PubMed · 2978000
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
E Cittadini, G La Sala, A Perino. Endoscopy for contraception.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2978000/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
BACKGROUND: Surgical care is essential for achieving global health equity, yet low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) face major gaps in access and planning, partly due to limited evidence on the costs and resource requirements of surgical interventions. Understanding these costs is vital for designing efficient and equitable health systems. METHODS: We conducted a systematic literature review (covering MEDLINE, EMBASE, Global Health, EconLit and grey literature) to identify studies reporting the costs of surgeries in LMICs from January 2000 to June 2023. Minor and major surgical procedures were considered, focusing on therapeutic procedures (excluding diagnostic interventions). Studies that clearly identified, quantified and costed hospital resources and services deployed in the provision of surgical care, and included at least two of the surgical production factors (ie, consumables, diagnostics, personnel, infrastructure and overhead) in the costing were included. Costs were standardised to 2023 International dollars (I$) for comparability. RESULTS: A total of 74 studies from 29 countries met the inclusion criteria, with 210 cost estimates across 65 procedure groups. Costs varied widely: from I$1.54 for a caesarean section in Tanzania to I$618 098 for paediatric cataract surgery in Zambia. Full costing studies reported higher estimates than partial costing studies. Most studies (60%) originated from upper-middle-income countries, with limited data (10%) from low-income settings. CONCLUSION: This review provides a reference list of surgical procedure costs across LMICs, highlighting considerable cost variation by procedure, specialty and country. The findings underscore the need for better-quality, standardised cost data-especially from low-income countries-to inform national surgical plans, universal health coverage benefit packages and reimbursement policies.
The pharmaceutical industry is facing substantial criticism from many directions, including financial barriers to access to drugs in both developed and developing countries, high profits, spending on advertising and marketing, and other issues. Underlying these criticisms are fundamental questions about the value of the current patent-based drug development system. Six major problems with the patent system are (1) recovery of research costs by patent monopoly reduces access to drugs; (2) market demand rather than health needs determines research priorities; (3) resources between research and marketing are misallocated; (4) the market for drugs has inherent market failures; (5) overall investment in drug research and development is too low, compared with profits; and (6) the existing system discriminates against US patients. Potential solutions fall into 3 categories: change in drug pricing through either price controls or tiered pricing; change in drug industry structure through a "buy-out" pricing system or with the public sector acting as exclusive research funder; and change in development incentives through a disease burden incentive system, orphan drug approaches, or requiring new drugs to demonstrate improvement over existing products prior to US Food and Drug Administration approval. We recommend 4 complementary reforms: (1) having no requirement to test new drug products against existing products prior to approval but requiring rigorous comparative postapproval testing; (2) international tiered pricing and systematic safeguards to prevent flow-back; (3) increased government-funded research and buy-out for select conditions; and (4) targeted experiments using other approaches for health conditions in which there has been little progress and innovation over the last few decades.
This paper uses 'othering' theory to explore how forced migrants are received in developed countries and considers the implications of this for public health. It identifies a variety of mechanisms by which refugees, asylum seekers and irregular migrants are positioned as 'the other' and are defined and treated as separate, distant and disconnected from the host communities in receiving countries. The paper examines how this process has the potential to affect health outcomes both for individuals and communities and concludes that public health must engage with and challenge this othering discourse. It argues that public health practitioners have a critical role to play in reframing thinking about health services and health policies for forced migrants, by promoting inclusion and by helping shape a narrative which integrates and values the experiences of this population.