International Journal of Health Policy and Management
Volume:3 Issue: 6, Nov 2014

A number of individuals and organizations have considerable influence over the selection of global health priorities and strategies. For some that influence derives from control over financial resources. For others it comes from expertise and claims to moral authority—what can be termed, respectively, epistemic and normative power. In contrast to financial power, we commonly take for granted that epistemic and normative forms of power are legitimate. I argue that we should not; rather we should investigate the origins of these forms of power, and consider under what circumstances they are justly derived.

Workplace violence is one of the factors which can strongly reduce job satisfaction and the quality of working life of nurses. The aim of this study was to measure nurses’ exposure to workplace violence in one of the major teaching hospitals in Tehran in 2010. We surveyed the nurses in a cross-sectional design in 2010. The questionnaire was adapted from a standardized questionnaire designed collaboratively by the International Labor Office (ILO), the International Health Organization (IHO), the International Council of Nurses (ICN), and the Public Services International (PSI). Finally, in order to analyze the relationships among different variables in the study, T-test and Chi-Square test were used. Three hundred and one nurses responded to the questionnaire (a response rate of 73%). Over 70% of the nurses felt worried about workplace violence. The participants reported exposure to verbal abuse (64% CI: 59-70%), bullying-mobbing (29% CI: 24-34%) and physical violence (12% CI: 9-16%) at least once during the previous year. Relatives of hospital patients were responsible for most of the violence. Nurses working in the emergency department and outpatient clinics were more likely to report having experienced violence. Nurses were unlikely to report violence to hospital managers, and 40% of nurses were unaware of any existing policies within the hospital for reducing violence. We observed a considerable level of nurse exposure to workplace violence. The high rate of reported workplace violence demonstrates that the existing safeguards that aim to protect the staff from abusive patients and relatives are inadequate.

The current study aimed to determine eye care utilization, to assess the role of economic inequality in the utilization of eye care services, and to identify its determinants in Shahroud, North of Iran. Of the 6,311 invited people, 5,190 (82.24%) individuals aged 40 to 64 years old participated in the study. A history of a visit by an ophthalmologist or optometrist was considered as eye care utilization. The gap between low- and high-economic groups was decomposed into its determinants using the Oaxaca decomposition method. Among the participants, 16.32% [95% Confidence Intervals (CI)= 15.31–17.33%] had never been examined by an ophthalmologist or optometrist, and 30.94% (95% CI= 29.69–32.20%) had not undergone an eye examination in the past 5 years. This negative history was significantly higher among female subjects [Odds Ratio (OR)= 1.79, 95% CI= 1.51–2.14], the low-economic group (OR= 2.33, 95% CI= 1.90–2.87), the visually impaired (OR= 1.41, 95% CI= 1.05–1.90), and the uninsured (OR= 1.93, 95% CI= 1.45–2.58). The negative history of eye examination decreased with increasing in age (OR= 0.94, 95% CI= 0.93–0.96) and education (OR= 0.94, 95% CI= 0.92–0.96). In this study, 24.72% (95% CI= 22.30–27.14) of the low-economic group and 9.94% (95% CI= 8.75–11.14) of the high-economic group had no history of eye examination. Decomposition of the gap between the two economic groups showed that education and gender were the most important determinants of inequality. A considerable percentage of adults, even those with visual impairment, do not receive appropriate eye care. There is a definite economic inequality in the community for which poverty per se could be the major cause.

The Surgical Informed Consent (SIC) is a comprehensive process that establishes an information-based agreement between the patient and his doctor to undertake a clearly outlined medical or surgical intervention. It is neither a casual formality nor a casually signed piece of paper. The present study was designed to audit the current knowledge and attitudes of doctors towards SIC at a tertiary care teaching hospital in Pakistan. This cross-sectional qualitative investigation was conducted under the auspices of the Department of Medical Education (DME), Pakistan Institute of Medical Sciences (PIMS), Shaheed Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto Medical University (SZABMU), Islamabad over three months period. A 19-item questionnaire was employed for data collection. The participants were selected at random from the list of the surgeons maintained in the hospital and approached face-to-face with the help of a team of junior doctors detailed for questionnaire distribution among them. The target was to cover over 50% of these doctors by convenience sampling. Out of 231 respondents, there were 32 seniors while 199 junior doctors, constituting a ratio of 1:6.22. The respondents variably responded to the questions regarding various attributes of the process of SIC. Overall, the junior doctors performed poorer compared to the seniors. The knowledge and attitudes of our doctors particularly the junior ones, towards the SIC are less than ideal. This results in their failure to avail this golden opportunity of doctor-patient communication to guide their patients through a solidly informative and legally valid SIC. They are often unaware of the essential preconditions of the SIC; provide incomplete information to their patients; and quite often do not ensure direct involvement of their patients in the process. Additionally they lack an understanding of using interactive computer-based programs as well as the concept of nocebo effect of informed consent.

The inclusion of cost-effectiveness data, as a basis for priority setting rankings, is a distinguishing feature in the formulation of the Swedish national guidelines. Guidelines are generated with the direct intent to influence health policy and support decisions about the efficient allocation of scarce healthcare resources. Certain medical conditions may be given higher priority rankings i.e. given more resources than others, depending on how serious the medical condition is. This study investigated how a decision-making group, the Priority Setting Group (PSG), used cost-effectiveness data in ranking priority setting decisions in the national guidelines for heart diseases. A qualitative case study methodology was used to explore the use of such data in ranking priority setting healthcare decisions. The study addressed availability of cost-effectiveness data, evidence understanding, interpretation difficulties, and the reliance on evidence. We were also interested in the explicit use of data in ranking decisions, especially in situations where economic arguments impacted the reasoning behind the decisions. This study showed that cost-effectiveness data was an important and integrated part of the decision-making process. Involvement of a health economist and reliance on the data facilitated the use of cost-effectiveness data. Economic arguments were used both as a fine-tuning instrument and a counterweight for dichotomization. Cost-effectiveness data were used when the overall evidence base was weak and the decision-makers had trouble making decisions due to lack of clinical evidence and in times of uncertainty. Cost-effectiveness data were also used for decisions on the introduction of new expensive medical technologies. Cost-effectiveness data matters in decision-making processes and the results of this study could be applicable to other jurisdictions where health economics is implemented in decision-making. This study contributes to knowledge on how cost-effectiveness data is used in actual decision-making, to ensure that the decisions are offered on equal terms and that patients receive medical care according their needs in order achieve maximum benefit.

The importance of cross-border healthcare, medical and health tourism plays a significant role in the European health policy and health management. After dentistry, orthopaedic treatments are the leading motivation for seeking care in Hungary, as patients with rheumatic and motion diseases are drawn to the thermal spas and well-established orthopaedic centres. This paper aims to gain insight into foreign patients’ perspectives on their experience of having sought medical tourism in orthopaedic care in Hungary. A patient survey was conducted in 2012 on motivations for seeking treatment abroad, orthopaedic care received and overall satisfaction. In addition, health professionals’ interviews, and 17 phone interviews were conducted in 2013 with Romanian patients who had orthopaedic treatment in Hungary. Finally, medical records of foreign patients were analysed. The survey was completed by 115 participants – 61.1% females, mean age= 41.9, 87% Romanian origin. Most of the patients came to Hungary for orthopaedic surgeries, e.g. arthroscopy, knee/hip prosthesis or spinal surgery. 72.6% chose Hungary because of related to perceived better quality and longstanding culture of Hungarian orthopaedic care. Over 57% of patients reported being ‘very satisfied’ with care received and 41.6% ‘satisfied’. The follow-up interviews further reflected this level of satisfaction, therefore many respondents stating they have already recommended the Hungarian healthcare to others. Based on the findings, patients from neighbouring regions are increasingly seeking orthopaedic care in Hungary. Patients having orthopaedic care are highly satisfied with the quality of care, the whole treatment process from the availability of information to discharge summaries and would consider returning for further treatments.

Patient satisfaction is one of the vital attributes to consider when evaluating the impact of accreditation systems. This study aimed to explore the impact of the national accreditation system in Lebanon on patient satisfaction. An explanatory cross-sectional study of six hospitals in Lebanon. Patient satisfaction was measured using the SERVQUAL tool assessing five dimensions of quality (reliability, assurance, tangibility, empathy, and responsiveness). Independent variables included hospital accreditation scores, size, location (rural/urban), and patient demographics. The majority of patients (76.34%) were unsatisfied with the quality of services. There was no statistically significant association between accreditation classification and patient satisfaction. However, the tangibility dimension – reflecting hospital structural aspects such as physical facility and equipment was found to be associated with patient satisfaction. This study brings to light the importance of embracing more adequate patient satisfaction measures in the Lebanese hospital accreditation standards. Furthermore, the findings reinforce the importance of weighing the patient perspective in the development and implementation of accreditation systems. As accreditation is not the only driver of patient satisfaction, hospitals are encouraged to adopt complementary means of promoting patient satisfaction.

This commentary reviews a recent piece by Burton and Rycroft-Malone on the use of Resource Based View (RBV) in healthcare organizations. It first outlines the core content of their piece. It then discusses their attempts to extend RBV to the analysis of large scale quality improvement efforts in healthcare. Some critique is elaborated. The broader question of why RBV seems to be migrating into healthcare management research is considered. They conclude RBV is a promising new theory for healthcare organizations.

In his insightful editorial, Nir Eyal explores the connections between nudging and shaming. One upshot of his argument is that we should question the principle of the least restrictive alternative in public health and health policy. In this commentary, I maintain that Eyal’s argument undermines only a rather implausible version of the principle of the least restrictive alternative and I sketch two reasons for rejecting the mainstream and more plausible version of this principle.

The commentary on our paper from Boaz et al. is both welcome and pertinent, especially in its call for greater critical attention to be paid to some of the underlying principles of participation as well as to techniques and methods (1,2). In some respects our paper and subsequent research was designed to allow us to measure and better understand the impact of participating in a citizen’s jury on the jurors’ views and expressed preferences (1,3).

The emergence of endocrine disease has created significant challenges for healthcare policy-makers and payers across the world. Policy-makers have to ensure availability of drugs used for various endocrinopathies. One way in which this is facilitated is through the World Health Organization (WHO) List of Essential Medicines (LEM). The LEM aims to cover the basic pharmaceutical needs of the majority of people seeking healthcare (1).