Classifications of health care systems: Do existing typologies reflect the particularities of the Global South?

Carvalho, Gabriela de; Schmid, Achim; Fischer, Johanna

doi:10.1177/1468018120969315

Cited by 27 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 56 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The more quantitatively oriented typologies (especially Damiani et al, 2011;Hal askov a et al, 2017;Kraus et al, 2010) are an exception here. However, they carry other (methodological) limitations: due to the inherently inductive approach toward classification, theses typologies cannot simply be extended to other countries or regions (De Carvalho, Schmid, & Fischer, 2020). This is particularly problematic given that cases concentrate strongly on Europe.…”

Section: Financingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparing long‐term care systems: A multi‐dimensional, actor‐centred typology

2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Like other fields of social policy, the organization of longterm care (LTC) varies temporally and geographically. The present article aims to advance the comparison of LTC systems worldwide by proposing a conceptual framework to analyse variation, putting a special focus on analysing the role of public and private actor types. In a precluding literature review of existing LTC typologies, we find that there are various promising classification approaches, but with an overwhelming concentration on European countries and often constructed in-transparently and superficially. Building on the concept of the care/welfare mix, we develop a multi-dimensional, actor-centred typology of LTC systems. In doing so, we employ the methodological procedure of theoretically constructing a typological attribute space. We argue that three dimensions, that is service provision, financing and regulation, are crucial for differentiating types. Furthermore, we chose an actor-centred approach, asking who bears the main responsibility in each dimension. Five relevant types of corporate actors are distinguished: state, societal actors, private for-profit actors, private individual actors, and global actors. Finally, we present and discuss the resulting attribute space and further illustrated the typology's use by exemplarily classifying three countries.

show abstract

Section: Financingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparing long‐term care systems: A multi‐dimensional, actor‐centred typology

2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We focused on English databases only and the findings of this mapping review may therefore not be representative of the global literature on long-term care interventions during the pandemic. Furthermore, the classifications that we used to define types of care reflect care systems that are present in the Global North (de Carvalho, Schmid and Fischer, 2021). These were instrumental in developing our search strategy, enabling us to identify relevant search terms.…”

Section: Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

What Long-Term Care Interventions and Policy Measures Have Been Studied During the Covid-19 Pandemic? Findings from a Rapid Mapping Review of the Scientific Evidence Published During 2020

Byrd

Salcher‐Konrad

Smith

et al. 2021

JLTC

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Context: Throughout the Covid-19 pandemic, long-term care researchers have aimed to generate evidence rapidly to inform the pandemic response. It is unclear which areas were prioritised during this period of rapid evidence generation. Objectives: We aimed to map the international scientific evidence on interventions and policy measures to mitigate the impacts of the Covid-19 pandemic on people who use and provide long-term care. Methods: We conducted a pragmatic, rapid mapping review of international evidence to identify the range of interventions, policies, and measures in long-term care studied during the Covid-19 pandemic and published throughout 2020. Studies were primarily identified from two academic databases (MEDLINE; Web of Science). Findings: We included 137 studies from 22 countries, mostly focusing on the United States, Europe, and Canada. Half of the studies focused on preventing or controlling Covid-19 infections. Other common types of interventions were measures to treat Covid-19 or improve access to general healthcare and studies of possible targets for policies and interventions, such as care home ownership. Only 13 studies covered home-based or community-based care. Limitations: This was a pragmatic review that aimed to map key areas of research in long-term care during the pandemic, rather than a systematic review of all available studies. Implications: During the first year of the Covid-19 pandemic, a substantial body of evidence on interventions to mitigate impacts of the pandemic in the long-term care sector emerged. However, reflecting the context and speed with which they were carried out, most studies did not apply an analytical lens and instead provided descriptive findings only. There were very few studies on home-based or communitybased care settings. As countries assess the lessons that can be learnt from the pandemic and improve the preparedness of their long-term care systems for future pandemics and other shocks, it will be important to consider the importance of facilitating rapid generation of more robust evidence.

show abstract

“…Whilst healthcare systems around the globe face challenges, there is a disparity between and within these systems in the Global North and South. Examples of these disparities relate to state capacity in terms of regulation and financing of the systems, burden of diseases, percapita spending and the healthcare provider-inhabitant ratio (de Carvalho et al, 2021). Discrepancies at the system level therefore create healthcare organizational contexts where findings from studies dominating the literature may not be generalizable.…”

Section: Gaps In Our Knowledge and Future Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

The neglected contexts and outcomes of evidence-based management: a systematic scoping review in hospital settings

Sahakian

Daouk‐Öyry

Kroon

et al. 2021

JHOM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeThe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic highlighted the necessity of practicing Evidence-based Management (EBMgt) as an approach to decision-making in hospital settings. The literature, however, provides limited insight into the process of EBMgt and its contextual nuances. Such insight is critical for better leveraging EBMgt in practice. Therefore, the authors' aim was to integrate the literature on the process of EBMgt in hospital settings, identify the gaps in knowledge and delineate areas for future research.Design/methodology/approachThe authors conducted a systematic scoping review using an innovative methodology that involved two systematic searches. First using EBMgt terminology and second using terminology associated with the EBMgt concept, which the authors derived from the first search.FindingsThe authors identified 218 relevant articles, which using content analysis, they mapped onto the grounded model of the EBMgt process; a novel model of the EBMgt process developed by Sahakian and colleagues. The authors found that the English language literature provides limited insight into the role of managers' perceptions and motives in EBMgt, the practice of EBMgt in Global South countries, and the outcomes of EBMgt. Overall, this study’s findings indicated that aspects of the decision-maker, context and outcomes have been neglected in EBMgt.Originality/valueThe authors contributed to the EBMgt literature by identifying these gaps and proposing future research areas and to the systematic review literature by developing a novel scoping review method.

show abstract

Classifications of health care systems: Do existing typologies reflect the particularities of the Global South?

Cited by 27 publications

References 56 publications

Comparing long‐term care systems: A multi‐dimensional, actor‐centred typology

Comparing long‐term care systems: A multi‐dimensional, actor‐centred typology

What Long-Term Care Interventions and Policy Measures Have Been Studied During the Covid-19 Pandemic? Findings from a Rapid Mapping Review of the Scientific Evidence Published During 2020

The neglected contexts and outcomes of evidence-based management: a systematic scoping review in hospital settings

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About