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.

No abstract

BackgroundPeople with disabilities face challenges accessing basic rehabilitation health care. In 2006, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) outlined the global necessity to meet the rehabilitation needs of people with disabilities, but this goal is often challenged by the undersupply and inequitable distribution of rehabilitation workers. While the aggregate study and monitoring of the physical rehabilitation workforce has been mostly ignored by researchers or policy-makers, this paper aims to present the ‘challenges and opportunities’ for guiding further long-term research and policies on developing the relatively neglected, highly heterogeneous physical rehabilitation workforce.MethodsThe challenges were identified through a two-phased investigation. Phase 1: critical review of the rehabilitation workforce literature, organized by the availability, accessibility, acceptability and quality (AAAQ) framework. Phase 2: integrate reviewed data into a SWOT framework to identify the strengths and opportunities to be maximized and the weaknesses and threats to be overcome.ResultsThe critical review and SWOT analysis have identified the following global situation: (i) needs-based shortages and lack of access to rehabilitation workers, particularly in lower income countries and in rural/remote areas; (ii) deficiencies in the data sources and monitoring structures; and (iii) few exemplary innovations, of both national and international scope, that may help reduce supply-side shortages in underserved areas.DiscussionBased on the results, we have prioritized the following ‘Six Rehab-Workforce Challenges’: (1) monitoring supply requirements: accounting for rehabilitation needs and demand; (2) supply data sources: the need for structural improvements; (3) ensuring the study of a whole rehabilitation workforce (i.e. not focused on single professions), including across service levels; (4) staffing underserved locations: the rising of education, attractiveness and tele-service; (5) adapt policy options to different contexts (e.g. rural vs urban), even within a country; and (6) develop international solutions, within an interdependent world.ConclusionsConcrete examples of feasible local, global and research action toward meeting the Six Rehab-Workforce Challenges are provided. Altogether, these may help advance a policy and research agenda for ensuring that an adequate rehabilitation workforce can meet the current and future rehabilitation health needs.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12960-017-0182-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has affected communities, populations, and countries throughout the world. As the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic developed, the extent to which the disease interacted with already existing endemic, non-communicable and infectious diseases became evident, hence deeply influencing health outcomes. Additionally, a synergistic effect has been demonstrated also with socio-economic, cultural, and contextual determinants of health which seem to contribute to poorer health and accumulating social disadvantages. In this essay, using as a starting point the syndemic theory that translates the cumulative and intertwined factors between different epidemics, we argue that the SARS-CoV-2 is a one health issue of a syndemic nature and that the failure to acknowledge this contributes to weakened policy-making processes and public health responses and ineffective health policies and programs.

Background: This study’s aims are to assess the current evidence presented in the literature regarding the potential risks of COVID-19 infection among pregnant women and consequent fetal transmission. Methods: a systematic literature review assessing papers published in the most comprehensive databases in the field of health intended to answer the question, “What are the effects of COVID-19 infection during pregnancy, and what is the neonatal prognosis?” Results: 49 papers published in 2020 were eligible, presenting low levels of evidence. A total of 755 pregnant women and 598 infants were assessed; more than half of pregnant women had C-sections (379/65%). Only 493 (82%) infants were tested for SARS-CoV-2, nine (2%) of whom tested positive. There is, however, no evidence of vertical transmission based on what has been assessed so far, considering there are knowledge gaps concerning the care provided during and after delivery, as well as a lack of suitable biological samples for testing SARS-CoV-2. Conclusions: We cannot rule out potential worsening of the clinical conditions of pregnant women infected with SARS-CoV-2, whether the infection is associated with comorbidities or not, due to the occurrence of respiratory disorders, cardiac rhythm disturbances, and acid-base imbalance, among others. We recommend relentless monitoring of all pregnant women in addition to testing them before delivery or the first contact with newborns.