Search results

Digital healthcare once again emerges due to pandemic (Covid-19). Digital healthcare can be minimising the issue of accessibility, availability, accuracy and affordability of healthcare service during a pandemic. Digital healthcare playsa significant role to provide healthcare equity during the pandemic. This article presents the current trends and scenario of digital healthcare with a focus on health equity. The main objective of this chapter is to review the four aces of health equity in the digital healthcare literature. The scope and challenges faced by the policymakers to implementation of digital healthcare to improve health equity. This chapter considers the hybrid literature review based on the bibliometric and the systematic literature based on the various theme, sub-theme, concept and context-related health equity through digital healthcare. This study provides the previous and current research trends and preposition for the future researcher, healthcare professional, policymakers and digital healthcare innovators to invent the tool which leads the health equity through the digital healthcare in the healthcare.

This case was based on both primary and secondary data. In-depth semidirected interviews were conducted in 2021–2022 after receiving the institutional research board approval. The interviews took an approximate time ranging from 90 to 120 min. They were recorded and transcribed. A thematic analysis was undertaken to identify the most relevant themes for the case. The secondary sources used included various websites, scholarly and trade journals, as well as specific databases, such as Statista.

The case exposes students in multiple disciplines to the challenges created by the COVID-19 crisis at Yale School of Medicine (YSM). It describes its remarkable effects on organizational and community members as they struggled to reimagine more inclusive and supportive spaces. As one of the most severe crises humanity has ever witnessed, COVID-19 exacerbated the existing struggles of the underrepresented communities, creating a double pandemic. It has also amplified inequities among marginalized groups including black, indigenous and people of color; women; immigrants; lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer/questioning; people with different abilities; working parents; single parents; religious minorities; and people with low income. When COVID-19 hit in 2020, Yale University School of Medicine (YSM), like other pioneering schools in the field of health care, doubled their efforts to face both the public health crisis and the substantial social turmoil (racial tensions after the death of George Floyd, food insecurity, vaccine resistance, social inequalities, etc.). Professor Marietta Vazquez, MD, who was the first Latina to be named Associate Dean for Medical Students Diversity at YSM, launched with Dr Latimore (Chief Diversity Officer) and her other colleagues many strategic initiatives aiming at improving the diversity, equity and inclusion of organizational and community members.

The case is an invitation to graduate students and students in executive education programs to reflect on the grand challenges leaders faced at YSM as well as in other institutions across the nation and the globe. It is also a call to reimagine ways leaders can accelerate the pace of change in their organizational ecosystems.

This case was written for use in graduate-level courses, including executive education dealing with Diversity, Equity, Inclusion and Belonging, Leadership and Change, Health-Care Equity/Policy, Health Sciences, Human Resource Management, Organizational Behavior, Crisis Management, Sustainability, Business and Society, Social Issues in Management, Strategy, etc. Faculty members can easily adapt the case to fit the content of the course they teach, the students’ context as well as the specific learning outcomes to be achieved.

The foremost objective of this chapter was to present an overview of the cooperative healthcare sector in Argentina by reviewing its brief history, components and the role these healthcare cooperatives play in the society. The second objective was to look at how these cooperatives have helped women and the local communities in which they operate.

This paper has used chiefly secondary data derived from various academic papers and official and government websites which publish cooperative sector-related information. The intention was to construct a concise yet detailed study that would be of help to other researchers in the field of healthcare cooperatives since the data related to Argentina is highly scattered and frequently found not up to date.

The research has found that health cooperatives in Argentina have aided in overcoming problems in the sector such as sectoral fragmentation, negligence and frequently inadequate standards of care management as well as operational and implementation failures that the private and government healthcare players have been accused of being fraught with. Furthermore, the cooperatives have frequently played a complementary or supplementary role rather than a competitive one with the private and government players.

Through the examples presented in this chapter, it is evident that health cooperatives in Argentina are making large impacts in the healthcare domain along with positively impacting women, marginalised and vulnerable sections of the society and the community. It only remains to be seen now how far this sector will grow in the future and how many more lives will be benefitted.

The purpose of this paper is to contribute knowledge on ethical issues and reasoning in expert reports concerning healthcare governance, commissioned by the Swedish healthcare system.

An in-depth analysis of ethical issues and reasoning in 36 commissioned expert reports was performed. Twenty-seven interviews with commissioners and producers of the reports were also carried out and analysed.

Some ethical issues were identified in the reports. But ethical reasoning was rarely evident. The meaning of ethical concepts could be devalued and changed over time and thereby deviate from statutory ethical goals and values. Several ethical issues of great concern for the Swedish public healthcare were also absent.

The commissioner of expert reports needs to ensure that comprehensive ethical considerations and ethical analysis are integrated in the expert reports.

Based on an extensive data material this paper reveals an ethical void in expert reports on healthcare governance. By avoiding ethical issues there is a risk that the expert reports could bring about reforms and control models that have ethically undesirable consequences for people and society.

Migrants face some unique health-care challenges, which often remain unaddressed by the health system. The purpose of this study is to determine health-care access among migrants in Chhattisgarh, from a lens of health equity.

This study was conducted in a government-built tenement under the Integrated Housing and Slum Development program in Bilaspur district of Chhattisgarh state of India. It is a mixed-methods study which used a survey method, focus group discussion, in depth-interviews, semi-structured interviews and non-participant observations of health facilities in the area. Respondents included residents (migrants) and other local stakeholders like the Chief Medical Officer of the district, elected representatives of the local government and frontline health workers. This paper focuses on the findings from the qualitative component of the study.

The move to resettle the people living in the slums to the periphery of the city had a negative impact on their health-care access. They find it difficult to access public health services, given the services are concentrated in the city. Women, elderly people and disabled people grapple with additional challenges in being able to access basic reproductive health services and care for chronic illnesses. Equity in health-care access is linked to various social determinants of health including access to housing and social security. However, the authors found that the migrant community is being deprived of appropriate housing facilities and social security.

This paper explores the health-care access of internal migrants in Chhattisgarh state of India in the larger context of urban development with a focus on health equity.

Policies on integrated care have waxed and waned over time in the English health and care sectors, culminating in the creation of 42 integrated care systems (ICSs) which were confirmed in law in July 2022. One of the four fundamental purposes of ICSs is to tackle health inequalities. This paper reports on the content of the overarching ICS plans in order to explore how they focus on health inequalities and the strategies they intend to employ to make progress. It explores how the integrated approach of ICSs may help to facilitate progress on equity.

The analysis is based on a sample of 23 ICS strategic plans using a framework to extract relevant information on health inequalities.

The place-based nature of ICSs and the focus on working across traditional health and care boundaries with non-health partners gives the potential for them to tackle not only the inequalities in access to healthcare services, but also to address health behaviours and the wider social determinants of health inequalities. The plans reveal a commitment to addressing all three of these issues, although there is variation in their approach to tackling the wider social determinants of health and inequalities.

This study adds to our knowledge of the strategic importance assigned by the new ICSs to tackling health inequalities and illustrates the ways in which features of integrated care can facilitate progress in an area of prime importance to society.

This chapter demonstrates the ways in which digital inclusion functions as a super social determinant of health, particularly within the arena of family carework and healthcare for vulnerable disabled US communities. The focus on vulnerable populations, including the elderly, chronically ill, young disabled, neurodivergent, and/or medically complex children and the families that care for them, is a useful case to present a compelling argument for the need to take seriously digital inclusion to maximize health, safety, and well-being for growing populations of Americans today. The authors argue that digital inclusion is an increasingly influential social determinant of health and a key dimension of health equity that offers important benefits and potentials, especially for vulnerable patient populations, for whom in-home and family-centered care are necessary parts of health maintenance, prevention, and well-being. The chapter ends with a discussion of ways that the US government can mitigate digital barriers and facilitate equitable access to broadband internet and e-health resources that address the intersections of digital, health, and care inequalities, with significant impacts in all three dimensions.

At the beginning of the 21st century, multiple and diverse social entities, including the public (consumers), private and nonprofit healthcare institutions, government (public health) and other industry sectors, began to recognize the limitations of the current fragmented healthcare system paradigm. Primary stakeholders, including employers, insurance companies, and healthcare professional organizations, also voiced dissatisfaction with unacceptable health outcomes and rising costs. Grand challenges and wicked problems threatened the viability of the health sector. American health systems responded with innovations and advances in healthcare delivery frameworks that encouraged shifts from intra- and inter-sector arrangements to multi-sector, lasting relationships that emphasized patient centrality along with long-term commitments to sustainability and accountability. This pathway, leading to a population health approach, also generated the need for transformative business models. The coproduction of health framework, with its emphasis on cross-sector alignments, nontraditional partner relationships, sustainable missions, and accountability capable of yielding return on investments, has emerged as a unique strategy for facing disruptive threats and challenges from nonhealth sector corporations. This chapter presents a coproduction of health framework, goals and criteria, examples of boundary spanning network alliance models, and operational (integrator, convener, aggregator) strategies. A comparison of important organizational science theories, including institutional theory, network/network analysis theory, and resource dependency theory, provides suggestions for future research directions necessary to validate the utility of the coproduction of health framework as a precursor for paradigm change.

Unequal social conditions that provide people with unequal opportunities to live healthy lives are considered unjust and associated with “health inequity”. Governing power is impacting people's lives through laws, policies and professional decisions, and can be used intentionally to combat health inequity by addressing and changing people's living- and working conditions. Little attention is paid to how these ways of exercising governing power unintentionally can structure further conditions for health inequity. In this paper, the authors coin the term “governance determinants of health” (GDHs). The authors' discussion of GDHs potential impact on health inequity can help avoid the implementation of governing strategies with an adverse impact on health equality. This paper aims to discuss the aforementioned objective.

The authors identify Governance Determinants of Health, the GDHs. GDHs refer to governance strategies that structurally impact healthcare systems and health equality. The authors focus on the unintended, blind sides of GDHs that maintain or reinforce the effects of socioeconomic inequality on health.

The power to organize healthcare is manifested in distinct structural approaches such as juridification, politicalization, bureaucratization and medical standardization. The authors explore the links between different forms of governance and health inequalities.

The authors' discussion in this article is innovative as it seeks to develop a framework that targets power dynamics inherent in GHDs to help identify and avoid GDHs that may promote unequal access to healthcare and prompt health inequity. However, this framework has limitations as the real-world, blurred and intertwined aspects of governing instruments are simplified for analytical purposes. As such, it risks overestimating the boundaries between the separate instruments and reducing the complexity of how the GDHs work in practice. Consequently, this kind of theory-driven framework does not do justice to the myriad of peoples' complex empirical practices where GDHs may overlap and intertwine with each other. Nevertheless, this framework can still help assist governing authorities in imagining a direction for the impacts of GDHs on health equity, so they can take precautionary steps to avoid adverse impacts.

The authors develop and explore – and demonstrate – the relevance of a framework that can assist governing authorities in anticipating the impacts of GDHs on health inequity.

The purpose of this study was to explore 232 service providers’ and policymakers’ experiences of supporting children’s well-being during the pandemic, across sectors, in 22 countries – including Kenya, the Philippines, South Africa, India, Scotland, Sweden, Canada and the USA, in the last quarter of 2020.

A smartphone survey delivered via a custom-built app containing mostly open-ended questions was used. Respondents were recruited via professional networks, newsletters and social media. Qualitative content analysis was used.

The findings reveal numerous system-level challenges to supporting children’s well-being, particularly virus containment measures, resource deficiencies and inadequate governance and stakeholder coordination. Those challenges compounded preexisting inequalities and poorly affected the quality, effectiveness and reach of services. As a result, children’s rights to an adequate standard of living; protection from violence; education; play; and right to be heard were impinged upon. Concurrently, the findings illustrate a range of adaptive and innovative practices in humanitarian and subsistence support; child protection; capacity-building; advocacy; digitalisation; and psychosocial and educational support. Respondents identified several priority areas – increasing service capacity and equity; expanding technology use; mobilising cross-sectoral partnerships; involving children in decision-making; and ensuring more effective child protection mechanisms.

This study seeks to inform resilience-enabling policies and practices that foster equity, child and community empowerment and organisational resilience and innovation, particularly in anticipation of future crises.

Using a novel approach to gather in-the-moment insights remotely, this study offers a unique international and multi-sectoral perspective, particularly from low- and middle-income countries.