Suchergebnisse

BACKGROUND: The WHO identified the importance of macro-socioeconomic determinants and political context as interlinked key factors affecting healthcare quality and health equity. As a response to the recent economic and financial crisis, Portugal approved in 2011 the Economic Adjustment Programme (EAP) to obtain financial assistance from the Troika in order to reduce public debt. This study aims to analyse the impact of the economic crisis and the EAP on perinatal healthcare quality for very preterm (VPT) and/or very low birth weight (VLBW) infants, as perceived by healthcare professionals and experts, within the health administrative regions of the two major metropolitan areas in Portugal. METHODS: A qualitative approach was applied to receive an in-depth understanding and accomplish perspective variability. A purposive sampling technique was used. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with twenty-one healthcare professionals and experts between October 2018–July 2019. Inductive thematic analysis was performed which encompassed a five-step categorization procedure. Data analysis was undertaken by utilizing Nvivo2011 software. Evolved themes were then associated with WHO's Quality Standards on Maternal and New-born Care. A framework on the impact of macro-socioeconomic determinants on perinatal health care quality was developed. RESULTS: Although participants did not perceive the quality of perinatal care had deteriorated, the analysis of their accounts on work experience revealed that it was indeed adversely modified in all WHO Quality Standards. Health care provision was perceived as detrimental in five main areas: 1) Availability of human resources; 2) Functional referral systems; 3) Competent and motivated human resources; 4) Emotional support; and 5) Essential physical resources available. Policy reforms by the EAP resulted in reduced timeliness of care, increased waiting times, cuts in sequence and duration of consultations, and deficiencies in follow-up care for VPT/VLBW infants and their mothers. The ...

Key messages:

Chronicity and social context influence COVID-19 risk highlighting its syndemic dimension
Record Linkage advances knowledge on COVID-19, associated chronic diseases, and social indicators
Further harmonization of data protection requirements for scientific research may create multilevel public health measures
As a multidimensional tool, it optimizes integrated strategies and fosters solidarity on Health in All Policies (HiAP)

Background: The GDPR was implemented to build an overarching framework for personal data protection across the EU/EEA. Linkage of data directly collected from cohort participants, potentially serving as a prominent tool for health research, must respect data protection rules and privacy rights. Our objective was to investigate law possibilities of linking cohort data of minors with routinely collected education and health data comparing EU/EEA member states. Methods: A legal comparative analysis and scoping review was conducted of openly accessible published laws and regulations in EUR-Lex and national law databases on GDPR's implementation in Portugal, Finland, Norway, and the Netherlands and its connected national regulations purposing record linkage for health research that have been implemented up until April 30, 2021. Results: The GDPR does not ensure total uniformity in data protection legislation across member states offering flexibility for national legislation. Exceptions to process personal data, e.g., public interest and scientific research, must be laid down in EU/EEA or national law. Differences in national interpretation caused obstacles in cross-national research and record linkage: Portugal requires written consent and ethical approval; Finland allows linkage mostly without consent through the national Social and Health Data Permit Authority; Norway when based on regional ethics committee's approval and adequate information technology safeguarding confidentiality; the Netherlands mainly bases linkage on the opt-out system and Data Protection Impact Assessment. Conclusions: Though the GDPR is the most important legal framework, national legislation execution matters most when linking cohort data with routinely collected health and education data. As national interpretation varies, legal intervention balancing individual right to informational self-determination and public good is gravely needed for health research. More harmonization across EU/EEA could be helpful but should not be detrimental in ...

Background: The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) was implemented to build an overarching framework for personal data protection across the European Union/Economic Area (EU/EEA). Linkage of data directly collected from cohort participants based on individual consent must respect data protection rules and privacy rights of data subjects. Our objective was to investigate possibilities of linking cohort data of minors with routinely collected education and health data comparing EU/EEA member states. Methods: A legal comparative analysis and scoping review was conducted of openly online accessible published laws and regulations in EUR-Lex and national law databases on GDPR's implementation in Portugal, Finland, Norway, and the Netherlands and its connected national regulations purposing record linkage for health research that have been implemented up until April 30, 2021. Results: EU/EEA has limited legislative authority over member states. The GDPR offers flexibility for national legislation. Exceptions to process personal data, e.g., public interest and scientific research, must be laid down in EU/EEA or national law. Differences in national interpretation caused obstacles in cross-national research and record linkage: Portugal requires written consent and ethical approval; Finland allows linkage mostly without consent through the national Data Protection Supervisory Authority; Norway when based on regional ethics committee's approval and adequate information technology safeguarding confidentiality; the Netherlands mainly bases linkage on the opt-out system and Data Protection Impact Assessment. Conclusions: Though the GDPR is the most important legal framework, national legislation execution matters most when linking cohort data with routinely collected health and education data. As national interpretation varies, legal intervention balancing individual right to informational self-determination and public good is gravely needed for scientific research. More harmonization across EU/EEA could be helpful but ...