Search

Trust in institutions is a key driver to shape population attitudes and behavior, such as compliance of non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPI). During the COVID-19 pandemic, this was fundamental and its compliance was supported by governmental and non-governmental institutions. Nevertheless, the situation of political polarization in some countries with decentralized health systems increased the difficulty of such interventions. This study analyzes the association between non-pharmaceutical interventions' compliance and individual perception regarding institutions' performance during the COVID-19 pandemic in Brazil. A web survey was conducted in Brazil between November 2020 and February 2021. Bivariate analysis and ordered logit regressions were performed to assess the association between NPIs compliance and perceived institutions' performance. Results suggest a negative association between NPIs' compliance and Federal Government and Ministry of health perceived performance, which may reflect the political positioning of the respondents. Moreover, we find a positive association between NPI compliance and the perceived performance of the remaining institutions (state government, federal supreme court, national congress, WHO, media and SUS). Our contribution goes beyond the study of a relationship between non-pharmaceutical interventions' compliance and institutions' performance, by pointing out the importance of subnational and local governmental spheres in a decentralized health system, as well as highlighting the importance of social communication based on health organizations' information and scientific institutions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The need to control the sanitary situation during the COVID-19 pandemic has led governments to implement several restrictions with substantial social and economic impacts. We explored people's trade-offs in terms of their income, life restrictions, education, and poverty in the society, compared to their willingness to avoid deaths. We applied a web-based discrete choice experiment to elicit preferences of the Portuguese citizens for these attributes and computed the marginal rate of substitution in terms of avoided deaths. We recorded 2,191 responses that faced the possibility of having 250 COVID-19 related deaths per day as the worst possible outcome from the choice levels presented. Estimates suggested that individuals would be willing to sacrifice 30% instead of 10% of their income to avoid approximately 47 deaths per day during the first six months of 2021. For the same period, they would also accept 30% of the students' population to become educationally impaired, instead of 10%, to avoid approximately 25 deaths; a strict lockdown, instead of mild life restrictions, to avoid approximately 24 deaths; and 45% of the population to be in risk of poverty, instead of 25%, to avoid approximately 101 deaths. Our paper shows that avoiding deaths was strongly preferred to the remaining societal impacts; and that being a female, as well as working on site, led individuals to be more averse to such health hazards. Furthermore, we show how a DCE can be used to assess the societal support to decision-making during times of crisis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has led to disruptive changes worldwide, with different implications across countries. The evolution of citizens' concerns and behaviours over time is a central piece to support public policies. Objective: To unveil perceptions and behaviours of the Portuguese population regarding social and economic impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, allowing for more informed public policies. Methods: Online panel survey distributed in three waves between March 13th and May 6th 2020. Data collected from a non-representative sample of 7,448 respondents includes socio-demographic characteristics and self-reported measures on levels of concern and behaviours related to COVID-19. We performed descriptive analysis and probit regressions to understand relationships between the different variables. Results: Most participants (85%) report being at least very concerned with the consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic and social isolation reached a high level of adherence during the state of emergency. Around 36% of the sample anticipated consumption decisions, stockpiling ahead of the state of emergency declaration. Medical appointments suffered severe consequences, being re-rescheduled or cancelled. We find important variation in concerns with the economic impact across activity sectors. Conclusion: We show that high level of concern and behaviour adaptation in our sample preceded the implementation of lockdown measures in Portugal around mid-March. One month later, a large share of individuals had suffered disruption in their routine health care and negative impacts in their financial status. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Nowadays, evaluating the quality of health services, especially in primary health care (PHC), is increasingly important. In a historical perspective, the Department of Health (United Kingdom) developed and proposed a range of indicators in 1998, and lately several health, social and political organizations have defined and implemented different sets of PHC quality indicators. Some systematic reviews in PHC quality indicators are reported but only in specific contexts and conditions. The aim of this study is to characterize and provide a list of indicators discussed in the literature to support managers and clinicians in decision-making processes, through an umbrella review on PHC quality indicators. The methodology was performed according to PRISMA Statement. Indicators from 33 eligible systematic reviews were categorized according to the dimensions of care, function, type of care, domains and condition contexts. Of a total of 727 indicators or groups of indicators, 74.5% (n = 542) were classified in process category and 89.5% (n = 537) with chronic type of care (n = 428; 58.8%) and effective domain (n = 423; 58.1%) with the most frequent values in categorizations by dimensions. The results of this overview of reviews are valuable and imply the need for future research and practice regarding primary health care quality indicators in the most varied conditions and contexts to generate new discussions about their use, comparison and implementation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]