Background: Health systems are based on 6 functions that need to work together at all times to effectively deliver safe and quality health services. These functions are vulnerable to shocks and changes; if a health system is unable to withstand the pressure from a shock, it may cease to function or collapse. The concept of resilience has been introduced with the goal of strengthening health systems to avoid disruption or collapse. The concept is new within health systems research, and no common description exists to describe its meaning. The aim of this study is to summarize and characterize the existing descriptions of health system resilience to improve understanding of the concept. Methods and Analysis: A scoping review was undertaken to identify the descriptions and characteristics of health system resilience. Four databases and gray literature were searched using the keywords "health system" and "resilience" for published documents that included descriptions, frameworks or characteristics of health system resilience. Additional documents were identified from reference lists. Four expert consultations were conducted to gain a broader perspective. Descriptions were analysed by studying the frequency of key terms and were characterized by using the World Health Organization (WHO) health system framework. The scoping review identified eleven sources with descriptions and 24 sources that presented characteristics of health system resilience. Frequently used terms that were identified in the literature were shock, adapt, maintain, absorb and respond. Change and learning were also identified when combining the findings from the descriptions, characteristics and expert consultations. Leadership and governance were recognized as the most important building block for creating health system resilience. Discussion: No single description of health system resilience was used consistently. A variation was observed on how resilience is described and to what depth it was explained in the existing literature. The descriptions of health system resilience primarily focus on major shocks. Adjustments to long-term changes and the element of learning should be considered for a better understating of health system resilience.
Significant efforts were invested in halting the recent Ebola virus disease outbreak in West Africa. Now, studies are emerging on the magnitude of the indirect health effects of the outbreak in the affected countries, and the aim of this study is to systematically assess the results of these publications. The methodology for this review adhered to the Prisma guidelines for systematic reviews. A total of 3354 articles were identified for screening, and while 117 articles were read in full, 22 studies were included in the final review. Utilization of maternal health services decreased during the outbreak. The number of cesarean sections and facility-based deliveries declined and followed a similar pattern in Guinea, Liberia, and Sierra Leone. A change in the utilization of antenatal and postnatal care and family planning services was also seen, as well as a drop in utilization of children’s health services, especially in terms of vaccination coverage. In addition, the uptake of HIV/AIDS and malaria services, general hospital admissions, and major surgeries decreased as well. Interestingly, it was the uptake of health service provision by the population that decreased, rather than the volume of health service provision. Estimates from the various studies suggest that non-Ebola morbidity and mortality have increased after the onset of the outbreak in Sierra Leone, Guinea, and Liberia. Reproductive, maternal, and child health services were especially affected, and the decrease in facility deliveries, cesarean sections, and volume of antenatal and postnatal care visits might have significant adverse effects on maternal and newborn health. The impact of Ebola stretches far beyond Ebola cases and deaths. This review indicates that indirect health service effects are substantial and both short and long term, and highlights the importance of support to maintain routine health service delivery and the maintenance of vaccination programs as well as preventative and curative malaria programs, both in general but especially in times of a disaster.
Introduction: How the burden of disease varies during different phases after floods and after storms is essential in order to guide a medical response, but it has not been well-described. The objective of this review was to elucidate the health problems following flood and storm disasters. Methods: A literature search of the databases Medline (US National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health; Bethesda, Maryland USA); Cinahl (EBSCO Information Services; Ipswich, Massachusetts USA); Global Health (EBSCO Information Services; Ipswich, Massachusetts USA); Web of Science Core Collection (Thomson Reuters; New York, New York USA); Embase (Elsevier; Amsterdam, Netherlands); and PubMed (National Center for Biotechnology Information, National Institutes of Health; Bethesda, Maryland USA) was conducted in June 2015 for English-language research articles on morbidity or mortality and flood or storm disasters. Articles on mental health, interventions, and rescue or health care workers were excluded. Data were extracted from articles that met the eligibility criteria and analyzed by narrative synthesis. Results: The review included 113 studies. Poisonings, wounds, gastrointestinal infections, and skin or soft tissue infections all increased after storms. Gastrointestinal infections were more frequent after floods. Leptospirosis and diabetes-related complications increased after both. The majority of changes occurred within four weeks of floods or storms. Conclusion: Health changes differently after floods and after storms. There is a lack of data on the health effects of floods alone, long-term changes in health, and the strength of the association between disasters and health problems. This review highlights areas of consideration for medical response and the need for high-quality, systematic research in this area.Saulnier DD, Brolin Ribacke K, von Schreeb J. No calm after the storm: a systematic review of human health following flood and storm disasters. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2017;32(5):568-579. IntroductionThe number of weather-related disasters has increased over the last 20 years. Nearly one-half of the disasters were floods, which killed 157,000 people and affected 2.3 billion. Storms were one-quarter of the disasters but were responsible for a larger proportion of fatalities, causing 220,000 deaths and affecting 660,000 people. 1 As climate change transforms the frequency and severity of weather events in the coming years, the impact of floods and storms is likely to worsen.The health care response to a disaster should be guided by the known and expected needs of the affected population. It should be prepared for needs caused by the direct effect of the disaster and for the indirect outcomes of the initial impact. This can be achieved by knowing if and how the health of a population changes after a disaster. Response plans should use the best available evidence to understand the immediate, short-term, and long-term health outcomes after a disaster, and how ordinary health care needs are affected.D...
Health system resilience, known as the ability for health systems to absorb, adapt or transform to maintain essential functions when stressed or shocked, has quickly gained popularity following shocks like COVID-19. The concept is relatively new in health policy and systems research and the existing research remains mostly theoretical. Research to date has viewed resilience as an outcome that can be measured through performance outcomes, as an ability of complex adaptive systems that is derived from dynamic behaviour and interactions, or as both. However, there is little congruence on the theory and the existing frameworks have not been widely used, which as diluted the research applications for health system resilience. A global group of health system researchers were convened in March 2021 to discuss and identify priorities for health system resilience research and implementation based on lessons from COVID-19 and other health emergencies. Five research priority areas were identified: (1) measuring and managing systems dynamic performance, (2) the linkages between societal resilience and health system resilience, (3) the effect of governance on the capacity for resilience, (4) creating legitimacy and (5) the influence of the private sector on health system resilience. A key to filling these research gaps will be longitudinal and comparative case studies that use cocreation and coproduction approaches that go beyond researchers to include policy-makers, practitioners and the public.
There is limited knowledge on the effect of seasonal flooding on health over time. We quantified the short- and long-term effects of floods on selected health indicators at public healthcare facilities in 11 districts in Cambodia, a flood-prone setting. Counts of inpatient discharge diagnoses and outpatient consultations for diarrhea, acute respiratory infections, skin infections, injuries, noncommunicable diseases and vector-borne diseases were retrieved from public healthcare facilities for each month between January 2008 and December 2013. Flood water was mapped by month, in square kilometers, from satellite data. Poisson regression models with three lag months were constructed for the health problems in each district, controlled for seasonality and long-term trends. During times of flooding and three months after, there were small to moderate increases in visits to healthcare facilities for skin infections, acute respiratory infections, and diarrhea, while no association was seen at one to two months. The associations were small to moderate, and a few of our results were significant. We observed increases in care seeking for diarrhea, skin infections, and acute respiratory infections following floods, but the associations are uncertain. Additional research on previous exposure to flooding, using community- and facility-based data, would help identify expected health risks after floods in flood-prone settings.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.