Public preferences for vaccination campaigns in the COVID-19 endemic phase: insights from the VaxPref database

Objective: Despite widespread perceptions that SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) is no longer a significant threat, the virus continues to loom, and new variants may require renewed efforts to control its spread. Understanding how individual preferences and attitudes influence vaccination behaviour and policy compliance in light of the endemic phase is crucial in preparation for this scenario. Method: This paper presents descriptive data from a global stated choice survey conducted in 22 countries across 6 different continents between July 2022 and August 2023, and reports the methodological work developed to address the need for comparable data. Results: This study included 50,242 respondents. Findings indicated significant heterogeneity across countries in terms of vaccination status and willingness to accept boosters. Vaccine hesitancy and refusal were driven by lower trust in public health bodies, younger age, and lower educational levels. Refusers and hesitant people reported lower willingness to take risks compared to those fully vaccinated ( p <0.05). Lower mental health levels were found for the hesitant cohort ( p <0.05). Conclusions: Insights from this database can help public health authorities to gain a new understanding of the vaccine hesitancy phenomenon, support them in managing the transition from the pandemic to the endemic phase, and favour a new stream of research to maximise behavioural response to vaccination programs in preparation of future pandemics

Use of generic medicines in Latvia : Awareness, opinions and experiences of the population

Funding Information: Funding was provided by EEA Financial Mechanism and Latvian state (award number 2012.EEZ/DAP/MIC/183). The project is financially supported by Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway. Publisher Copyright: © 2019 The Author(s).Background: To stimulate use of generic medicines a combination of supply and demand side mechanisms are employed in the Latvian reimbursement system. It is reported that patients have high out-of-pocket pharmaceutical spending and that they overpay by not choosing generic medicines. Patient preferences may be an important obstacle in implementing generic policy. Objective of this study was to assess awareness, opinions and experience of the Latvian population regarding use of generic medicines. Methods: Survey of representative sample of the population of Latvia (n = 1005) aged 18-74 was conducted in March 2015. The survey was distributed in Latvian and Russian languages using Computer Assisted Web Interviews. Associations between experience with generic medicines, preference for medicines, and sociodemographic variables were tested with Pearson Chi-square statistics. Associations between the previous experience and information given by different sources versus choice between medicines were tested with Spearman's correlation test. Results: 72.3% of the population were informed about generic medicines. Men (66.9%) and respondents with primary or secondary education (58.3%; 69.3%) were less informed compared to total (72.3%). From those who recalled using generic medicines (n = 441), 94.4% evaluated their experience as positive or neutral. Despite this, only 21% of the population would opt for generic medicines. The strongest preference for brand-name medicines was in the age group > 55 (40.5%). Opinion of a physician was the most important factor when choosing between generic and brand-name medicines (88.7%). The more positive the information provided by general practitioners, physician specialists, pharmacists, family members, friends and internet is perceived, the more likely respondents are to choose generic medicines (p < 0.001). Conclusion: This study demonstrates that people in Latvia are aware of generic medicines but only a minority of the population would choose them when presented with a choice. It is therefore important that health care professionals provide objective and unbiased information about generic medicines to their patients. Interventions should aim to reach groups that are less informed and to improve providers' understanding and communication with patients about generics.publishersversionPeer reviewe

Governance and organization of Academic Medical Centers – a comparative analysis of 11 countries

Abstract Background Academic Medical Centers (AMCs) are organizations that link three functions: providing highly specialized medical services, teaching activities and conducting research. The aim of the study was to provide an international comparison of the governance and organization models of AMCs. The analysis covered 10 European countries (Cyprus, Czechia, Denmark, Germany, Italy, Latvia, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Spain) and Israel. Methods The study has an explorative and descriptive character. The methods involved: (1) the creation of a conceptual framework; (2) the development of a dedicated questionnaire; (3) data collection and analysis. The data was collected based on purposive sampling. There were 26 respondents from 11 countries. Results There is no standardized definition of AMCs across countries. Different types of hospital providers do link patientcare, teaching and research. Depending on the country and particular institution, the balance between these three functions, as well as the scope might vary a lot. The majority of the participating countries face either public or not-for-profit ownership for AMCs and medical faculties. However, the relationship between hospital and faculty varies substantially. Main internal governance challenges focus on lack of responsiveness to change and financial conflicts between the three core tasks. External challenges relate to financial sustainability and workforce shortages. Most respondents believe that in the nearby future the governance of AMCs will evolve to a more functionally integrated model of the three functions. Conclusions The study fills the gap in the literature on organization and governance of European AMCs. Although, there are substantial differences in the models of governance across countries, many challenges are highly similar. This raises important questions for future research (e.g. focusing solely on one function) as well as policy (the potential for cross-national learning). Key messages There is no standardized definition of AMCs across countries and different types of organizations are used to link the three functions of providing patientcare, teaching activities and research. Despite the organizational and legal differences, AMCs in different countries face similar challenges (nimbleness and financial conflicts between the three functions; health workforce shortages). </jats:sec

Hospital reforms in 11 Central and Eastern European countries between 2008 and 2019 : a comparative analysis

This paper aims to: (1) provide a brief overview of hospital sector characteristics in 11 Central and East-ern European countries (Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Estonia, Croatia, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Poland,Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia); (2) compare recent (2008 – 2019) hospital reforms in these countries; and(3) identify common trends, success factors and challenges for reforms. Methods applied involved fivestages: (1) a theoretical framework of hospital sector reforms was developed; (2) basic quantitative datacharacterizing hospital sectors were compared; (3) a scoping review was performed to identify an initiallist of reforms per country; (4) the list was sent to national researchers who described the top threereforms based on a standardized questionnaire; (5) received questionnaires were analysed and vali-dated with available literature. Results indicate that the scope of conducted reforms is very broad. Yet,reforms related to hospital sector governance and changes in purchasing and payment systems are muchmore frequent than reforms concerning relations with other providers. Most governance reforms aimedat transforming hospital infrastructure, improving financial management and/or improving quality ofcare, while purchasing and payment reforms focused on limiting hospital activities and/or on incen-tivising a shift to ambulatory/day care. Three common challenges included the lack of a comprehensiveapproach; unclear outcomes; and political influence. Given similar reform areas across countries, thereis considerable potential for shared learning