This paper reports on income generation practices among civil servants in the health sector, with a particular emphasis on dual practice. It first approaches the subject of public–private overlap. Thereafter it focuses on coping strategies in general and then on dual practice in particular.To compensate for unrealistically low salaries, health workers rely on individual coping strategies. Many clinicians combine salaried, public-sector clinical work with a fee-for-service private clientele. This dual practice is often a means by which health workers try to meet their survival needs, reflecting the inability of health ministries to ensure adequate salaries and working conditions.Dual practice may be considered present in most countries, if not all. Nevertheless, there is surprisingly little hard evidence about the extent to which health workers resort to dual practice, about the balance of economic and other motives for doing so, or about the consequences for the proper use of the scarce public resources dedicated to health.In this paper dual practice is approached from six different perspectives: (1) conceptual, regarding what is meant by dual practice; (2) descriptive, trying to develop a typology of dual practices; (3) quantitative, trying to determine its prevalence; (4) impact on personal income, the health care system and health status; (5) qualitative, looking at the reasons why practitioners so frequently remain in public practice while also working in the private sector and at contextual, personal life, institutional and professional factors that make it easier or more difficult to have dual practices; and (6) possible interventions to deal with dual practice.

This article characterizes the problem of violence against health professionals in the workplace (VAHPITWP) in selected settings in Portugal. It addresses the questions of what types of violence are most frequent and who are the most affected health professionals.Three methodological approaches were followed: (i) documentary studies, (ii) a questionnaire-based hospital and health centre (HC) complex case study and (iii) semi-structured interviews with stakeholders.Of the different types of violence, all our study approaches confirm that verbal violence is the most frequent. Discrimination, not infrequent in the hospital, seems to be underestimated by the stakeholders interviewed. Violence seems much more frequent in the HC than in the hospital. In the HC, all types of violence are also most frequently directed against female health workers and, in the hospital, against male workers.These studies allow us to conclude that violence is frequent but underreported.

The time and type of the States' responses to the COVID‐19 pandemic varied with the severity of the epidemiological situation, the perceived risk, the political organisation and the model of health system of the country. We discuss the response of Germany, Spain, France, Italy, Portugal and the United Kingdom during the first months of the COVID‐19 epidemic in 2020, considering the political organisation of the country and its health system model. We analyse public health measures implemented to contain or mitigate the pandemic, as well as those related to governance, resources and reorganisation of services, financing mechanisms, response of the health system itself and health outcomes. To measure the burden of COVID‐19, we use several indicators. The adoption of measures, to contain and mitigate epidemic varied in degree and time of adoption. All countries reorganised their governance structure and the provision of care, despite the differences in political models and health systems (ranging from a more unitary and centralised political organisational model—France and Portugal; to a decentralised matrix—Germany, Spain, Italy and the United Kingdom). Rather than the differences in political models and health systems, the explanation for the success in tackling the epidemic seems to lay in other social determinants of health.

No abstract