Search

Background: Research indicates the adverse impacts of perceived discrimination on health, and discrimination inflamed by the COVID-19 pandemic, a type of social exclusion, could affect the well-being of the Chinese diaspora. We analyzed the relationship and pathways of perceived discrimination's effect on health among the Chinese diaspora in the context of the pandemic to contribute to the literature on discrimination in this population under the global public health crisis. Methods: We analyzed data from 705 individuals of Chinese descent residing in countries outside of China who participated in a cross-sectional online survey between April 22 and May 9, 2020. This study utilized a structural equation model (SEM) to evaluate both direct and indirect effects of perceived discrimination on self-rated health (SRH) and to assess the mediating roles of psychological distress (namely, anxiety and depression) and social support from family and friends. Results: This online sample comprised predominantly young adults and those of relatively high socioeconomic status. This study confirmed the total and direct effect of recently perceived discrimination on SRH and found the indirect effect was mainly mediated by depression. Mediating roles of anxiety and social support on the discrimination-health relationship were found insignificant in this SEM. Conclusions: Our findings suggest discrimination negatively affected the well-being of the Chinese diaspora, and depression acted as a major mediator between the discrimination-health relationship. Therefore, interventions for reducing discrimination to preserve the well-being of the Chinese diaspora are necessary. Prompt intervention to address depression may partially relieve the disease burden caused by the surge of discrimination. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The increasing trend of Caesarean section (CS) in childbirth has become a global public health challenge. Previous studies have proposed financial intervention strategies for reducing CS rates by limiting caesarean delivery on maternal request (CDMR). This study synthesizes such strategies while evaluating their effectiveness.Methods: The sources of data for this study are Cochrane Library, PubMed, EMBASE, and CINAHL. The publication period included in this study is from January 1991 to November 2018. The financial intervention strategies are divide into two categories: healthcare provider interventions and patient interventions. Risk of Bias in Non-randomized Studies - of Interventions (ROBINS-I) was employed to assess the risk of bias of included studies. The outcome of each study was evaluated with Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) through the GRADEpro Guideline Development Tool software.Results: Nine studies were included in this systematic review: five with high certainty evidence (HCE), three with moderate certainty evidence (MCE), and one with low certainty evidence (LCE). Of the nine studies, seven are centered on the effect of provider-side interventions. Three of the HCE studies found that the diagnosis-related group payment system, risk-adjusted capitation, and equalizing fee for both facilities and physicians were effective intervention strategies. One HCE and one MCE study showed that only equalizing facility fees between vaginal and CS deliveries in healthcare service settings had no significant effect on reducing the CS rate. The MCE study showed that case payment had a negative effect on reducing the CS rates. One LCE study revealed that the effect of a global budget system was uncertain, and one HCE and one MCE study focused on combining both provider and patient-side interventions. However, equalizing fees for vaginal and CS deliveries and a co-payment policy for CDMRs failed to reduce the CS rate.Conclusions: The effectiveness of risk-adjusted payment methods appears promising and should be the subject of further research. Financial interventions should consider stakeholders' characteristics, especially the personal interests of doctors. Finally, high-quality randomized control trials and comparative studies on different financial intervention methods are needed to confirm or refute previous studies' outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]