Explore the vast range of titles available.

Despite an increasing incidence of acute kidney injury in both high-income and low-income countries and growing insight into the causes and mechanisms of disease, few preventive and therapeutic options exist. Even small acute changes in kidney function can result in short-term and long-term complications, including chronic kidney disease, end-stage renal disease, and death. Presence of more than one comorbidity results in high severity of illness scores in all medical settings. Development or progression of chronic kidney disease after one or more episode of acute kidney injury could have striking socioeconomic and public health outcomes for all countries. Concerted international action encompassing many medical disciplines is needed to aid early recognition and management of acute kidney injury.

Access to healthcare is inequitably distributed across different socioeconomic groups. Several vulnerable groups experience barriers in accessing healthcare, compared to their more wealthier counterparts. In response to this, many countries use resources to strengthen their primary care (PC) system, because in many European countries PC is the first entry-point to the healthcare system and plays a central role in the coordination of patients through the healthcare system. However it is unclear whether this strengthening of PC leads to less inequity in access to the whole healthcare system. This study investigates the association between strength indicators of PC and inequity in unmet need by merging data from the European Union Statistics on Income and Living Conditions database (2013) and the Primary Healthcare Activity Monitor for Europe (2010). The analyses reveal a significant association between the Gini coefficient for income inequality and inequity in unmet need. When the Gini coefficient of a country is one SD higher, the social inequity in unmet need in that particular country will be 4.960 higher. Furthermore, the accessibility and the workforce development of a country's PC system is inverse associated with the social inequity of unmet need. More specifically, when the access- and workforce development indicator of a country PC system are one standard deviation higher, the inequity in unmet healthcare needs are respectively 2.200 and 4.951 lower. Therefore, policymakers should focus on reducing income inequality to tackle inequity in access, and strengthen PC (by increasing accessibility and better-developing its workforce) as this can influence inequity in unmet need.

The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted embedded inequities and fragmentation in our health systems. Traditionally, structural issues with health professional education perpetuate these. COVID-19 has highlighted inequities, but may also be a disruptor, allowing positive responses and system redesign. Examples from health professional schools in high and low- and middle-income countries illustrate pro-equity interventions of current relevance. We recommend that health professional schools and planners consider educational redesign to produce a health workforce well equipped to respond to pandemics and meet future need.

China has substantially increased financial investment and introduced favourable policies for strengthening its primary health care system with core responsibilities in preventing and managing chronic diseases such as hypertension and emerging infectious diseases such as coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, widespread gaps in the quality of primary health care still exist. In this Review, we aim to identify the causes for this poor quality, and provide policy recommendations. System challenges include: the suboptimal education and training of primary health-care practitioners, a fee-for-service payment system that incentivises testing and treatments over prevention, fragmentation of clinical care and public health service, and insufficient continuity of care throughout the entire health-care system. The following recommendations merit consideration: (1) enhancement of the quality of training for primary health-care physicians, (2) establishment of performance accountability to incentivise high-quality and high-value care; (3) integration of clinical care with the basic public health services, and (4) strengthening of the coordination between primary health-care institutions and hospitals. Additionally, China should consider modernising its primary health-care system through the establishment of a learning health system built on digital data and innovative technologies.

[...]it has correctly been labeled by Richard Horton as a ‘syndemic’ (Horton, 2020). According to OECD Health Statistics 2018, 22 OECD countries spent on the average 13.6 % of their total health expenditures (THEs) on primary care services, ranging from 18.3 % for Australia to 9.5 % for Switzerland. [...]an investment of 8 to 12 % of GDP seems necessary to respond to these aspirations. 2.

Many studies have investigated the migration intentions of sub-Saharan African medical students and health professionals within the context of a legacy of active international recruitment by receiving countries. However, many health workers migrate outside of this recruitment paradigm. This paper aims to explore the reasons for migration of health workers from sub-Saharan Africa to Belgium and Austria; European countries without a history of active recruitment in sub-Saharan Africa. Data were collected using semistructured interviews. Twenty-seven health workers were interviewed about their migration experiences. Included participants were born in sub-Saharan Africa, had trained as health workers in sub-Saharan Africa, and were currently living in Belgium or Austria, though not necessarily currently working as a health professional. Both Austria and Belgium were shown not to be target countries for the health workers, who instead moved there by circumstance, rather than choice. Three principal reasons for migration were reported: 1) educational purposes; 2) political instability or insecurity in their country of origin; and 3) family reunification. In addition, two respondents mentioned medical reasons and, although less explicit, economic factors were also involved in several of the respondents' decision to migrate. These results highlight the importance of the broader economic, social, and political context within which migration decisions are made. Training opportunities proved to be an important factor for migration. A further development and upgrade of primary care might help to counter the common desire to specialize and improve domestic training opportunities.

In this paper we have tried, starting from the results of an analysis of the functioning of integrated care in the Belgian Health System by Martens et al, to design a strategy that could contribute to better addressing the challenges of the 21st century in Belgium. We proposed health system changes at the macro-, meso- and micro-level. We focused on health policy development and organization of care, emphasizing the importance of a shift from a hospital-centric towards a primary care based approach. Special attention was paid to the need for institutional reforms, in order to facilitate the further development of interprofessional integrated care, that focuses on the achievement of the life-goals of a person.

Background Pay-for-performance systems raise concerns regarding inequity in health care because providers might select patients for whom targets can easily be reached. This paper aims to describe the evolution of pre-existing (in)equity in health care in the period after the introduction of the Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) in the UK and to describe (in)equities in exception reporting. In this evaluation, a theory-based framework conceptualising equity in terms of equal access, equal treatment and equal treatment outcomes for people in equal need is used to guide the work. Methods A systematic MEDLINE and Econlit search identified 317 studies. Of these, 290 were excluded because they were not related to the evaluation of QOF, they lacked an equity dimension in the evaluation, their qualitative research focused on experiences or on the nature of the consultation, or unsuitable methodology was used to pronounce upon equity after the introduction of QOF. Results None of the publications (n = 27) assessed equity in access to health care. Concerning equity in treatment and (intermediate) treatment outcomes, overall quality scores generally improved. For the majority of the observed indicators, all citizens benefit from this improvement, yet the extent to which different patient groups benefit tends to vary and to be highly dependent on the type and complexity of the indicator(s) under study, the observed patient group(s) and the characteristics of the study. In general, the introduction of QOF was favourable for the aged and for males. Total QOF scores did not seem to vary according to ethnicity. For deprivation, small but significant residual differences were observed after the introduction of QOF favouring less deprived groups. These differences are mainly due to differences at the practice level. The variance in exception reporting according to gender and socio-economic position is low. Conclusions Although QOF seems not to be socially selective at first glance, this does not mean QOF does not contribute to the inverse care law. Introducing different targets for specific patient groups and including appropriate, non-disease specific and patient-centred indicators that grasp the complexity of primary care might refine the equity dimension of the evaluation of QOF. Also, information on the actual uptake of care, information at the patient level and monitoring of individuals' health care utilisation tracks could make large contributions to an in-depth evaluation. Finally, evaluating pay-for-quality initiatives in a broader health systems impact assessment strategy with equity as a full assessment criterion is of utmost importance.

Abstract Belgium has implemented a strategy to prioritize vaccination at population level during the COVID-19 pandemic, targeting individuals with pre-existing health conditions at increased risk of severe COVID-19. We aimed to evaluate whether prioritized groups were vaccinated sooner, and which socio-demographic and -economic characteristics were related to the speed of vaccine uptake. We calculated the time to vaccination between the start of the prioritization (1 April 2021) and receiving a first COVID-19 vaccine dose, using this interval as a proxy for evaluating the strategy's early impact. A multivariate regression model, incorporating priority status, age, sex, region of residence, income, and migration background, described the natural logarithm of this time gap. The sample included 4 472 873 individuals vaccinated between 1 April and 31 December 2021, of which 26.4% were prioritized. The results show a 34.6 days earlier vaccination for prioritized individuals versus non-prioritized ones. The time difference between the prioritized and non-prioritized groups was larger in the younger age groups compared to the older age groups (28.2 days versus 19.3 days). Based on the multivariate model estimates, being prioritized [βpriority = −0.37, 95% CI (−0.38; −0.36)], older age [β55-64 = −0.57, 95% CI(−0.58; −0.56)], residency in Brussels or Wallonia [βBrussels = −0.18, 95%CI (−0.20; −0.16); βWallonia = −0.18, 95% CI (−0.19; −0.17)], having a high income [βhigh income = −0.11, 95% CI (−0.12; −0.10)], being a Belgian national (βbelgian = reference), having had a recent prior infection (βno prior infection = reference) and being female (βfemale = reference) are associated with a shorter time to vaccination. Developing and implementing a prioritization vaccination strategy accelerated vaccination for the high-risk population with health conditions, demonstrating its feasibility in promoting equitable access to COVID-19 vaccines.

After the eight Millennium Development Goals that have shaped progress in the past 15 years, 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) were adopted by governments at the UN General Assembly in September, 2015. SDG3 explicitly relates to health--to \"Ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages\". This goal is translated into 13 targets: three relate to reproductive and child health; three to communicable diseases, non-communicable diseases, and addiction; two to environmental health; and one to achieving universal health coverage (UHC). Four further targets relate to tobacco control, vaccines and medicines, health financing and workforce, and global health risk preparedness.