and care workers (HCW) faced the double burden of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic: as members of a society affected by a public health emergency and as HWC who experienced fear of becoming infected and of infecting others, stigma, violence, increased workloads, changes in scope of practice, among others. To understand the short and long-term impacts in terms of the COVID-19 pandemic and other public health emergencies of international concern (PHEICs) on HCW and relevant interventions to address them, we designed and conducted a living systematic review (LSR). Methods We reviewed literature retrieved from MEDLINE—PubMed, Embase, SCOPUS, LILACS, the World Health Organization COVID-19 database, the ClinicalTrials.org and the ILO database, published from January 2000 until December 2021. We included quantitative observational studies, experimental studies, quasi-experimental, mixed methods or qualitative studies; addressing mental, physical health and well-being and quality of life. The review targeted HCW; and interventions and exposures, implemented during the COVID-19 pandemic or other PHEICs. To assess the risk of bias of included studies, we used the Johanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Critical Appraisal Tools. Data were qualitatively synthetized using meta-aggregation and meta-analysis was performed to estimate pooled prevalence of some of the outcomes. Results The 1013 studies included in the review were mainly quantitative research, cross-sectional, with medium risk of bias/quality, addressing at least one of the following: mental health issue, violence, physical health and well-being, and quality of life. Additionally, interventions to address short- and long-term impact of PHEICs on HCW included in the review, although scarce, were mainly behavioral and individual oriented, aimed at improving mental health through the development of individual interventions. A lack of interventions addressing organizational or systemic bottlenecks was noted. Discussion PHEICs impacted the mental and physical health of HCW with the greatest toll on mental health. The impact PHEICs are intricate and complex. The review revealed the consequences for health and care service delivery, with increased unplanned absenteeism, service disruption and occupation turnover that subvert the capacity to answer to the PHEICs, specifically challenging the resilience of health systems.

Background Smoking is by far the most important cause of cancer that can be modified at the individual level. Cancer incidence and mortality rates in Korea are the highest among all Asian countries, and smoking prevalence in Korean men is one of the highest in developed countries. The purpose of the current study was to perform a systematic review and provide an evidence-based assessment of the burden of tobacco smoking-related cancers in the Korean population. Methods Sex- and cancer-specific population-attributable fractions (PAF) were estimated using the prevalence of ever-smoking and second-hand smoking in 1989 among Korean adults, respectively, and the relative risks were estimated from the meta-analysis of studies performed in the Korean population for ever-smoking and in the Asian population for passive smoking. National cancer incidence data from the Korea Central Cancer Registry and national cancer mortality data from Statistics Korea for the year 2009 were used to estimate the cancer cases and deaths attributable to tobacco smoking. Results Tobacco smoking was responsible for 20,239 (20.9%) cancer incident cases and 14,377 (32.9%) cancer deaths among adult men and 1,930 (2.1%) cancer incident cases and 1,351 (5.2%) cancer deaths among adult women in 2009 in Korea. In men, 71% of lung cancer deaths, 55%–72% of upper aerodigestive tract (oral cavity, pharynx, esophagus and larynx) cancer deaths, 23% of liver, 32% of stomach, 27% of pancreas, 7% of kidney and 45% of bladder cancer deaths were attributable to tobacco smoking. In women the proportion of ever-smoking-attributable lung cancer was 8.1%, while that attributable to second-hand smoking among non-smoking women was 20.5%. Conclusions Approximately one in three cancer deaths would be potentially preventable through appropriate control of tobacco smoking in Korean men at the population level and individual level. For Korean women, more lung cancer cases and deaths were attributable to second-hand than ever-smoking. Effective control programs against tobacco smoking should be further developed and implemented in Korea to reduce the smoking-related cancer burden.

Background The primary aim of this study is to assess stakeholders’ views of the acceptability and feasibility of policy options and outcome indicators presented in the 2010 World Health Organization (WHO) global policy recommendations on increasing access to health workers in remote and rural areas through improved retention. Methods A survey on the acceptability, feasibility of recruitment and retention policy options, and the importance of their outcome indicators was developed. It followed a cross-sectional approach targeting health workers in rural and remote settings as well as policy- and decision-makers involved in the development of recruitment and retention policies for such areas. Respondents were asked their perception of the importance of the policy outcomes of interest, as well as the acceptability and feasibility of the 2010 WHO guidelines’ policy options using a 9-point Likert scale. Results In total, 336 participants completed the survey. Almost a third worked in government; most participants worked in community settings and were involved in the administration and management of rural health workers. Almost all 19 outcomes of interests assessed were valued as important or critical. For the 16 guideline policy options, most were perceived to be \"definitely acceptable\" and \"definitely feasible\", although the policy options were generally considered to be more acceptable than feasible. Conclusion The findings of this study provide insight into the revision and update of the 2010 WHO guideline on increasing access to health workers in remote and rural areas. Stakeholders’ views of the acceptability, feasibility of policy options and the importance of outcomes of interest are important for the development of relevant and effective policies to improve access to health workers in rural and remote areas.

Background Health and care workers (HCWs) are at the forefront of COVID-19 response, at high risk of infection, and as a result they are a priority group for COVID-19 vaccination. This paper presents the global patterns in COVID-19 vaccination coverage among HCWs in 2021, how HCWs were prioritized, and identifies factors associated with the early vaccination coverage. Methods Using monthly data reported to the World Health Organization, the percentages of partially and fully vaccinated HCWs were computed. The rates of vaccination of HCWs for the first and second half of 2021 were compared in a stratified analysis using several factors. A multivariate analysis was used to investigate the independent associations of these factors with the percentage of HCWs fully vaccinated. Results Based on data from 139 Member States, as of end of 2021, 82% HCWs were reported as fully vaccinated with important variations by income groups: 33% for low income countries, 83% for lower-middle income countries, 79% for upper-middle income countries and 88% for high income countries. Overall 76% of countries did not achieve 70% vaccination coverage of their HCWs in the first half of 2021, and 38% of countries by end of 2021. Compared with the general population, the rate of HCWs full vaccination was 3.5 times higher, in particular for low income countries (RR = 5.9). Stratified analysis showed that beyond income group, the availability of vaccine doses was a critical factor of HCWs vaccination coverage with medians of 59.1% and 88.6% coverage in the first and second half of 2021, respectively for countries with enough doses to cover 70% of their population, compared with 0.8% and 47.5% coverage, respectively for countries with doses to cover 40% of their population. The multivariate analysis confirmed this observation with a 35.9% overall difference (95%CI 15.1%; 56.9%) between these two groups. Conclusion Despite being considered a priority group, more than a third of countries did not achieve 70% vaccination coverage of their HCWs at the end of 2021. Large inequities were observed with low income countries lagging behind. Additional efforts should be dedicated to ensure full protection of HCWs through vaccination.

Incidence-based mortality modelling comparing the risk of breast cancer death in screened and unscreened women in nine Swedish counties has suggested a 39% risk reduction in women 40 to 69 years old after introduction of mammography screening in the 1980s and 1990s. We evaluated changes in breast cancer mortality in the same nine Swedish counties using a model approach based on official Swedish breast cancer mortality statistics, robust to effects of over-diagnosis and treatment changes. Using mortality data from the NordCan database from 1974 until 2003, we estimated the change in breast cancer mortality before and after introduction of mammography screening in at least the 13 years that followed screening start. Breast mortality decreased by 16% (95% CI: 9 to 22%) in women 40 to 69, and by 11% (95% CI: 2 to 20%) in women 40 to 79 years of age. Without individual data it is impossible to completely separate the effects of improved treatment and health service organisation from that of screening, which would bias our results in favour of screening. There will also be some contamination of post-screening mortality from breast cancer diagnosed prior to screening, beyond our attempts to adjust for delayed benefit. This would bias against screening. However, our estimates from publicly available data suggest considerably lower benefits than estimates based on comparison of screened versus non-screened women.