Search

Background: This paper discusses the stages of health system resilience (HSR) and the factors underlying differences in HSR during the covid-19 pandemic, especially the vaccination challenge. We studied the relationship between vaccination strategies and macro-context backgrounds in 21 Latin American countries. Our objective was to capture the impact of those aspects in the SR and identify potential improvements for future crises and for vaccination programs in general. Methods: The study uses mixed-methods research to provide insights into how the countries' backgrounds and vaccination strategies impact the HSR. Particularly, we used explanatory sequential mixed methods, which entails a quantitative-qualitative two-phase sequence. The quantitative phase was conducted using cluster and variance analysis, in which the HSR was measured using as a proxy the covid-19 vaccination outcomes in three cut-offs of reaching 25%, 50%, and 75% of population coverage. This approach allows us to discriminate covid-19 vaccination progress by stages and contrast it to the qualitative stage, in which we performed a country-case analysis of the background conditions and the changes in vaccination strategies that occurred during the corresponding dates. Results: The paper provides a rich comparative case analysis of countries, classifying them by early, prompt, and delayed performers. The results show that differences in vaccination performance are due to flexibility in adapting strategies, cooperation, and the ability to design multilevel solutions that consider the needs of various actors in the health ecosystem. These differences vary depending on the vaccination stage, which suggests the importance of acknowledging learning, diffusion, and feedback processes at the regional level. Conclusions: We identified the importance of societal well-being as an ideal country antecedent for high and sustained levels of performance in covid-19 vaccination. Whereas in other countries where the set-up and beginning phases were rough, the value of the operational decisions and the learning on the move regarding their own and their peers' trajectories were crucial and were reflected in performance improvement. A contribution of this study is that the above-mentioned analysis was done using vaccination coverage cut-off points that allow a performance view that takes into consideration the stages of the vaccination progress and the learning process that goes with it. As well as framing this into the HSR shock cycles that allow to differentiate the stages of resilience on which countries must act. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Context: The COVID-19 pandemic has reignited a commitment from the health policy and health services research communities to rebuilding trust in healthcare and created a renewed appetite for measures of trust for system monitoring and evaluation. The aim of the present paper was to develop a multidimensional measure of trust in healthcare that: (1) Is responsive to the conceptual and methodological limitations of existing measures; (2) Can be used to identify systemic explanations for lower levels of trust in equity-deserving populations; (3) Can be used to design and evaluate interventions aiming to (re)build trust. Methods: We conducted a 2021 review of existing measures of trust in healthcare, 72 qualitative interviews (Aug-Dec 2021; oversampling for equity-deserving populations), an expert review consensus process (Oct 2021), and factor analyses and validation testing based on two waves of survey data (Nov 2021, n = 694; Jan-Feb 2022, n = 740 respectively). Findings: We present the Trust in Multidimensional Healthcare Systems Scale (TIMHSS); a 38-item correlated three-factor measure of trust in doctors, policies, and the system. Measurement of invariance tests suggest that the TIMHSS can also be reliably administered to diverse populations. Conclusions: This global measure of trust in healthcare can be used to measure trust over time at a population level, or used within specific subpopulations, to inform interventions to (re)build trust. It can also be used within a clinical setting to provide a stronger evidence base for associations between trust and therapeutic outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]