Ideological notions in public health care rationing : Case studies from Oregon, New Zealand and Finland

The purpose of this dissertation is to analyze and explicate the ideological content, which is often implicit, in the health care rationing discussion. The phrase "ideological content" refers to viewpoints and assumptions expressed in the rationing discussion that may be widespread and accepted, but without clear evidential support. The study method is philosophical text analysis. The study begins by exploring the literature from the 1970s that affects the present-day rationing discussion. Since ideological contents may have different emphases in realm of health care, three representative cases were studied. The first was a case study of the first and best-known rationing experiment in the American state of Oregon, namely, an experimental rationing plan within the public health program Medicaid, which is designed to provide care for the poor and underprivileged. The second was a study of the only national-level public priority setting that has been conducted in New Zealand. The third examined the Finnish Care Guarantee plan introduced in March 2005. The findings show that several problematic and scientifically mostly unproven concepts have remained largely uncontested in the debate about public health care rationing. Some of these notions already originated decades ago in studies that relied on outdated data or research paradigms. The problematic ideological contents have also been taken up from one publication into another, thereby affecting the rationing debate. The study suggests that before any new public health care rationing experiments are undertaken, these ideological factors should be properly examined, especially in order to avoid repetitious research and perhaps erroneous rationing decisions.

Looking at the other side: Families, public health and anti-vaccination

The choice to vaccinate or not to vaccinate a child is usually an ‘informed decision’, however, it is how this decision is informed which is of most importance. More frequently, families are turning to the Internet, in particular social media, as a data source to support their decisions. However, much of the online information may be unscientific or biased. While issues such as vaccination will always see dissenting voices, engaging with that ‘other side’ is difficult in the public policy debate which is informed by evidence based science. This chapter investigates the other side in light of the growing adoption and reliance on social media as a source of anti-vaccine information. The study adopts a qualitative approach to data collection and is based on a critical discourse analysis of online social media discourse. The findings demonstrate the valuable contribution this approach can make to public policy work in vaccination.

Introduction to Public Health [3rd Ed.]

Why is public health important? An Introduction to Public Health is about the discipline of public health, the nature and scope of public health activity, and the challenges that face public health in the twenty-first century. The book is designed as an introductory text to the principles and practice of public health. This is a complex and multifaceted area. What we have tried to do in this book is make public health easy to understand without making it simplistic. As many authors have stated, public health is essentially about the organised efforts of society to promote, protect and restore the public’s health (Brownson 2011, Last 2001, Schneider 2011, Turnock 2012, Winslow 1920). It is multidisciplinary in nature, and it is influenced by genetic, physical, social, cultural, economic and political determinants of health. How do we define public health, and what are the disciplines that contribute to public health? How has the area changed over time? Are there health issues in the twenty-first century that change the focus and activity of public health? Yes, there are! There are many challenges facing public health now and in the future, just as there have been over the course of the history of organised public health efforts, dating from around 1850 in the Western world. Of what relevance is public health to the many health disciplines that contribute to it? How might an understanding of public health contribute to a range of health professionals who use the principles and practices of public health in their professional activities? These are the questions that this book addresses. Introduction to Public Health leads the reader on a journey of discovery that concludes with an understanding of the nature and scope of public health and the challenges facing the field into the future. In this edition we have included one new chapter, ‘Public health and social policy’, in order to broaden our understanding of the policy influences on public health. The book is designed for a range of students undertaking health courses where there is a focus on advancing the health of the population. While it is imperative that people wanting to be public health professionals understand the theory and practice of public health, many other health workers contribute to effective public health practice. The book would also be relevant to a range of undergraduate students who want an introductory understanding of public health and its practice.

Complying with the NIH Public Access Policy - Copyright Considerations and Options

On January 11, 2008, the National Institutes of Health ('NIH') adopted a revised Public Access Policy for peer-reviewed journal articles reporting research supported in whole or in part by NIH funds. Under the revised policy, the grantee shall ensure that a copy of the author's final manuscript, including any revisions made during the peer review process, be electronically submitted to the National Library of Medicine's PubMed Central ('PMC') archive and that the person submitting the manuscript will designate a time not later than 12 months after publication at which NIH may make the full text of the manuscript publicly accessible in PMC. NIH adopted this policy to implement a new statutory requirement under which: The Director of the National Institutes of Health shall require that all investigators funded by the NIH submit or have submitted for them to the National Library of Medicine's PubMed Central an electronic version of their final, peer-reviewed manuscripts upon acceptance for publication to be made publicly available no later than 12 months after the official date of publication: Provided, That the NIH shall implement the public access policy in a manner consistent with copyright law. This White Paper is written primarily for policymaking staff in universities and other institutional recipients of NIH support responsible for ensuring compliance with the Public Access Policy. The January 11, 2008, Public Access Policy imposes two new compliance mandates. First, the grantee must ensure proper manuscript submission. The version of the article to be submitted is the final version over which the author has control, which must include all revisions made after peer review. The statutory command directs that the manuscript be submitted to PMC 'upon acceptance for publication.' That is, the author's final manuscript should be submitted to PMC at the same time that it is sent to the publisher for final formatting and copy editing. Proper submission is a two-stage process. The electronic manuscript must first be submitted through a process that requires input of additional information concerning the article, the author(s), and the nature of NIH support for the research reported. NIH then formats the manuscript into a uniform, XML-based format used for PMC versions of articles. In the second stage of the submission process, NIH sends a notice to the Principal Investigator requesting that the PMC-formatted version be reviewed and approved. Only after such approval has grantee's manuscript submission obligation been satisfied. Second, the grantee also has a distinct obligation to grant NIH copyright permission to make the manuscript publicly accessible through PMC not later than 12 months after the date of publication. This obligation is connected to manuscript submission because the author, or the person submitting the manuscript on the author's behalf, must have the necessary rights under copyright at the time of submission to give NIH the copyright permission it requires. This White Paper explains and analyzes only the scope of the grantee's copyright-related obligations under the revised Public Access Policy and suggests six options for compliance with that aspect of the grantee's obligation. Time is of the essence for NIH grantees. As a practical matter, the grantee should have a compliance process in place no later than April 7, 2008. More specifically, the new Public Access Policy applies to any article accepted for publication on or after April 7, 2008 if the article arose under (1) an NIH Grant or Cooperative Agreement active in Fiscal Year 2008, (2) direct funding from an NIH Contract signed after April 7, 2008, (3) direct funding from the NIH Intramural Program, or (4) from an NIH employee. In addition, effective May 25, 2008, anyone submitting an application, proposal or progress report to the NIH must include the PMC reference number when citing articles arising from their NIH funded research. (This includes applications submitted to the NIH for the May 25, 2008 and subsequent due dates.) Conceptually, the compliance challenge that the Public Access Policy poses for grantees is easily described. The grantee must depend to some extent upon the author(s) to take the necessary actions to ensure that the grantee is in compliance with the Public Access Policy because the electronic manuscripts and the copyrights in those manuscripts are initially under the control of the author(s). As a result, any compliance option will require an explicit understanding between the author(s) and the grantee about how the manuscript and the copyright in the manuscript are managed. It is useful to conceptually keep separate the grantee's manuscript submission obligation from its copyright permission obligation because the compliance personnel concerned with manuscript management may differ from those responsible for overseeing the author's copyright management. With respect to copyright management, the grantee has the following six options: (1) rely on authors to manage copyright but also to request or to require that these authors take responsibility for amending publication agreements that call for transfer of too many rights to enable the author to grant NIH permission to make the manuscript publicly accessible ('the Public Access License'); (2) take a more active role in assisting authors in negotiating the scope of any copyright transfer to a publisher by (a) providing advice to authors concerning their negotiations or (b) by acting as the author's agent in such negotiations; (3) enter into a side agreement with NIH-funded authors that grants a non-exclusive copyright license to the grantee sufficient to grant NIH the Public Access License; (4) enter into a side agreement with NIH-funded authors that grants a non-exclusive copyright license to the grantee sufficient to grant NIH the Public Access License and also grants a license to the grantee to make certain uses of the article, including posting a copy in the grantee's publicly accessible digital archive or repository and authorizing the article to be used in connection with teaching by university faculty; (5) negotiate a more systematic and comprehensive agreement with the biomedical publishers to ensure either that the publisher has a binding obligation to submit the manuscript and to grant NIH permission to make the manuscript publicly accessible or that the author retains sufficient rights to do so; or (6) instruct NIH-funded authors to submit manuscripts only to journals with binding deposit agreements with NIH or to journals whose copyright agreements permit authors to retain sufficient rights to authorize NIH to make manuscripts publicly accessible.

Translating evidence into practice: A shared priority in public health?

Translational and transdisciplinary research is needed to tackle complex public health problems. This article has three aims. Firstly, to determine how academics and non-academics (practitioners, policy makers and community workers) identified with the goals of the UKCRC Centre of Excellence for Public Health in Northern Ireland and how their attitudes varied in terms of knowledge brokerage and translation. Secondly, to map and analyse the network structure of the public health sector and the placement of the Centre within this. Thirdly, to aggregate responses from members of the network by work setting to construct the trans-sectoral network and devise the Root Mean Sum of Squares to determine the quality and potential value of connections across this network.The analysis was based on data collected from 98 individuals who attended the launch of the Centre in June 2008. Analysis of participant expectations and personal goals suggests that the academic members of the network were more likely to expect the work of the Centre to produce new knowledge than non-academics, but less likely to expect the Centre to generate health interventions and influence health policy. Academics were also less strongly oriented than non-academics to knowledge transfer as a personal goal, though more confident that research findings would be diffused beyond the immediate network. A central core of five nodes is crucial to the overall configuration of the regional public health network in Northern Ireland, with the Centre being well placed to exert influence within this. Though the overall network structure is fairly robust, the connections between some component parts of the network - such as academics and the third sector - are unidirectional.Identifying these differences and core network structure is key to translational and transdisciplinary research. Though exemplified in a regional study, these techniques are generalisable and applicable to many networks of interest: public health, interdisciplinary research or organisational involvement and stakeholder linkage.

‘Papers from ‘A Symposium with Professor Roger Brownsword: Super-stewardship in the Context of Public Health’’

This special issue seeks to engage the term 'stewardship' and the practical and theoretical work around it, both of which are destined to remain items of unfinished business as governance struggles to keep up and connect with its fast moving technological and societal targets. While this special issue is testament to that observation, it also helps to foster much needed scholarly discussion and critique – and to ensure this field is not unwittingly formed and deployed by and as a legitimating support for governance, but rather opened up, elaborated and contested. The articles provide innovative insights and food for thought on the conception and legal-political practice and potential of stewardship and ‘super-stewardship’ in national, supranational and international settings.

Public health interventions in midwifery: a systematic review of systematic reviews

Background: Maternity care providers, particularly midwives, have a window of opportunity to influence pregnant women about positive health choices. This aim of this paper is to identify evidence of effective public health interventions from good quality systematic reviews that could be conducted by midwives.

Methods: Relevant databases including MEDLINE, Pubmed, EBSCO, CRD, MIDIRS, Web of Science, The Cochrane Library and Econlit were searched to identify systematic reviews in October 2010. Quality assessment of all reviews was conducted.

Results: Thirty-six good quality systematic reviews were identified which reported on effective interventions. The reviews were conducted on a diverse range of interventions across the reproductive continuum and were categorised under: screening; supplementation; support; education; mental health; birthing environment; clinical care in labour and breast feeding. The scope and strength of the review findings are discussed in relation to current practice. A logic model was developed to provide an overarching framework of midwifery public health roles to inform research policy and practice.

Conclusions: This review provides a broad scope of high quality systematic review evidence and definitively highlights the challenge of knowledge transfer from research into practice. The review also identified gaps in knowledge around the impact of core midwifery practice on public health outcomes and the value of this contribution. This review provides evidence for researchers and funders as to the gaps in current knowledge and should be used to inform the strategic direction of the role of midwifery in public health in policy and practice.

Canada's Compassionate Care Benefit:Is it an adequate public health response to addressing the issue of caregiver burden in end-of-life care?

Background: An increasingly significant public health issue in Canada, and elsewhere throughout the developed world, pertains to the provision of adequate palliative/end-of-life (P/EOL) care. Informal caregivers who take on the responsibility of providing P/EOL care often experience negative physical, mental, emotional, social and economic consequences. In this article, we specifically examine how Canada's Compassionate Care Benefit (CCB) - a contributory benefits social program aimed at informal P/EOL caregivers - operates as a public health response in sustaining informal caregivers providing P/EOL care, and whether or not it adequately addresses known aspects of caregiver burden that are addressed within the population health promotion (PHP) model. Methods. As part of a national evaluation of Canada's Compassionate Care Benefit, 57 telephone interviews were conducted with Canadian informal P/EOL caregivers in 5 different provinces, pertaining to the strengths and weaknesses of the CCB and the general caregiving experience. Interview data was coded with Nvivo software and emerging themes were identified by the research team, with such findings published elsewhere. The purpose of the present analysis was identified after comparing the findings to the literature specific to caregiver burden and public health, after which data was analyzed using the PHP model as a guiding framework. Results: Informal caregivers spoke to several of the determinants of health outlined in the PHP model that are implicated in their burden experience: gender, income and social status, working conditions, health and social services, social support network, and personal health practises and coping strategies. They recognized the need for improving the CCB to better address these determinants. Conclusions: This study, from the perspective of family caregivers, demonstrates that the CCB is not living up to its full potential in sustaining informal P/EOL caregivers. Effort is required to transform the CCB so that it may fulfill the potential it holds for serving as one public health response to caregiver burden that forms part of a healthy public policy that addresses the determinants of this burden. © 2011 Williams et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

Governing Public Health: EU Law, Regulation and Biopolitics

This book contributes towards EU studies and the growing discourse on law and public health. It uses the EU’s governance of public health as a lens through which to explore questions of legal competence and its development through policy and concrete techniques, processes and practices, risk and security, human rights and bioethics, accountability and legitimacy, democracy and citizenship, and the nature, essence and ‘future trajectory’ of the European integration project. These issues are explored first, by situating the EU's public health strategy within the overarching architecture of governance and subsequently by examining its operationalisation in relation to the key public health problems of cancer, HIV/AIDS and pandemic planning.

The book argues that the centrality and valorisation of scientific and technical knowledge and expertise in the EU's risk-based governance means that citizen participation in decision-making is largely marginalised and underdeveloped – and that this must change if public health and the quality, accountability and legitimacy of EU governance and its regulation are to be improved. Subsequently the book goes on to argue that the legitimating discourses of ethics and human rights, and the developing notion of EU (supra-)stewardship responsibility, can help to highlight the normative dimensions of governance and its interventions in public health. These discourses and dimensions provide openings and possibilities for citizens to power ‘technologies of participation’ and contribute important supplementary knowledge to decision-making.

Risk and the Politics of Public Health:A Critical Review

Twentieth century public health initiatives have been crucially informed by perceptions and constructions of risk. Notions of risk identification, assessment and mitigation have guided political and institutional actions even before these concepts became an explicit part of the language of public administration and policy making. Past analyses investigating the link between risk perceptions and public health are relatively rare, and where researchers have investigated this nexus, it has typically been assumed that the collective identification of health risks has led to progressive improvements in public health activities.
Risk and the Politics of Public Health addresses this gap by presenting a detailed critical historical analysis of the evolution of risk thinking within medical and health related discourses. Grouped around the four core themes of 'immigration', 'race', 'armed conflict' and 'detention and prevention' this book highlights the innovative capacity of risk related concepts as well as their vulnerability to the dysfunctional effects of dominant social ideologies. Risk and the Politics of Public Health is an essential reference for those who seek to understand the interplay of concepts of risk and public health throughout history as well as those who wish to gain a critical understanding of the social dynamics which have underpinned, and continue to underpin, this complex interaction.