The fair allocation of scarce resources for health remains a salient topic in health care systems. Approaches for setting priorities in an equitable manner include technical ones based on health economic analyses, and ethical ones based on procedural justice. Knowledge on real-world factors that influence prioritisation at a local level, however, remains sparse. This article contributes to the empirical literature on priority-setting at the meso level by exploring how health care planners make decisions on which services to fund and to prioritise, and to what extent they consider principles of fair priority-setting. It presents the findings of an interview study with commissioners and stakeholders in South London between 2017 and 2018. Interviewees considered principles of fair prioritisation such as transparency and accountability important for offering guidance. However, the data show that in practice the adherence to principles is hampered by the difficulty of conceptualising and operationalising principles on the one hand, and the political realities in relation to reform processes on the other. To address this challenge, we apply insights from the policy and political sciences and propose a set of considerations by which current frameworks of priority-setting might be adapted to better incorporate issues of context and politics.

This paper explores the relationship between globalisation and mental health by using the global dataset of high-, middle-, and low-income countries for the period 1970–2020. Although the consequences of globalisation on general health have been extensively studied, limited attention has been paid to investigating the implications on mental health. To show robustness, globalisation has been divided into three main dimensions such as economic globalisation, political globalisation, and social globalisation while, mental health has been classified through various indicators, i.e., mental disorder, anxiety disorder, and depressive disorder. The study used panel fixed effect techniques to demonstrate the quadratic effects of globalisation on mental health. A U-shaped curve relationship between globalisation (including economic, political, and political globalisation) and mental disorders, anxiety disorders, and depressive disorders was identified. However, findings also indicate an inverted U-shaped curve relationship between globalisation and mental health for high-income countries and a U-shaped curve relationship for middle- and low-income countries. Prioritizing mental health is crucial for overall well-being and productivity. Furthermore, a comprehensive policy implementation is strongly recommended to protect societies from mental distress when a country plans to expand globalisation worldwide.

Many governments employed mandates for COVID-19 vaccines, imposing consequences upon unvaccinated people. Attitudes towards these policies have generally been positive, but little is known about how discourses around them changed as the characteristics of the disease and the vaccinations evolved. Western Australia (WA) employed sweeping COVID-19 vaccine mandates for employment and public spaces whilst the state was closed off from the rest of the country and world, and mostly with no COVID-19 in the community. This article analyses WA public attitudes during the mandate policy lifecycle from speculative to real. Qualitative interview data from 151 adults were analysed in NVivo 20 via a novel chronological analysis anchored in key policy phases: no vaccine mandates, key worker vaccine mandates, vaccine mandates covering 75% of the workforce and public space mandates. Participants justified mandates as essential for border reopening and, less frequently, for goals such as protecting the health system. However, public discourse focusing on ‘getting coverage rates up’ may prove counter-productive for building support for vaccination; governments should reinforce end goals in public messaging (reducing suffering and saving lives) because such messaging is likely to be more meaningful to vaccination behaviour in the longer term.

Fragmentation in health systems leads to discontinuities in the provision of health services, reduces the effectiveness of interventions, and increases costs. In international comparisons, Germany is notably lagging in the context of healthcare (data) integration. Despite various political efforts spanning decades, intersectoral care and integrated health data remain controversial and are still in an embryonic phase in the country. Even more than 2 years after its launch, electronic health record (elektronische Patientenakte; ePA) users in Germany constitute only 1 per cent of the statutorily insured population, and ongoing political debates suggest that the path to broader coverage is fraught with complexities. By exploring the main stakeholders in the existing (fragmented) health system governance in Germany and their sectoral interests, this paper examines the implementation of ePA through the lens of corporatism, offering insights based on an institutional decision theory. The central point is that endeavours to better integrate health data for clinical care, scientific research and evidence-informed policymaking in Germany will need to address the roles of corporatism and self-governance.