Addressing health inequity during the COVID-19 pandemic through primary health care and public health collaboration: a multiple case study analysis in eight high-income countries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background The COVID-19 pandemic substantially magnified the inequity gaps among vulnerable populations. Both public health (PH) and primary health care (PHC) have been crucial in addressing the challenges posed by the pandemic, especially in the area of vulnerable populations. However, little is known about the intersection between PH and PHC as a strategy to mitigate the inequity gap. This study aims to assess the collaboration between PHC and PH with a focus on addressing the health needs of vulnerable populations during the COVID-19 pandemic across jurisdictions. Methods We analyzed and compared data from jurisdictional reports of COVID-19 pandemic responses in PHC and PH in Belgium, Canada (Ontario), Germany, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Norway, and Spain from 2020 to 2021. Results Four themes emerge from the analysis: (1) the majority of the countries implemented outreach strategies targeting vulnerable groups as a means to ensure continued access to PHC; (2) digital assessment in PHC was found to be present across all the countries; (3) PHC was insufficiently represented at the decision-making level; (4) there is a lack of clear communication channels between PH and PHC in all the countries. Conclusions This study identified opportunities for collaboration between PHC and PH to reduce inequity gaps and to improve population health, focusing on vulnerable populations. The COVID-19 response in these eight countries has demonstrated the importance of an integrated PHC system. Consequently, the development of effective strategies for responding to and planning for pandemics should take into account the social determinants of health in order to mitigate the unequal impact of COVID-19. Careful, intentional coordination between PH and PHC should be established in normal times as a basis for effective response during future public health emergencies. The pandemic has provided significant insights on how to strengthen health systems and provide universal access to healthcare by fostering stronger connections between PH and PHC.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".