Suchergebnisse

Cover -- Title Page -- Copyright Page -- Contents -- Preface -- Authors -- Chapter 1: Health in a changing world -- Introduction -- What is health? -- Public health -- Public communication -- Global health -- Populations in flux -- Poverty -- Development -- Global health architecture -- Regulatory mechanisms -- Changing patterns of disease -- New goals for the world -- Conclusions -- Chapter 2: Epidemiology and its uses -- Introduction -- Routinely available data sources -- Census data -- Civil registration and vital statistics -- Data on occurrence of disease and disability -- Data on health-related behaviour and risk factors -- Data on social and economic determinants of health -- Data to evaluate the performance of health services -- Disease nomenclatures and classifications -- Surveillance data -- Indicators -- Access and transparency -- Distribution of disease in populations -- Counting events in populations -- Measures of morbidity -- Incidence -- Prevalence -- Measures of mortality -- Specific mortality rates -- Standardized mortality rates -- Case fatality and survival -- Measures of healthy and unhealthy ageing -- Healthy life expectancy and disability-free life expectancy -- Years lived with disability -- Disability-adjusted life years -- Making comparisons: Describing population patterns of health and disease -- Pitfalls in interpreting health and disease patterns -- What are the criteria for defining the disease? -- Have all cases of the disease been identified? -- Is the population at risk accurately defined? -- Making comparisons between groups through planned studies -- Example: Epidemiological study leading to successful prevention -- Cross-sectional studies -- Outline of methodology -- Choosing a study population -- Sampling -- Data specification -- Data collection

Rationale: International border controls were among the earliest and most effective of measures to constrain transmission of COVID-19. However, such measures are complex when established borders are open yet politically contested, as for the border that divides the Republic of Ireland (ROI) from Northern Ireland (NI). Understanding how this border affected the everyday lives of both populations during the pandemic is important for informing the continued development of effective responses to COVID-19 and future health crises. Objective: This multi-methods study aimed to explore public perspectives on how the ROI-NI border affected experiences of and responses to the 'first wave' of the pandemic. Method: The study collated data from focus groups (n = 8), news articles (n = 967), and Twitter posts (n = 356) on the island of Ireland, which mentioned the ROI-NI border in relation to COVID-19. Thematic analysis was used to explore the range of perspectives on the role played by the border during the early months of the pandemic. Results: Analysis identified three themes: Cross-Border Interdependencies illustrated the complexity and challenges of living near the border; Interpretations of Cross-Border Policy Disparities showed that lay publics perceived NI and ROI policy approaches as discordant and politicised; and Responses to Cross-Border Policy Disparities revealed alternating calls to either strengthen border controls, or pursue a unified all-island approach. Conclusions: Results reveal clear public appetite for greater synchronisation of cross-border pandemic responses, emphasise the specific vulnerability of communities living near the border, and highlight the risk of long-term socio-political repercussions of border management decisions taken during the pandemic. Findings will inform implementation of pandemic responses and public health policies in jurisdictions that share a porous land border.

COVID-19 is arguably the most critical science communication challenge of a generation, yet comes in the wake of a purported populist turn against scientific expertise in western societies. This study advances understanding of science–society relations during the COVID-19 pandemic by analysing how science was represented in news and social media coverage of COVID-19 on the island of Ireland. Thematic analysis was performed on a dataset comprising 952 news articles and 603 tweets published between 1 January and 31 May 2020. Three themes characterised the range of meanings attached to science: 'Defining science: Its subjects, practice and process', 'Relating to science: Between veneration and suspicion' and 'Using science: As solution, policy and rhetoric'. The analysis suggested that the COVID-19 pandemic represented a platform to highlight the value, philosophy, process and day-to-day activity of scientific research. However, the study also identified risks the pandemic might pose to science communication, including feeding public alienation by disparaging lay understandings, reinforcing stereotypical images of scientists, and amplifying the politicisation of scientific statements.

COVID-19 is arguably the most critical science communication challenge of a generation, yet comes in the wake of a purported populist turn against scientific expertise in western societies. This study advances understanding of science–society relations during the COVID-19 pandemic by analysing how science was represented in news and social media coverage of COVID-19 on the island of Ireland. Thematic analysis was performed on a dataset comprising 952 news articles and 603 tweets published between 1 January and 31 May 2020. Three themes characterised the range of meanings attached to science: 'Defining science: Its subjects, practice and process', 'Relating to science: Between veneration and suspicion' and 'Using science: As solution, policy and rhetoric'. The analysis suggested that the COVID-19 pandemic represented a platform to highlight the value, philosophy, process and day-to-day activity of scientific research. However, the study also identified risks the pandemic might pose to science communication, including feeding public alienation by disparaging lay understandings, reinforcing stereotypical images of scientists, and amplifying the politicisation of scientific statements.

The relationship between politics and public health is increasingly evident as governments throughout the world vary in their acceptance and implementation of technical guidance in the response to the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. This paper reports a qualitative study of public health policies for Covid-19 in Northern Ireland (NI) and the Republic of Ireland (RoI) across a timeline emphasising the first wave of the pandemic (February to June 2020). Inter-jurisdictional commitments for health as contained in the Good Friday Agreement provide a framework for cooperation and coordination of population health on the island of Ireland. This study of north-south cooperation in the response to Covid-19 applies ten indicators from the Oxford Covid-19 Government Response Tracker (OxCGRT) codebook to establish if cooperation and policy alignment of key public health measures are evident in the Northern Ireland Assembly and Government of Ireland responses. The study concludes that notwithstanding the historical and constitutional obstacles to an all-island response to Covid-19, there is evidence of significant public health policy alignment brought about through ongoing dialogue and cooperation between the health administrations in each jurisdiction over the course of the first wave of the pandemic.

COVID-19 represents a serious challenge to governments and healthcare systems. In addition to testing/contact tracing, behavioural and social responses such as handwashing and social distancing or cocooning are effective tools for mitigating the spread of the disease. Psychological (e.g., risk perceptions, self-efficacy) and contextual factors (government, public health messaging, etc.) are likely to drive these behaviours. Collated real-time information of these indicators strengthens local, national and international public health advice and messaging. Further, understanding how well public health and government messages and measures are understood, communicated via (social) media and adhered to is vital. There are two governments and public health jurisdictions on the island of Ireland, the Republic of Ireland (ROI) and Northern Ireland (NI). This represents an opportunity to explore implications of differing measures and messaging across these two jurisdictions as they relate to COVID-19 on two similar populations. The expert research team are drawn from a range of disciplines in the two countries. This project has four nested studies:Assessment of key behavioural, social and psychological factors through a large, prospective representative telephone survey of individuals aged over-18 on a weekly basis over eight weeks (n=3072); and conduct qualitative focus groups over the same period.Interrogation of social media messaging and formal media responses in both jurisdictions to investigate the spread of (mis)information.Modelling data from Studies 1 and 2, plotting the psychosocial/behavioural and media messaging information with international, ROI and NI incidence and mortality data. Conducting an assessment of health policy transfer in an attempt to incorporate the most significant public health and political insights from each jurisdiction.The CONTAIN project will develop an evidence-based toolbox for targeting public health messaging and political leadership and will be created for use for the anticipated second wave of COVID-19, and subsequently for future epidemics/pandemics.

Poor quality urban environments substantially increase non-communicable disease. Responsibility for associated decision-making is dispersed across multiple agents and systems: fast growing urban authorities are the primary gatekeepers of new development and change in the UK, yet the driving forces are remote private sector interests supported by a political economy focused on short-termism and consumption-based growth. Economic valuation of externalities is widely thought to be fundamental, yet evidence on how to integrate it into urban development decision-making is limited, and it forms only a part of the decision-making landscape. Researchers must find new ways of integrating socio-environmental costs at numerous key leverage points across multiple complex systems. This mixed-methods study is made up of six highly integrated work packages. It aims to develop and test a multi-action intervention in two case study urban areas: one on large-scale mixed-use development, the other on major transport. The core intervention is the co-production with key stakeholders through interviews, workshops and ethnography three areas of evidence: economic valuations of changed health outcomes; community-led media on health inequalities; and routes to potential impact mapped through co-production with key decision-makers, advisors and the lay public. We will: map the system of actors and processes involved in each case study; develop, test and refine the combined intervention; evaluate the extent to which policy and practice changes amongst our target users, and the likelihood of impact on non-communicable diseases (NCDs) downstream. The integration of such diverse disciplines and sectors presents multiple practical/operational issues. We are testing new approaches to research, notably with regards practitioner-researcher integration and transdisciplinary research co-leadership. Other critical risks relate to urban development timescales, uncertainties in upstream-downstream causality, and the demonstration of impact.

Poor quality urban environments substantially increase non-communicable disease. Responsibility for associated decision-making is dispersed across multiple agents and systems: fast growing urban authorities are the primary gatekeepers of new development and change in the UK, yet the driving forces are remote private sector interests supported by a political economy focused on short-termism and consumption-based growth. Economic valuation of externalities is widely thought to be fundamental, yet evidence on how to value and integrate it into urban development decision-making is limited, and it forms only a part of the decision-making landscape. Researchers must find new ways of integrating socio-environmental costs at numerous key leverage points across multiple complex systems. This mixed-methods study comprises of six highly integrated work packages. It aims to develop and test a multi-action intervention in two urban areas: one on large-scale mixed-use development, the other on major transport. The core intervention is the co-production with key stakeholders through interviews, workshops, and participatory action research, of three areas of evidence: economic valuations of changed health outcomes; community-led media on health inequalities; and routes to potential impact mapped through co-production with key decision-makers, advisors and the lay public. This will be achieved by: mapping system of actors and processes involved in each case study; developing, testing and refining the combined intervention; evaluating the extent to which policy and practice changes amongst our target users, and the likelihood of impact on non-communicable diseases (NCDs) downstream. The integration of such diverse disciplines and sectors presents multiple practical/operational issues. The programme is testing new approaches to research, notably with regards practitioner-researcher integration and transdisciplinary research co-leadership. Other critical risks relate to urban development timescales, uncertainties in upstream-downstream causality, and the demonstration of impact.