Suchergebnisse

Most children die in low and middle-income countries as a result of structural injustice, and while it may not be possible to prove causality between economic policies and breaches of rights, it is possible to audit policy and practices through the lens of human rights. Child health advocates need to highlight the fact that technical interventions, in the absence of action on structural injustice, cannot address the fundamental causes of poor health. It could even be said that we collude in the fallacy that injustices can be solved with technical solutions. The determinants of health, water, food, shelter, primary education and health care are minimum core human rights, are the rights required for survival and today should be available to every child (and their families) in all countries. However, there are national and global limitations on the ability of countries to determine policy and generate the revenue required for core human rights. The authors conducted a review of the literature on the main leakages from government revenues in low and middle-income countries to identify obstacles to children enjoying their right to survival. Based on the review the authors suggest a framework for an upstream audit that can be carried out, country by country, to identify barriers in terms of policies and the generation, allocation and utilisation of revenues. This audit involves systematically screening the policies and practices of the main actors: national governments, high-income country partners, multinational enterprises, and international organisations, for possible influence on the realisation of human rights. Human rights advocates and child health associations could lead or commission an upstream audit on behalf of children in their countries in order to identify the fundamental causes and real remedies. ; Publisher PDF ; Peer reviewed

Background Globally, xenophobia towards out-groups is frequently increased in times of economic and political instability, such as in infectious disease outbreaks. This systematic review aims to: (1) assess the xenophobic attitudes and behaviors towards migrants during disease outbreaks; and (2) identify adverse health outcomes linked to xenophobia. Methods We searched nine scientific databases to identify studies measuring xenophobic tendencies towards international migrants during disease outbreaks and evaluated the resulting adverse health effects. Results Eighteen articles were included in the review. The findings were grouped into: (1) xenophobia-related outcomes, including social exclusion, out-group avoidance, support for exclusionary health policies, othering, and germ aversion; and (2) mental health problems, such as anxiety and fear. Depending on the disease outbreak, different migrant populations were negatively affected, particularly Asians, Africans, and Latino people. Factors such as perceived vulnerability to disease, disgust sensitivity, medical mistrust individualism, collectivism, disease salience, social representation of disease and beliefs in different origins of disease were associated with xenophobia. Conclusions Overall, migrants can be a vulnerable population frequently blamed for spreading disease, promoting irrational fear, worry and stigma in various forms, thus leading to health inequities worldwide. It is urgent that societies adopt effective support strategies to combat xenophobia and structural forms of discrimination against migrants.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the political views of doctors in the UK despite doctors' importance in the functioning of the National Health Service (NHS). METHODS: This is a survey-based, cross-sectional study in which we asked questions about voting behaviour in 2015 and 2017 UK general elections and 2016 referendum on leaving the European Union (EU) (Brexit), and questions relating to recent health policies. RESULTS: 1172 doctors (45.1% women) from 1295 responded to an online survey. 60.5% described their political views as 'left-wing' and 62.2% described themselves as 'liberal'. 79.4% of respondents voted to remain in the EU in the 2016 referendum compared with 48.1% of voters as a whole (χ2=819.8, p<0.001). 98.6% of respondents agreed that EU nationals working in the NHS should be able to remain in the UK after Brexit. The median score for the impact of Brexit on the NHS on a scale of 0 (worst impact) to 10 (best impact) was 2 (IQR=1-4). Most respondents agreed with the introduction of minimum alcohol pricing in the UK (73.9%), charging patients who are not eligible for NHS treatment for non-urgent care (70.6%) and protecting a portion of national spending for the NHS (87.1%). 65.8% thought there was too much use of NHS-funded private sector provision in their medical practice. Specialty, income and grade were associated with divergent opinions. CONCLUSIONS: UK doctors are left-leaning and liberal in general, which is reflected in their opinions on topical health policy issues. Doctors in the UK voted differently from the general electorate in recent polls.

Background: Little is known about the political views of doctors in the United Kingdom, despite their importance in the functioning of the National Health Service. Methods: Survey-based cross-sectional study in which we asked questions about voting behaviour in 2015 and 2017 UK general elections and 2016 referendum on leaving the European Union (Brexit) and questions relating to recent health policies. Results: 1,172 doctors (45.1% women) from 1,295 responded to an online survey. 60.5% described their political views as 'left-wing' and 62.2% described themselves as 'liberal'. 79.4% of respondents voted to remain in the EU in the 2016 referendum compared to 48.1% of voters as a whole (χ2=819.8, p<0.001). 98.6% of respondents agreed that EU nationals working in the NHS should be able to remain in the UK after Brexit. The median score for the impact of Brexit on the NHS on a scale of 0 (worst impact) to 10 (best impact) was 2 (IQR=1-4). Most respondents agreed with the introduction of minimum alcohol pricing in the UK (73.9%), charging patients who are not eligible for NHS treatment for non-urgent care (70.6%) and protecting a portion of national spending for the NHS (87.1%). 65.8% thought there was too much use of NHS-funded private sector provision in their medical practice. Specialty, income and grade were associated with divergent opinions. Conclusions: UK doctors are left-leaning and liberal in general, which is reflected in their opinions on topical health policy issues. Doctors in the UK voted differently from the general electorate in recent polls.

Abstract
Background
Armed conflict has significant impacts on individuals and families living in conflict-affected settings globally. Scholars working to prevent violence within families have hypothesised that experiencing armed conflict leads to an increase in family violence and mental health problems. In this review, we assessed the prevalence of family violence in conflict settings, its association with the mental health of survivors, moderating factors, and the importance of gender relations.

Methods
Following PRISMA guidelines, we systematically reviewed quantitative and qualitative studies that assessed the prevalence of family violence and the association between family violence and mental health problems, within conflict settings (PROSPERO reference CRD42018114443).

Results
We identified 2605 records, from which 174 full text articles were screened. Twenty-nine studies that reported family violence during or up to 10 years after conflict were eligible for inclusion. Twenty one studies were quantitative, measuring prevalence and association between family violence and mental health problems. The studies were generally of high quality and all reported high prevalence of violence. The prevalence of violence against women was mostly in the range of 30–40%, the highest reported prevalence of physical abuse being 78.9% in Bosnia and Herzegovina. For violence against children, over three-quarters had ever experienced violence, the highest prevalence being 95.6% in Sri Lanka. Associations were found with a number of mental health problems, particularly post-traumatic stress disorder. The risk varied in different locations. Eight qualitative studies showed how men's experience of conflict, including financial stresses, contributes to their perpetration of family violence.

Conclusions
Family violence was common in conflict settings and was associated with mental health outcomes, but the studies were too heterogenous to determine whether prevalence or risk was greater than in non-conflict settings. The review highlights an urgent need for more robust data on perpetrators, forms of family violence, and mental health outcomes in conflict-affected settings in order to help understand the magnitude of the problem and identify potential solutions to address it.

We argue that predictions of a 'tsunami' of mental health problems as a consequence of the pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and the lockdown are overstated; feelings of anxiety and sadness are entirely normal reactions to difficult circumstances, not symptoms of poor mental health. Some people will need specialised mental health support, especially those already leading tough lives; we need immediate reversal of years of underfunding of community mental health services. However, the disproportionate effects of COVID-19 on the most disadvantaged, especially BAME people placed at risk by their social and economic conditions, were entirely predictable. Mental health is best ensured by urgently rebuilding the social and economic supports stripped away over the last decade. Governments must pump funds into local authorities to rebuild community services, peer support, mutual aid and local community and voluntary sector organisations. Health care organisations must tackle racism and discrimination to ensure genuine equal access to universal health care. Government must replace highly conditional benefit systems by something like a universal basic income. All economic and social policies must be subjected to a legally binding mental health audit. This may sound unfeasibly expensive, but the social and economic costs, not to mention the costs in personal and community suffering, though often invisible, are far greater.

We argue that predictions of a 'tsunami' of mental health problems as a consequence of the pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and the lockdown are overstated; feelings of anxiety and sadness are entirely normal reactions to difficult circumstances, not symptoms of poor mental health. Some people will need specialised mental health support, especially those already leading tough lives; we need immediate reversal of years of underfunding of community mental health services. However, the disproportionate effects of COVID-19 on the most disadvantaged, especially BAME people placed at risk by their social and economic conditions, were entirely predictable. Mental health is best ensured by urgently rebuilding the social and economic supports stripped away over the last decade. Governments must pump funds into local authorities to rebuild community services, peer support, mutual aid and local community and voluntary sector organisations. Health care organisations must tackle racism and discrimination to ensure genuine equal access to universal health care. Government must replace highly conditional benefit systems by something like a universal basic income. All economic and social policies must be subjected to a legally binding mental health audit. This may sound unfeasibly expensive, but the social and economic costs, not to mention the costs in personal and community suffering, though often invisible, are far greater.

With one billion people on the move or having moved in 2018, migration is a global reality, which has also become a political lightning rod. Although estimates indicate that the majority of global migration occurs within low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs), the most prominent dialogue focuses almost exclusively on migration from LMICs to high-income countries (HICs). Nowadays, populist discourse demonises the very same individuals who uphold economies, bolster social services, and contribute to health services in both origin and destination locations. Those in positions of political and economic power continue to restrict or publicly condemn migration to promote their own interests. Meanwhile nationalist movements assert so-called cultural sovereignty by delineating an us versus them rhetoric, creating a moral emergency.

With one billion people on the move or having moved in 2018, migration is a global reality, which has also become a political lightning rod. Although estimates indicate that the majority of global migration occurs within low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs), the most prominent dialogue focuses almost exclusively on migration from LMICs to high-income countries (HICs). Nowadays, populist discourse demonises the very same individuals who uphold economies, bolster social services, and contribute to health services in both origin and destination locations. Those in positions of political and economic power continue to restrict or publicly condemn migration to promote their own interests. Meanwhile nationalist movements assert so-called cultural sovereignty by delineating an us versus them rhetoric, creating a moral emergency.

With one billion people on the move or having moved in 2018, migration is a global reality, which has also become a political lightning rod. Although estimates indicate that the majority of global migration occurs within low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs), the most prominent dialogue focuses almost exclusively on migration from LMICs to high-income countries (HICs). Nowadays, populist discourse demonises the very same individuals who uphold economies, bolster social services, and contribute to health services in both origin and destination locations. Those in positions of political and economic power continue to restrict or publicly condemn migration to promote their own interests. Meanwhile nationalist movements assert so-called cultural sovereignty by delineating an us versus them rhetoric, creating a moral emergency.