Suchergebnisse

OBJECTIVE: To describe the human resources for health and analyze the inequality in its distribution in Mexico. METHODS: Cross-sectional study based on the National Occupation and Employment Survey (ENOE in Spanish) for the fourth quarter of 2018 in Mexico. Graduated physicians and nurses, and auxiliary/technician nurses with completed studies were considered as human resources for health. States were grouped by degree of marginalization. Densities of human resources for health per 1,000 inhabitants, Index of Dissimilarity (DI) and Concentration Indices (CI) were estimated as measures of unequal distribution. RESULTS: The density of human resources for health was 4.6 per 1,000 inhabitants. We found heterogeneity among states with densities from 2.3 to 10.5 per 1,000 inhabitants. Inequality was higher in the states with a very low degree of marginalization (CI = 0.4) than those with high marginalization (CI = 0.1), and the inequality in the distribution of physicians (CI = 0.5) was greater than in graduated nurses (CI = 0.3) among states. In addition, 17 states showed a density above the threshold of 4.5 per 1,000 inhabitants proposed in the Global Strategy on Human Resources for Health. That implies a deficit of nearly 60,000 human resources for health among the 15 states below the threshold. For all states, to reach a density equal to the national density of 4.6, about 12.6% of human health resources would have to be distributed among states that were below national density. CONCLUSIONS: In Mexico, there is inequality in the distribution of human resources for health, with state differences. Government mechanisms could support the balance in the labor market of physicians and nurses through a human resources policy ; OBJETIVO: Describir los recursos humanos en salud y analizar la desigualdad en su distribución en México. MÉTODOS: Estudio transversal basado en la Encuesta Nacional de Ocupación y Empleo del cuarto trimestre de 2018 en México. Se consideraron como recursos humanos en salud médicos y enfermeras con licenciatura, y personal de enfermería auxiliar/técnica con estudios concluidos. Se agrupó a los estados por grado de marginación y se estimó densidades de recursos humanos en salud por 1.000 habitantes, Índices de Disimilitud e Índices de Concentración (IC) como medidas de desigualdad en la distribución. RESULTADOS: La densidad de recursos humanos en salud fue de 4,6 por 1.000 habitantes; se observó heterogeneidad entre los estados con que van 2,3 hasta 10,5 por 1.000 habitantes. La desigualdad fue mayor en los estados con muy bajo grado de marginación (IC = 0,4) que en los estados de muy alto grado (IC = 0,1), y fue mayor la desigualdad en la distribución de los médicos (IC = 0,5) que en las enfermeras profesionales (IC = 0,3) entre los estados. Para que todos los estados tuvieran una densidad igual a la nacional de 4,6, se tendrían que distribuir alrededor de 12,6% de los recursos humanos en salud entre los estados que estuvieron por debajo de la densidad nacional. Adicionalmente, 17 estados tuvieron una densidad superior al umbral de 4,5 por 1.000 habitantes propuesto en la Estrategia Global en Recursos Humanos para la Salud. Eso implica un déficit de casi 60 mil recursos humanos en salud entre los 15 estados por debajo del umbral. CONCLUSIONES: En México existe desigualdad en la distribución de recursos humanos en salud, diferenciada en los estados. Mecanismos gubernamentales a través de una política de recursos humanos podrían incentivar el equilibrio en el mercado de laboral de los médicos y enfermeras.

ABSTRACT OBJECTIVE To describe the human resources for health and analyze the inequality in its distribution in Mexico. METHODS Cross-sectional study based on the National Occupation and Employment Survey (ENOE in Spanish) for the fourth quarter of 2018 in Mexico. Graduated physicians and nurses, and auxiliary/technician nurses with completed studies were considered as human resources for health. States were grouped by degree of marginalization. Densities of human resources for health per 1,000 inhabitants, Index of Dissimilarity (DI) and Concentration Indices (CI) were estimated as measures of unequal distribution. RESULTS The density of human resources for health was 4.6 per 1,000 inhabitants. We found heterogeneity among states with densities from 2.3 to 10.5 per 1,000 inhabitants. Inequality was higher in the states with a very low degree of marginalization (CI = 0.4) than those with high marginalization (CI = 0.1), and the inequality in the distribution of physicians (CI = 0.5) was greater than in graduated nurses (CI = 0.3) among states. In addition, 17 states showed a density above the threshold of 4.5 per 1,000 inhabitants proposed in the Global Strategy on Human Resources for Health. That implies a deficit of nearly 60,000 human resources for health among the 15 states below the threshold. For all states, to reach a density equal to the national density of 4.6, about 12.6% of human health resources would have to be distributed among states that were below national density. CONCLUSIONS In Mexico, there is inequality in the distribution of human resources for health, with state differences. Government mechanisms could support the balance in the labor market of physicians and nurses through a human resources policy.

The purpose of this study was to assess whether government policies to expand the coverage of maternal health and family planning (MHFP) services were benefiting the adolescents in need. To this end, we estimated government MHFP expenditure for 10- to 19-year-old adolescents without social security (SS) coverage between 2003 and 2015. We evaluated its evolution and distribution nationally and sub-nationally by level of marginalization, as well as its relationship with demand indicators. Using Jointpoint regressions, we estimated the average annual percent change (AAPC) nationally and among states. Expenditure for adolescents without SS coverage registered 15% for AAPC for the period 2003–2011 and was stable for the remaining years, with 88% of spending allocated to maternal health. Growth in MHFP expenditure reduced the ratio of spending by 13% among groups of states with greater/lesser marginalization; nonetheless, the poorest states continued to show the lowest levels of expenditure. Although adolescents without SS coverage benefited from greater MHFP expenditure as a consequence of health policies directed at achieving universal health coverage, gaps persisted in its distribution among states, since those with similar demand indicators exhibited different levels of expenditure. Further actions are required to improve resource allocation to disadvantaged states and to reinforce the use of FP services by adolescents.