Zarządzanie kryzysem zdrowotnym w pierwszym półroczu pandemii COVID-19. Analiza porównawcza na podstawie opinii ekspertów z wybranych krajów

Stanisława Golinowska, Michał Zabdyr–Jamróz
{"title":"Zarządzanie kryzysem zdrowotnym w pierwszym półroczu pandemii COVID-19. Analiza porównawcza na podstawie opinii ekspertów z wybranych krajów","authors":"Stanisława Golinowska, Michał Zabdyr–Jamróz","doi":"10.4467/20842627OZ.20.001.12655","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Public governance of the health crisis in the first six months of the global COVID-19 pandemic. Comparative analysis based on the opinions of experts from selected countries From among the numerous analyses of the health crisis caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, the authors looked for those that would enable assessment of institutional solutions. They put forward the thesis that good institutions (with appropriate regulations, means and expert support) constitute an essential resource enabling fast, accurate, and effective measures in terms of protection and therapy. The authors turned to experts from other countries with whom they have been cooperating for many years in the field of public health and used their competences in the field to answer questions about public governance in the first six months of the pandemic outbreak (January to June 2020) when lockdowns were widely implemented and then gradually lifted. Particularly significant for the assessment of health crisis management, the experts chose countries that are diverse in terms of: state of decentralization, social structure, and resources available, as well as healthcare organization and political tradition in dispute resolution. Reports from Italy, the Netherlands, United Kingdom, Norway, Germany, the Czech Republic, Ukraine, and Canada (with focus on Ontario) – attached as an appendix – were supplemented with direct consultations. The comparative analysis of the obtained information and the exchange of opinions are the subject of this article. In the comparative analysis, we also refer to Polish activities and solutions. The Polish perspective of public management signifies a concern for the neglected area of public health. This article is enriched with the authors’ reflections and generally formulated recommendations.","PeriodicalId":139863,"journal":{"name":"Zdrowie Publiczne i Zarządzanie","volume":"4 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-08-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"7","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Zdrowie Publiczne i Zarządzanie","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4467/20842627OZ.20.001.12655","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 7

Abstract

Public governance of the health crisis in the first six months of the global COVID-19 pandemic. Comparative analysis based on the opinions of experts from selected countries From among the numerous analyses of the health crisis caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, the authors looked for those that would enable assessment of institutional solutions. They put forward the thesis that good institutions (with appropriate regulations, means and expert support) constitute an essential resource enabling fast, accurate, and effective measures in terms of protection and therapy. The authors turned to experts from other countries with whom they have been cooperating for many years in the field of public health and used their competences in the field to answer questions about public governance in the first six months of the pandemic outbreak (January to June 2020) when lockdowns were widely implemented and then gradually lifted. Particularly significant for the assessment of health crisis management, the experts chose countries that are diverse in terms of: state of decentralization, social structure, and resources available, as well as healthcare organization and political tradition in dispute resolution. Reports from Italy, the Netherlands, United Kingdom, Norway, Germany, the Czech Republic, Ukraine, and Canada (with focus on Ontario) – attached as an appendix – were supplemented with direct consultations. The comparative analysis of the obtained information and the exchange of opinions are the subject of this article. In the comparative analysis, we also refer to Polish activities and solutions. The Polish perspective of public management signifies a concern for the neglected area of public health. This article is enriched with the authors’ reflections and generally formulated recommendations.
2019冠状病毒病全球大流行头六个月卫生危机的公共治理在对COVID-19大流行造成的健康危机的众多分析中,作者寻找能够评估制度解决方案的分析。他们提出的论点是,良好的机构(具有适当的法规、手段和专家支持)是一种必不可少的资源,可以在保护和治疗方面采取快速、准确和有效的措施。作者求助于与他们在公共卫生领域合作多年的其他国家专家,并利用他们在该领域的能力回答了大流行爆发的前六个月(2020年1月至6月)的公共治理问题,当时封锁被广泛实施,然后逐渐解除。对于评估卫生危机管理尤其重要的是,专家们选择了在以下方面各不相同的国家:权力下放状况、社会结构和现有资源,以及卫生保健组织和解决争端的政治传统。意大利、荷兰、联合王国、挪威、德国、捷克共和国、乌克兰和加拿大(以安大略省为重点)的报告作为附录补充了直接协商。对所获得的信息进行对比分析和交换意见是本文的主题。在对比分析中,我们也参考了波兰的活动和解决方案。波兰对公共管理的看法意味着对被忽视的公共卫生领域的关切。本文丰富了作者的思考和一般制定的建议。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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