Suchergebnisse

The North China Plain, with a population of approximately 150 million, is facing severe water scarcity. The over-exploitation of groundwater in the region, with accumulation amounts reaching more than 150 billion m3, causes a series of hydrological and geological problems together with the consumption of a significant amount of energy. Here, we highlight the energy and greenhouse gas-related environmental co-benefits of the South-to-North Water Diversion Project (SNWDP). Moreover, we evaluate the energy-saving effect of SNWDP on groundwater exploitation based on the groundwater-exploitation reduction program implemented by the Chinese government. Our results show that the transferred water will replace about 2.97 billion m3 of exploited groundwater in the water reception area by 2020 and hence reduce energy consumption by 931 million kWh. Further, by 2030, 6.44 billion m3 of groundwater, which accounts for 27% of the current groundwater withdrawal, will save approximately 7% of Beijing's current thermal power generation output.

In mainland China, there remains a shortage of pediatric drugs. The Chinese government has recently launched policies and incentives to encourage pediatric drug development and clinical trials. However, data on the characteristics or development trends of these trials are limited. In this review, we extracted source data from the Chinese Clinical Trials Registry and Information Transparency Platform and systematically reviewed the pediatric clinical trials conducted in mainland China from 2009 to 2020, a comprehensive process evaluation of the pediatric drug clinical trials development in the past decade, providing data support to policy makers and industry stakeholders. We included 487 pediatric clinical trials. Over the past decade, the number of pediatric trials has increased, especially since 2016. The most common therapeutic areas were infectious diseases (n = 108, 22.2%), agents for preventive purpose (n = 99, 20.3%), and neurological and psychiatric diseases (n = 71, 14.6%). The number of clinical trials involving epilepsy (39, 10.1%), asthma (33, 8.5%), and influenza (24, 6.2%) were the highest. The distribution of leading institutions is unbalanced in mainland China, with most units in East China (34.0%) and few in Southwest China (6.9%). China has made progress in improving the research and development environment of pediatric drugs and increasing pediatric trials. However, a wide gap in pediatric drug development and clinical trials quality exists between China and the developed countries. The pharmaceutical industry in China has faced grim setbacks, including study duplication, lack of innovation, poor research design, and unbalanced resource allocation. Thus, we suggest that the Chinese government should adjust their policies to improve innovation and clinical design capacity, and optimize resource allocation between regions.

Background: In late January, a worldwide crisis known as COVID-19 was declared a Public Health Emergency of International Concern by the WHO. Within only a few weeks, the outbreak took on pandemic proportions, affecting over 100 countries. It was a significant issue to prevent and control COVID-19 on both national and global scales due to the dramatic increase in confirmed cases worldwide. Government guidelines provide a fundamental resource for communities, as they guide citizens on how to protect themselves against COVID-19, however, they also provide critical guidance for policy makers and healthcare professionals on how to take action to decrease the spread of COVID-19. We aimed to identify the differences and similarities between six different countries' (US, China, South Korea, UK, Brazil and Haiti) government-provided community and healthcare system guidelines, and to explore the relationship between guideline issue dates and the prevalence/incidence of COVID-19 cases. Methods: To make these comparisons, this exploratory qualitative study used document analysis of government guidelines issued to the general public and to healthcare professionals. Documents were purposively sampled (N = 55) and analyzed using content analysis. Results: The major differences in the evaluation and testing criteria in the guidelines across the six countries centered around the priority of testing for COVID-19 in the general population, which was strongly dependent on each country's healthcare capacity. However, the most similar guidelines pertained to the clinical signs and symptoms of COVID-19, and methods to prevent its contraction. Conclusion: In the initial stages of the outbreak, certain strategies were universally employed to control the deadly virus's spread, including quarantining the sick, contact tracing, and social distancing. However, each country dealt with differing healthcare capacities, risks, threats, political and socioeconomic challenges, and distinct healthcare systems and infrastructure. Acknowledging these differences highlights the importance of examining the various countries' response to the COVID-19 pandemic with a nuanced view, as each of these factors shaped the government guidelines distributed to each country's communities and healthcare systems.

BACKGROUND: In late January, a worldwide crisis known as COVID-19 was declared a Public Health Emergency of International Concern by the WHO. Within only a few weeks, the outbreak took on pandemic proportions, affecting over 100 countries. It was a significant issue to prevent and control COVID-19 on both national and global scales due to the dramatic increase in confirmed cases worldwide. Government guidelines provide a fundamental resource for communities, as they guide citizens on how to protect themselves against COVID-19, however, they also provide critical guidance for policy makers and healthcare professionals on how to take action to decrease the spread of COVID-19. We aimed to identify the differences and similarities between six different countries' (US, China, South Korea, UK, Brazil and Haiti) government-provided community and healthcare system guidelines, and to explore the relationship between guideline issue dates and the prevalence/incidence of COVID-19 cases. METHODS: To make these comparisons, this exploratory qualitative study used document analysis of government guidelines issued to the general public and to healthcare professionals. Documents were purposively sampled (N = 55) and analyzed using content analysis. RESULTS: The major differences in the evaluation and testing criteria in the guidelines across the six countries centered around the priority of testing for COVID-19 in the general population, which was strongly dependent on each country's healthcare capacity. However, the most similar guidelines pertained to the clinical signs and symptoms of COVID-19, and methods to prevent its contraction. CONCLUSION: In the initial stages of the outbreak, certain strategies were universally employed to control the deadly virus's spread, including quarantining the sick, contact tracing, and social distancing. However, each country dealt with differing healthcare capacities, risks, threats, political and socioeconomic challenges, and distinct healthcare systems and infrastructure. Acknowledging ...

Background: In late January, a worldwide crisis known as COVID-19 was declared a Public Health Emergency of International Concern by the WHO. Within only a few weeks, the outbreak took on pandemic proportions, affecting over 100 countries. It was a significant issue to prevent and control COVID-19 on both national and global scales due to the dramatic increase in confirmed cases worldwide. Government guidelines provide a fundamental resource for communities, as they guide citizens on how to protect themselves against COVID-19, however, they also provide critical guidance for policy makers and healthcare professionals on how to take action to decrease the spread of COVID-19. We aimed to identify the differences and similarities between six different countries' (US, China, South Korea, UK, Brazil and Haiti) government-provided community and healthcare system guidelines, and to explore the relationship between guideline issue dates and the prevalence/incidence of COVID-19 cases. Methods: To make these comparisons, this exploratory qualitative study used document analysis of government guidelines issued to the general public and to healthcare professionals. Documents were purposively sampled (N = 55) and analyzed using content analysis. Results: The major differences in the evaluation and testing criteria in the guidelines across the six countries centered around the priority of testing for COVID-19 in the general population, which was strongly dependent on each country's healthcare capacity. However, the most similar guidelines pertained to the clinical signs and symptoms of COVID-19, and methods to prevent its contraction. Conclusion: In the initial stages of the outbreak, certain strategies were universally employed to control the deadly virus's spread, including quarantining the sick, contact tracing, and social distancing. However, each country dealt with differing healthcare capacities, risks, threats, political and socioeconomic challenges, and distinct healthcare systems and infrastructure. Acknowledging these differences highlights the importance of examining the various countries' response to the COVID-19 pandemic with a nuanced view, as each of these factors shaped the government guidelines distributed to each country's communities and healthcare systems.