From bureaucratic administration to effective intervention: Comparing early governmental responses to the COVID-19 virus across East Asian and western health systems.

IF 1.6 Q3 HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES
Yu Liu, Richard B Saltman, Ming-Jui Yeh
{"title":"From bureaucratic administration to effective intervention: Comparing early governmental responses to the COVID-19 virus across East Asian and western health systems.","authors":"Yu Liu,&nbsp;Richard B Saltman,&nbsp;Ming-Jui Yeh","doi":"10.1177/09514848221139680","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The outbreak of COVID-19 in early 2020 created dangerous public health conditions which pressured governments and health systems to respond in a rapid and effective manner. However, this type of rapid response required many governments to bypass standing; bureaucratic structures of health sector administration and political governance to quickly take; essential measures against a rapidly evolving public health threat. Each government's particular; configuration of governmental and health system decision-making created specific structural and functional challenges to these necessary centrally developed and coordinated strategies. Most East Asian governments (except Japan) succeeded relatively quickly in centralizing essential disease control and treatment initiatives in a timely manner. In contrast, a number of European countries, especially those with predominantly tax-based financing and politically managed health delivery systems, had greater difficulty in escaping bureaucratic governance and management constraints. Drawing on data about these governments' early stage COVID-19 control experiences, this article suggests that structural changes will be necessary if low-performing governments are to better respond to a pandemic. This paper also summarizes other relatively successful strategies. By adopting such strategies, nations can help overcome structural bureaucratic and administrative obstacles in responding to further waves of COVID-19 or similar future pandemic events.</p>","PeriodicalId":45801,"journal":{"name":"Health Services Management Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9663273/pdf/10.1177_09514848221139680.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Services Management Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/09514848221139680","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The outbreak of COVID-19 in early 2020 created dangerous public health conditions which pressured governments and health systems to respond in a rapid and effective manner. However, this type of rapid response required many governments to bypass standing; bureaucratic structures of health sector administration and political governance to quickly take; essential measures against a rapidly evolving public health threat. Each government's particular; configuration of governmental and health system decision-making created specific structural and functional challenges to these necessary centrally developed and coordinated strategies. Most East Asian governments (except Japan) succeeded relatively quickly in centralizing essential disease control and treatment initiatives in a timely manner. In contrast, a number of European countries, especially those with predominantly tax-based financing and politically managed health delivery systems, had greater difficulty in escaping bureaucratic governance and management constraints. Drawing on data about these governments' early stage COVID-19 control experiences, this article suggests that structural changes will be necessary if low-performing governments are to better respond to a pandemic. This paper also summarizes other relatively successful strategies. By adopting such strategies, nations can help overcome structural bureaucratic and administrative obstacles in responding to further waves of COVID-19 or similar future pandemic events.

从官僚行政到有效干预:比较东亚和西方卫生系统早期政府对COVID-19病毒的反应。
2020年初爆发的COVID-19造成了危险的公共卫生状况,迫使政府和卫生系统以快速有效的方式作出反应。然而,这种快速反应需要许多政府绕过站立;迅速采取卫生部门行政和政治治理的官僚结构;应对迅速演变的公共卫生威胁的必要措施。每个政府的具体情况;政府和卫生系统决策的配置对这些必要的中央制定和协调的战略造成了具体的结构和功能挑战。大多数东亚国家政府(日本除外)相对较快地成功地及时集中了基本疾病控制和治疗行动。相比之下,一些欧洲国家,特别是那些主要以税收为基础的融资和政治管理的卫生提供系统的国家,在摆脱官僚治理和管理限制方面遇到了更大的困难。根据这些政府早期控制COVID-19经验的数据,本文认为,如果表现不佳的政府要更好地应对大流行,就必须进行结构性改革。本文还总结了其他比较成功的策略。通过采取此类战略,各国可以帮助克服结构性官僚主义和行政障碍,以应对新冠肺炎或未来类似的大流行事件。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Health Services Management Research
Health Services Management Research HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES-
CiteScore
4.00
自引率
4.80%
发文量
33
期刊介绍: Health Services Management Research (HSMR) is an authoritative international peer-reviewed journal which publishes theoretically and empirically rigorous research on questions of enduring interest to health-care organizations and systems throughout the world. Examining the real issues confronting health services management, it provides an independent view and cutting edge evidence-based research to guide policy-making and management decision-making. HSMR aims to be a forum serving an international community of academics and researchers on the one hand and healthcare managers, executives, policymakers and clinicians and all health professionals on the other. HSMR wants to make a substantial contribution to both research and managerial practice, with particular emphasis placed on publishing studies which offer actionable findings and on promoting knowledge mobilisation toward theoretical advances.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信