Search

Background: There is a health crisis in Turkmenistan similar to, but more severe than, in other Central Asian countries. This paper asks whether the health crisis in Turkmenistan is attributable to the consequences of the dictatorship under president Niyazov, who died in 2006. Methods: The basis for this paper was a series of semi-structured in-depth interviews with key informants complemented by an iterative search of internet sites, initially published as a report in April 2005, and subsequently updated with feedback on the report as well as a comprehensive search of secondary information sources and databases. Results: This paper describes in depth three areas in which the dictatorship in Turkmenistan had a negative impact on population health: the regime's policy of secrecy and denial, which sees the "solution" to health care problems in concealment rather than prevention; its complicity in the trafficking of drugs from Afghanistan; and the neglect of its health care system. Conclusion: The paper concludes that dictatorship has contributed to the health crisis facing Turkmenistan. One of the first tests of the new regime will be whether it can address this crisis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper explores the possibility of integrating knowledge mapping into a conceptual framework that could serve as a tool for understanding the many complex processes, resources and people involved in a health system, and for identifying potential gaps within knowledge translation processes in order to address them. After defining knowledge mapping, this paper presents various examples of the application of this process in health, before looking at the steps that need to be taken to identify potential gaps, to determine to what extent these gaps affect the knowledge translation process and to establish their cause. This is followed by proposals for interventions aimed at strengthening the overall process. Finally, potential limitations on the application of this framework at the country level are addressed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Since the early 1980s all European countries have given priority to reforming the management of health services. A distinctive feature of these reforms has also been the drive to co-opt professionals themselves into the management of services, taking on full time or part time (hybrid) management or leadership roles. However, although these trends are well documented in the literature, our understanding of the nature and impact of reforms and how they are re-shaping the relationship between medicine and management remains limited. Most studies have tended to be nationally specific, located within a single discipline and focused primarily on describing new management practices. This article serves as an Introduction to a special issue of BMC Health Services Research which seeks to address these concerns. It builds on the work of a European Union funded COST Action (ISO903) which ran between 2009 and 2013, focusing specifically on the changing relationship between medicine and management in a European context.Main Text: Prior to describing the contributions to the special issue, this Introduction sets the scene by exploring four main questions which have characterised much of the recent literature on medicine and management. First is the question of what we understand by the changing relationship between medicine and management and in particular which this means for the emergence of so called 'hybrid' clinical leader roles? A second question concerns the forces that have driven change, in particular those relating to the wider project of management reforms. Third, we raise questions of how medical professionals have responded to these changes and what factors have shaped their responses. Lastly we consider what some of the outcomes of greater medical involvement in management and leadership might be, both in terms of intended and unintended outcomes.Conclusions: The paper concludes by summarising the contributions to the special issue and highlighting the need to extend research in this area by focusing more on comparative dimensions of change. It is argued that future research would also benefit theoretically by drawing together insights from health policy and management literatures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Providing medical care capability in a multinational setting in space is a daunting challenge. As the International Space Station (ISS) has taken shape over the last decade the space medicine community of the ISS partners has established a foundation with which to govern medical policy, medial processes, and medical care during the ISS Program. This foundation was predicated on a rich history of bilateral and multilateral cooperation among space faring nations. Three key organizations were established, they include the agency or senior level Multilateral Medical Policy Board (MMPB), the Multilateral Space Medicine Board (MSMB), and the Multilateral Medical Operations Panel (MMOP). All three are staffed by senior medical personnel within each of the partner organizations of the ISS and each has specific roles and responsibilities. These three entities strive to protect the human element of spaceflight through highly effective interaction in a multilingual, multicultural program. This paper reviews the creation of this tripartite approach to the development of medical policy for ISS. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Despite a growing global commitment to the provision of antiretroviral therapy (ART), its availability is still likely to be less than the need. This imbalance raises ethical dilemmas about who should be granted access to publicly-subsidized ART programmes. This paper reviews the eligibility and targeting criteria used in four case-study countries at different points in the scale-up of ART, with the aim of drawing lessons regarding ethical approaches to rationing. Mexico, Senegal, Thailand and Uganda have each made an explicit policy commitment to provide antiretrovirals to all those in need, but are achieving this goal in steps — beginning with explicit rationing of access to care. Drawing upon the case-studies and experiences elsewhere, categories of explicit rationing criteria have been identified. These include biomedical factors, adherence to treatment, prevention-driven factors, social and economic benefits, financial factors and factors driven by ethical arguments. The initial criteria for determining eligibility are typically clinical criteria and assessment of adherence prospects, followed by a number of other factors. Rationing mechanisms reflect several underlying ethical theories and the ethical underpinnings of explicit rationing criteria should reflect societal values. In order to ensure this alignment, widespread consultation with a variety of stakeholders, and not only policy-makers or physicians, is critical. Without such explicit debate, more rationing will occur implicitly and this may be more inequitable. The effects of rationing mechanisms upon equity are critically dependent upon the implementation processes. As antiretroviral programmes are implemented it is crucial to monitor who gains access to these programmes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]