BackgroundBrazil has made progress towards a more equitable distribution of health care, but gains may be threatened by economic instability resulting from the 2008 global financial crisis. This study measured predictors of health care utilization and changes in horizontal inequity between 2008 and 2013.MethodData were from two nationally representative surveys that measured a variety of sociodemographic, health behaviors and health care indicators. We used Poisson regression models to estimate adjusted prevalence ratios and the Horizontal Equity Index (HEI) standardized by health needs to measure inequity in the utilization of doctor and dentist visits, hospitalizations and reporting of a usual source of care (USC) for those 18 and older. To estimate the HEI, we ranked the population from the poorest to the richest using a wealth index. We also decomposed the HEI into its different components and assessed changes from 2008 to 2013.ResultsThe population proportion with doctor and dentist visits in the past year and a USC increased between 2008 and 2013, while hospitalizations declined. In 2013, pro-rich inequity in doctor visits increased significantly while the distribution of hospitalizations shifted from pro-rich in 2008 to neutral in 2013. Dentist visits were highly pro-rich and USC was slightly pro-rich; the distribution of dentist visits and USC did not change over time. Health need was a strong predictor of health care utilization regardless of the type of coverage (public or private). Education, wealth, and private health plans were associated with the pro-rich orientation of doctor and dentist visits. Private health plans contributed to the pro-rich orientation of all outcomes, while the Family Health Strategy contributed to the pro-poor orientation of all outcomes.ConclusionThe results of this study support the claim that Brazil’s population continued to see absolute gains in access to care despite recent economic crises. However, gains in equity have slowed and may even decline if investments are not maintained as the country enters deeper financial and political crises.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12939-016-0431-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Health care policymakers have cited transportation barriers as key obstacles to providing health care to low-income suburbanites, particularly because suburbs have become home to a growing number of recent immigrants who are less likely to own cars than their neighbors. In a suburb of New York City, we conducted a pilot survey of low income, largely immigrant clients in four public clinics, to find out how much transportation difficulties limit their access to primary care. Clients were receptive to the opportunity to participate in the survey (response rate = 94%). Nearly one-quarter reported having transportation problems that had caused them to miss or reschedule a clinic appointment in the past. Difficulties included limited and unreliable local bus service, and a tenuous connection to a car. Our pilot work suggests that this population is willing to participate in a survey on this topic. Further, since even among those attending clinic there was significant evidence of past transportation problems, it suggests that a population based survey would yield information about substantial transportation barriers to health care.

This study uses data from a nationally representative household survey (the 2013 National Health Survey, n = 62,986) to describe patterns of alcohol consumption and related behaviors among Brazilian adults. Analyses include descriptive and multivariable Poisson regression for self-reports in the past 30 days of: drinking any alcohol, binge drinking, binge drinking 4 or more times, and driving after drinking (DD); as well as age of alcohol consumption initiation. Results show that current drinking prevalence was 26%, with an average age of initiation of 18.7 years. Binge drinking was reported by 51% of drinkers, 43% of whom reported binge drinking 4 or more times. Drinking and driving was reported by nearly one quarter of those who drive a car/motorcycle. Current drinking was more likely among males, ages 25–34, single, urban, and those with more education. Binge drinking was more likely among males, older age groups, and people who started drinking before 18. Drinking and driving was higher among males, those with more education, and rural residents. Those who binge-drink were nearly 70% more likely to report DD. All behaviors varied significantly among Brazilian states. Given their potential health consequences, the levels of injurious alcohol behaviors observed here warrant increased attention from Brazilian policymakers and civil society.

BackgroundThere are significant differences in the meaning and use of the term ‘Reverse Innovation’ between industry circles, where the term originated, and health policy circles where the term has gained traction. It is often conflated with other popularized terms such as Frugal Innovation, Co-development and Trickle-up Innovation. Compared to its use in the industrial sector, this conceptualization of Reverse Innovation describes a more complex, fragmented process, and one with no particular institution in charge. It follows that the way in which the term ‘Reverse Innovation’, specifically, is understood and used in the healthcare space is worthy of examination.MethodsBetween September and December 2014, we conducted eleven in-depth face-to-face or telephone interviews with key informants from innovation, health and social policy circles, experts in international comparative policy research and leaders in the Reverse Innovation space in the United States. Interviews were open-ended with guiding probes into the barriers and enablers to Reverse Innovation in the US context, specifically also informants' experience and understanding of the term Reverse Innovation. Interviews were recorded, transcribed and analyzed thematically using the process of constant comparison.ResultsWe describe three main themes derived from the interviews. First, ‘Reverse Innovation,’ the term, has marketing currency to convince policy-makers that may be wary of learning from or adopting innovations from unexpected sources, in this case Low-Income Countries. Second, the term can have the opposite effect - by connoting frugality, or innovation arising from necessity as opposed to good leadership, the proposed innovation may be associated with poor quality, undermining potential translation into other contexts. Finally, the term ‘Reverse Innovation’ is a paradox – it breaks down preconceptions of the directionality of knowledge and learning, whilst simultaneously reinforcing it.ConclusionsWe conclude that this term means different things to different people and should be used strategically, and with some caution, depending on the audience.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12992-016-0175-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

No abstract

This article examines the diffusion of U.S. state child passenger safety laws, analyzing over-time changes and inter-state differences in all identifiable features of laws that plausibly influence crash-related morbidity and mortality. The observed trend shows many states’ continuing efforts to update their laws to be consistent with latest motor vehicle safety recommendations, with each state modifying their laws on average 6 times over the 30-year period. However, there has been a considerable time lag in knowledge diffusion and policy adoption. Even though empirical evidence supporting the protective effect of child restraint devices was available in the early 1970s, laws requiring their use were not adopted by all 50 states until 1986. For laws requiring minors to be seated in rear seats, the first state law adoption did not occur until two decades after the evidence became publicly available. As of 2010, only 12 states explicitly required the use of booster seats, 9 for infant seats and 6 for toddler seats. There is also great variation among states in defining the child population to be covered by the laws, the vehicle operators subject to compliance, and the penalties resulting from non-compliance. Some states cover only up to 4-year-olds while others cover children up to age 17. As of 2010, states have as many as 14 exemptions, such as those for non-residents, non-parents, commercial vehicles, large vehicles, or vehicles without seatbelts. Factors such as the complexity of the state of the science, the changing nature of guidelines (from age to height/weight-related criteria), and the absence of coordinated federal actions are potential explanations for the observed patterns. The resulting uneven policy landscape among states suggests a strong need for improved communication among state legislators, public health researchers, advocates and concerned citizen groups to promote more efficient and effective policymaking.

BackgroundCountry-of-origin of a product can negatively influence its rating, particularly if the product is from a low-income country. It follows that how non-traditional sources of innovation, such as low-income countries, are perceived is likely to be an important part of a diffusion process, particularly given the strong social and cognitive boundaries associated with the healthcare professions.MethodsBetween September and December 2014, we conducted eleven in-depth face-to-face or telephone interviews with key informants from innovation, health and social policy circles, experts in international comparative policy research and leaders in Reverse Innovation in the United States. Interviews were open-ended with guiding probes into the barriers and enablers to Reverse Innovation in the US context, specifically also to understand whether, in their experience translating or attempting to translate innovations from low-income contexts into the US, the source of the innovation matters in the adopter context. Interviews were recorded, transcribed and analyzed thematically using the process of constant comparison.ResultsOur findings show that innovations from low-income countries tend to be discounted early on because of prior assumptions about the potential for these contexts to offer solutions to healthcare problems in the US. Judgments are made about the similarity of low-income contexts with the US, even though this is based oftentimes on flimsy perceptions only. Mixing levels of analysis, local and national, leads to country-level stereotyping and missed opportunities to learn from low-income countries.ConclusionsOur research highlights that prior expectations, invoked by the Low-income country cue, are interfering with a transparent and objective learning process. There may be merit in adopting some techniques from the cognitive psychology and marketing literatures to understand better the relative importance of source in healthcare research and innovation diffusion. Counter-stereotyping techniques and decision-making tools may be useful to help decision-makers evaluate the generalizability of research findings objectively and transparently. We suggest that those interested in Reverse Innovation should reflect carefully on the value of disclosing the source of the innovation that is being proposed, if doing so is likely to invoke negative stereotypes.

Several aspects of tobacco control appear to have deteriorated in NYC. Greater attention to monitoring retailer compliance with all tobacco regulations will be important for Tobacco 21 laws to be effective in reducing youth access to tobacco products.