Evolution of the Public-Health Response to COVID-19 Pandemic in Spain: A Descriptive Qualitative Study

Urban residents' self-rescue in response to public health emergencies in China: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

The abject uncertainty and unpredictability of public health emergencies have plagued various countries. Global health governance and international communities are facing long-term and arduous challenges. The self-rescue ability of individuals in a public emergency may be the most powerful trait to improve the survival rate outside the hospital. The study explores the cognitive ability and attitudes of urban residents in China towards self-rescue in response to public health emergencies. It provides appropriate evidence for improving the self-rescue ability of urban residents in China.

METHODS

Sixteen urban residents were selected using the purposive sampling method for semi-structured interviews. Theme analysis was used to collate and analyse the interview data.

RESULTS

Two themes and five sub-themes were analysed. The two themes included cognition and attitude of Chinese urban residents for self-rescue in an emergency. Urban residents believed that their knowledge and skills for self-rescue in an emergency were low. The ability for emergency self-rescue is affected by multiple factors, with relatively limited options for improvement. Nonetheless, the respondents expressed a desire to accept interventions under psychological crisis and a strong willingness to acquire knowledge and skills required for emergency self-rescue.

CONCLUSION

This study investigated the perceptions and attitudes of Chinese urban residents towards emergency self-rescue. The results support enhanced ability of urban residents to respond to public health emergencies, thereby diminishing the negative outcomes. The findings suggest the need for strategies to address the factors affecting emergency self-rescue.

Austerity Measures and Underfunding of the Spanish Health System during the COVID-19 Pandemic-Perception of Healthcare Staff in Spain

Insufficient pandemic preparedness and underfunding of human and economic resources have conditioned the response to COVID-19 in Spain. This underfunding has continued since the austerity measures introduced during the 2008 financial crisis. This study aims to understand the perceptions of healthcare staff in Spain on the relationship between the funding of the health system and its capacity to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic. To this end, we carried out a thematic content analysis, based on 79 online semi-structured interviews with healthcare staff across the regions most affected by the COVID-19 first wave. Participants reported a lack of material resources, which had compromised the capacity of the health system before the pandemic. The lack of human resources was to be addressed by staff reorganisation, such as reinforcing hospital units to the detriment of primary health care. Staff shortages continued straining the COVID-19 response, even after material scarcities were later partially alleviated. Personnel shortages need to be adequately addressed in order to adequately respond to future health crises.

Differences in Stakeholders' Perception of the Impact of COVID-19 on Clinical Care and Decision-Making

Background: Pandemics are related to changes in clinical management. Factors that are associated with individual perceptions of related risks and decision-making processes focused on prevention and vaccination, but perceptions of other healthcare consequences are less investigated. Different perceptions of patients, nurses, and physicians on consequences regarding clinical management, decisional criteria, and burden were compared. Study Design: Cross-sectional OnCoVID questionnaire studies. Methods: Data that involved 1231 patients, physicians, and nurses from 11 German institutions that were actively involved in clinical treatment or decision-making in oncology or psychiatry were collected. Multivariate statistical approaches were used to analyze the stakeholder comparisons. Results: A total of 29.2% of professionals reported extensive changes in workload. Professionals in psychiatry returned severe impact of pandemic on all major aspects of their clinical care, but less changes were reported in oncology (p < 0.001). Both patient groups reported much lower recognition of treatment modifications and consequences for their own care. Decisional and pandemic burden was intensively attributed from professionals towards patients, but less in the opposite direction. Conclusions: All of the groups share concerns about the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on healthcare management and clinical processes, but to very different extent. The perception of changes is dissociated in projection towards other stakeholders. Specific awareness should avoid the dissociated impact perception between patients and professionals potentially resulting in impaired shared decision-making.