General practitioners in front of COVID-19: Italy in European comparative perspective

IF 2 Q2 SOCIOLOGY
Angela Genova, Simone Lombardini
{"title":"General practitioners in front of COVID-19: Italy in European comparative perspective","authors":"Angela Genova, Simone Lombardini","doi":"10.3389/fsoc.2024.1365517","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"COVID-19 has highlighted strengths and weaknesses in healthcare systems all over the word. Despite the differences in primary care models in Europe, this study investigates the state-of-the-art of general practitioners (GPs) before the COVID-19 pandemic spread as a result of the reform process of the previous two decades. The GPs numbers over 100,000 inhabitants has been considered as a proxy of public health investment in GPs. Is the number of GPs increased or decreased in the last 20 years of reform processes in European countries? The main hypothesis is that European healthcare systems would have increased the number of GPs coherently with WHO recommendations. Comparative data on the number of GPs per 100,000 inhabitants in 21 European countries are investigated between 1995 and 2014 (the last available data). Data show that the number of family doctors over 100,000 inhabitants in European countries has increased over the last 20 years, except for Italy, where it has strongly reduced. Primary care has had a crucial role in managing the pandemic. Results of this study suggest that a country such as Italy, which has not invested in family doctors in the last two decades, would have been less equipped to manage the COVID-19 pandemic.","PeriodicalId":36297,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in Sociology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in Sociology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/fsoc.2024.1365517","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SOCIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

COVID-19 has highlighted strengths and weaknesses in healthcare systems all over the word. Despite the differences in primary care models in Europe, this study investigates the state-of-the-art of general practitioners (GPs) before the COVID-19 pandemic spread as a result of the reform process of the previous two decades. The GPs numbers over 100,000 inhabitants has been considered as a proxy of public health investment in GPs. Is the number of GPs increased or decreased in the last 20 years of reform processes in European countries? The main hypothesis is that European healthcare systems would have increased the number of GPs coherently with WHO recommendations. Comparative data on the number of GPs per 100,000 inhabitants in 21 European countries are investigated between 1995 and 2014 (the last available data). Data show that the number of family doctors over 100,000 inhabitants in European countries has increased over the last 20 years, except for Italy, where it has strongly reduced. Primary care has had a crucial role in managing the pandemic. Results of this study suggest that a country such as Italy, which has not invested in family doctors in the last two decades, would have been less equipped to manage the COVID-19 pandemic.
COVID-19 前的全科医生:欧洲比较视角下的意大利
COVID-19 突显了全球医疗保健系统的优势和劣势。尽管欧洲的初级医疗模式存在差异,但本研究调查了 COVID-19 大流行之前全科医生(GPs)的先进水平,这是过去二十年改革进程的结果。超过 10 万居民的全科医生人数被视为全科医生公共卫生投资的代表。在欧洲国家过去 20 年的改革进程中,全科医生的数量是增加了还是减少了?主要假设是,欧洲医疗保健系统将根据世界卫生组织的建议增加全科医生的数量。我们调查了 1995 年至 2014 年(现有最新数据)期间 21 个欧洲国家每 10 万名居民中全科医生人数的比较数据。数据显示,在过去 20 年中,欧洲国家每 10 万名居民中家庭医生的人数有所增加,但意大利除外,该国的家庭医生人数大幅减少。初级保健在管理大流行病方面发挥了至关重要的作用。这项研究的结果表明,像意大利这样在过去二十年中没有对家庭医生进行投资的国家,其管理 COVID-19 大流行病的能力会更弱。
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
Frontiers in Sociology
Frontiers in Sociology Social Sciences-Social Sciences (all)
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
4.00%
发文量
198
审稿时长
14 weeks
×
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