Explore the vast range of titles available.

Background The Health Equity Collective (HEC), a multi-sector systems-level collective impact coalition in the Greater Houston region, partnered with the City of Houston Health Department (HHD) to launch a 2-year effort to implement a comprehensive approach towards strengthening the regional Community Health Workers (CHW) workforce infrastructure as a pathway to advancing health equity. Our paper presents the logic model, methods, and baseline qualitative and quantitative data from this initiative. Methods In the fall of 2022, the Health Equity Collective brought together a Network of CHW-employing or training organizations in the Greater Houston region. This Network was the working group of CHW employer/training organizations tasked with developing the shared agenda for collaborative action toward strengthening the regional CHW workforce. As part of the baseline needs assessment qualitative interviews were conducted to understand the role and add-value of CHWs in advancing health equity. A landscape scan survey was administered to assess CHW employer organization’s funding and sustainability mechanisms for their CHWs job stability, CHW focus areas, organizational health equity priorities, etc. A journey mapping exercise was also conducted to capture CHWs lived experiences in their own voices. Results The qualitative interviews outlined three themes that describe the role, barriers, and needs of CHWs. Landscape scan survey responses were obtained from 21 out of 29 organizations in the CHW Network. Responses provided insight into CHW employer organizational funding and sustainability mechanisms for CHWs job stability, CHW focus areas, etc. The journey mapping exercise outlines the various paths that brought the participants to pursue a CHW career path and their journey through CHW training and work. Conclusion In summary, our paper outlines the collective impact approach and baseline data guiding efforts to strengthen the regional CHW workforce. Strategies and priorities were developed based on CHW voices and engaging stakeholders across organizations employing and training CHWs.

In 1988, the Brazilian Constitution defined health as a universal right and a state responsibility. Progress towards universal health coverage in Brazil has been achieved through a unified health system (Sistema Único de Saúde [SUS]), created in 1990. With successes and setbacks in the implementation of health programmes and the organisation of its health system, Brazil has achieved nearly universal access to health-care services for the population. The trajectory of the development and expansion of the SUS offers valuable lessons on how to scale universal health coverage in a highly unequal country with relatively low resources allocated to health-care services by the government compared with that in middle-income and high-income countries. Analysis of the past 30 years since the inception of the SUS shows that innovations extend beyond the development of new models of care and highlights the importance of establishing political, legal, organisational, and management-related structures, with clearly defined roles for both the federal and local governments in the governance, planning, financing, and provision of health-care services. The expansion of the SUS has allowed Brazil to rapidly address the changing health needs of the population, with dramatic upscaling of health service coverage in just three decades. However, despite its successes, analysis of future scenarios suggests the urgent need to address lingering geographical inequalities, insufficient funding, and suboptimal private sector–public sector collaboration. Fiscal policies implemented in 2016 ushered in austerity measures that, alongside the new environmental, educational, and health policies of the Brazilian government, could reverse the hard-earned achievements of the SUS and threaten its sustainability and ability to fulfil its constitutional mandate of providing health care for all.

Background: Saudi Arabia has invested heavily in its health care system by establishing health care infrastructures to improve health of the nation. However, it remains to be seen whether it is efficient and effective in providing health care services needed. Primary health care, which is the basis of universal health coverage, needs to be assessed on its performance, challenges and future opportunities to serve the Saudi Arabian population. Aims: This review aimed to identify challenges within the Saudi Arabian health care system with a focus on primary health care services, and to analyse the interrelated factors in order to suggest remedial reforms to further strengthen and improve the health care system. Methods: A narrative review of previous studies and governmental reports was undertaken to extract, analyse, synthesize and report the findings. Results: The review found a number of key areas for improvement in the primary health care system. These areas include: the scope, structure, infrastructure, financing, increased demand, increased costs and workforce capacity. Other critical challenges include inequitable access to health services, quality and safety of services, the growing burden of chronic diseases, lack of an effective information system, management and leadership issues, and gaps in the referral system. Conclusion: The Saudi Arabian health care system needs comprehensive reform with a focus on primary health care.

Background Scaling up complex health interventions to large populations is not a straightforward task. Without intentional, guided efforts to scale up, it can take many years for a new evidence-based intervention to be broadly implemented. For the past decade, researchers and implementers have developed models of scale-up that move beyond earlier paradigms that assumed ideas and practices would successfully spread through a combination of publication, policy, training, and example. Drawing from the previously reported frameworks for scaling up health interventions and our experience in the USA and abroad, we describe a framework for taking health interventions to full scale, and we use two large-scale improvement initiatives in Africa to illustrate the framework in action. We first identified other scale-up approaches for comparison and analysis of common constructs by searching for systematic reviews of scale-up in health care, reviewing those bibliographies, speaking with experts, and reviewing common research databases (PubMed, Google Scholar) for papers in English from peer-reviewed and “gray” sources that discussed models, frameworks, or theories for scale-up from 2000 to 2014. We then analyzed the results of this external review in the context of the models and frameworks developed over the past 20 years by Associates in Process Improvement (API) and the Institute for Healthcare improvement (IHI). Finally, we reflected on two national-scale improvement initiatives that IHI had undertaken in Ghana and South Africa that were testing grounds for early iterations of the framework presented in this paper. Results The framework describes three core components: a sequence of activities that are required to get a program of work to full scale, the mechanisms that are required to facilitate the adoption of interventions, and the underlying factors and support systems required for successful scale-up. The four steps in the sequence include (1) Set-up , which prepares the ground for introduction and testing of the intervention that will be taken to full scale; (2) Develop the Scalable Unit , which is an early testing phase; (3) Test of Scale-up , which then tests the intervention in a variety of settings that are likely to represent different contexts that will be encountered at full scale; and (4) Go to Full Scale , which unfolds rapidly to enable a larger number of sites or divisions to adopt and/or replicate the intervention. Conclusions Our framework echoes, amplifies, and systematizes the three dominant themes that occur to varying extents in a number of existing scale-up frameworks. We call out the crucial importance of defining a scalable unit of organization. If a scalable unit can be defined, and successful results achieved by implementing an intervention in this unit without major addition of resources, it is more likely that the intervention can be fully and rapidly scaled. When tying this framework to quality improvement (QI) methods, we describe a range of methodological options that can be applied to each of the four steps in the framework’s sequence.

The enactment of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is a signal achievement on the road to reform, which arguably began with the passage of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. That statute's Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) provisions created an essential foundation for restructuring health care delivery and for achieving the key goals of improving health care quality; reducing costs; and increasing access through better methods of storing, analyzing, and sharing health information. This article discusses the range of initiatives under HITECH to support health reform, including proposed regulations on \"meaningful use\" and standards; funding of regional extension centers and Beacon communities; and support for the development and use of clinical registries and linked health outcomes research networks, all of which are critical to carrying out the comparative clinical effectiveness research that will be expanded under health reform. [PUBLICATION ABSTRACT]

Artificial intelligence (AI) has the potential to improve public health’s ability to promote the health of all people in all communities. To successfully realize this potential and use AI for public health functions it is important for public health organizations to thoughtfully develop strategies for AI implementation. Six key priorities for successful use of AI technologies by public health organizations are discussed: 1) Contemporary data governance; 2) Investment in modernized data and analytic infrastructure and procedures; 3) Addressing the skills gap in the workforce; 4) Development of strategic collaborative partnerships; 5) Use of good AI practices for transparency and reproducibility, and; 6) Explicit consideration of equity and bias.

How do we explain the paradox that Bangladesh has made remarkable progress in health and human development, yet its achievements have taken place within a health system that is frequently characterised as weak, in terms of inadequate physical and human infrastructure and logistics, and low performing? We argue that the development of a highly pluralistic health system environment, defined by the participation of a multiplicity of different stakeholders and agents and by ad hoc, diffused forms of management has contributed to these outcomes by creating conditions for rapid change. We use a combination of data from official sources, research studies, case studies of specific innovations, and in-depth knowledge from our own long-term engagement with health sector issues in Bangladesh to lay out a conceptual framework for understanding pluralism and its outcomes. Although we argue that pluralism has had positive effects in terms of stimulating change and innovation, we also note its association with poor health systems governance and regulation, resulting in endemic problems such as overuse and misuse of drugs. Pluralism therefore requires active management that acknowledges and works with its polycentric nature. We identify four key areas where this management is needed: participatory governance, accountability and regulation, information systems, and capacity development. This approach challenges some mainstream frameworks for managing health systems, such as the building blocks approach of the WHO Health Systems Framework. However, as pluralism increasingly defines the nature and the challenge of 21st century health systems, the experience of Bangladesh is relevant to many countries across the world.

By 2030 more people in the United States will be older than age sixty-five than younger than age five. Our health care system is unprepared for the complexity of caring for a heterogenous population of older adults-a problem that has been magnified by the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Here, as part of the National Academy of Medicine's Vital Directions for Health and Health Care: Priorities for 2021 initiative, we identify six vital directions to improve the care and quality of life for all older Americans. The next administration must create an adequately prepared workforce; strengthen the role of public health; remediate disparities and inequities; develop, evaluate, and implement new approaches to care delivery; allocate resources to achieve patient-centered care and outcomes, including palliative and end-of-life care; and redesign the structure and financing of long-term services and supports. If these priorities are addressed proactively, an infrastructure can be created that promotes better health and equitable, goal-directed care that recognizes the preferences and needs of older adults.

Achieving digital health equity is essential to realizing the transformative goals of the Quintuple. Aim: optimizing patient experience, improving population health, supporting provider well-being, reducing costs, and advancing health equity. Yet significant disparities persist in access to digital tools, driven by both traditional and digital social determinants of health (SDOH), such as housing instability and limited broadband access. Health system responses often focus on downstream interventions to meet immediate needs, such as referrals for housing assistance or smartphone distribution, while upstream strategies, like partnerships to expand access to affordable housing or advocacy to improve broadband access, remain underutilized. Similarly, targeted tools for specific populations often lack corresponding universal strategies like digital literacy campaigns. The absence of systematic Electronic Health Record (EHR) integration of SDOH data further limits health systems’ ability to identify disparities, tailor interventions, and support structural change. This paper introduces a theoretically grounded, multi-level framework for advancing digital health equity within Learning Health Systems (LHS). Drawing on insights from information systems theories, socio-ecological models, organizational learning, implementation science, and systems thinking, the framework supports alignment of equity-centered strategies across micro- (individual), meso- (organizational), and macro- (policy) levels. The framework is organized around three strategic domains: (1) building equity-driven data infrastructure through SDOH-EHR integration, (2) designing scalable, equity-centered interventions that balance targeted and universal approaches, and (3) leveraging strategic starting points to transition from downstream efforts to upstream reforms. Grounded in the U.S. context yet informed by international evidence, this framework offers a roadmap for aligning theory and practice to advance digital health equity in LHS. It is both actionable and adaptable, translating evidence and theory into a structured approach that healthcare systems can use to guide health equity initiatives. It illustrates how SDOH data can inform person-centered care, how targeted tools like multilingual telehealth apps can be integrated with universal strategies such as digital literacy campaigns, and how enabling services, community partnerships, and policy advocacy can catalyze longer-term structural reforms. Emphasizing continuous learning through feedback loops and multi-level alignment, the framework equips stakeholders to embed equity into LHS design and function, ultimately advancing sustainable progress toward the Quintuple Aim.

Background The United Arab Emirates (UAE) government aspires to build a world class health system to improve the quality of healthcare and the health outcomes for its population. To achieve this it has implemented extensive health system reforms in the past 10 years. The nature, extent and success of these reforms has not recently been comprehensively reviewed. In this paper we review the progress and outcomes of health systems reform in the UAE. Methods We searched relevant databases and other sources to identify published and unpublished studies and other data available between 01 January 2002 and 31 March 2016. Eligible studies were appraised and data were descriptively and narratively synthesized. Results Seventeen studies were included covering the following themes: the UAE health system, population health, the burden of disease, healthcare financing, healthcare workforce and the impact of reforms. Few, if any, studies prospectively set out to define and measure outcomes. A central part of the reforms has been the introduction of mandatory private health insurance, the development of the private sector and the separation of planning and regulatory responsibilities from provider functions. The review confirmed the commitment of the UAE to build a world class health system but amongst researchers and commentators opinion is divided on whether the reforms have been successful although patient satisfaction with services appears high and there are some positive indications including increasing coverage of hospital accreditation. The UAE has a rapidly growing population with a unique age and sex distribution, there have been notable successes in improving child and maternal mortality and extending life expectancy but there are high levels of chronic diseases. The relevance of the reforms for public health and their impact on the determinants of chronic diseases have been questioned. Conclusions From the existing research literature it is not possible to conclude whether UAE health system reforms are working. We recommend that research should continue in this area but that research questions should be more clearly defined, focusing whenever possible on outcomes rather than processes.