Suppr超能文献

卫生系统公平、平等民主与 COVID-19 结果:一项实证分析。

Health-system equity, egalitarian democracy and COVID-19 outcomes: An empirical analysis.

机构信息

School of Politics and International Relations (SPIRe), University College Dublin (UCD), Ireland.

Former Ambassador of Sri Lanka to Norway, United Nations University, Finland.

出版信息

Scand J Public Health. 2021 Feb;49(1):104-113. doi: 10.1177/1403494820982106. Epub 2021 Jan 9.

Abstract

AIMS

The COVID-19 pandemic has led to a spate of studies showing a close connection between inequitable access to health care, welfare services and adverse outcomes from the pandemic. Others have argued that democratic governments have generally failed relative to more autocratic ones, simply because autocrats can make the hard choices required for stemming the spread of viruses. We address this question by asking whether more 'egalitarian' forms of democracy matter, given that they contain more equitable health-care access societal infrastructure, such as social capital and trust.

METHODS

We use standard regression techniques, including instrumental variables analysis addressing endogeneity on COVID-19 testing and deaths data as of the end of May and beginning of September. We use novel data from the Varieties of Democracy Project on health-system equity and egalitarian democracy.

RESULTS

Our results suggest that more equitable access to health care increases testing rates and lowers the death rate from COVID-19. Broader egalitarian governance, measured as egalitarian democracy, however, shows the opposite effect. Thus, factors associated with health-care capacity to reach and treat matter more than broader societal factors associated with social capital and trust. The results are robust to alternative testing procedures, including instrumental variable technique for addressing potential endogeneity.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite a great deal of public health focus on how equitable governance helps fight the adverse effects of so-called neoliberal pandemics, we find that broadly egalitarian factors have had the opposite effect on fighting COVID-19, especially when an equitable health system has been taken into account. Fighting disease, thus, might be more about the capacity of health systems rather than societal factors, such as trust in government and social capital.

摘要

目的

新冠疫情大流行导致大量研究表明,医疗保健、福利服务获取机会不平等与疫情的不良后果密切相关。其他人则认为,民主政府相对于专制政府普遍失败,仅仅是因为专制政府能够做出遏制病毒传播所需的艰难选择。我们通过询问更“平等主义”的民主形式是否重要来解决这个问题,因为它们包含了更公平的医疗保健获取和社会基础设施,如社会资本和信任。

方法

我们使用标准回归技术,包括针对新冠病毒检测和截至 5 月底和 9 月初的死亡数据的内生性的工具变量分析。我们使用民主多样性项目的新数据来衡量卫生系统公平和平等民主。

结果

我们的结果表明,更公平的医疗保健获取机会提高了检测率并降低了 COVID-19 的死亡率。然而,更广泛的平等主义治理,即平等主义民主,却显示出相反的效果。因此,与医疗保健能力相关的因素,如达到和治疗的能力,比与社会资本和信任相关的更广泛的社会因素更为重要。这些结果在替代检测程序下是稳健的,包括解决潜在内生性的工具变量技术。

结论

尽管公众非常关注公平治理如何帮助对抗所谓的新自由主义大流行的不利影响,但我们发现,广泛的平等主义因素对对抗 COVID-19 产生了相反的效果,尤其是在考虑到公平的医疗体系的情况下。因此,抗击疾病可能更多地取决于卫生系统的能力,而不是政府信任和社会资本等社会因素。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/1a81/7859571/f97e9d5a252d/10.1177_1403494820982106-fig1.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验