While the effectiveness of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) as an intervention to impact patient pathways has been established for cancer care, it is unknown for other indications. We assessed the cost-effectiveness of a PROM-based monitoring and alert intervention for early detection of critical recovery paths following hip and knee replacement.

The intervention significantly improved patient outcomes at lower costs in patients with hip replacements when compared with standard care. Further it showed a nonsignificant cost reduction in knee replacement patients. This reinforces the notion that PROMs can be utilised as a cost-effective instrument for remote monitoring in standard care settings.

The study underscores the importance of understanding and addressing variation in acute care utilization for mental health conditions, including the differential effect of COVID-19, across different health care systems. Further research is needed to elucidate the extent to which factors such as workforce capacity, access barriers, financial incentives, COVID-19 preparedness, and community-based care may contribute to these variations.

In this study we investigated the epidemiology, clinical presentation, and outcomes of the mpox outbreak related to clade IIb in the EMR. We raise concerns about the accuracy and completeness of the data, given that the number of cases reported to the WHO from EMR countries appears to be significantly lower than the number of cases documented within the region. This discrepancy could impact the reliability of the reported figures and the region's response strategies. Despite these challenges, collaborative efforts across EMR countries have laid the groundwork for effective outbreak response, underscoring the importance of ongoing regional cooperation to enhance future preparedness strategies.

Over the last two decades, comparative health systems research has gained significant traction as policymakers and researchers seek to better understand how to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of health-care systems worldwide. While most studies undertaken to achieve these goals continue to be predominantly at the national or sub-national levels, the role and importance of cross-country comparison research is increasingly being acknowledged. Recent challenges such as the COVID-19 pandemic, inflationary pressures, rising health-care costs globally, climate change, and decreasing life expectancy among several high-income countries have increased the importance and urgency of this work. Collaborative research efforts across disciplines and countries are therefore needed to identify focused solutions that health systems can apply to the challenges they currently face, and those that may arise in the future.

In this editorial, we summarize the current state of cross-country comparison work at a high level, outline research gaps that remain, and discuss the contribution to this literature of research contained in this special section on international comparisons.

This is a descriptive study using time-series analyses to quantify the annual effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on non-COVID-19 hospitalizations for 20 diagnostic categories and 15 surgical procedures. We compared expected hospitalizations had the pandemic never occurred in 2020–2021, estimated using autoregressive integrated moving average modeling with data from 2010 to 2019, with observed hospitalizations. Observed-to-expected ratios and missed hospitalizations were computed as measures of COVID-19 impact. Mixed linear models were employed to examine associations between hospitalization observed-to-expected ratios and covariates. There was marked cross-country variability in disruptions to hospitalizations and ambulatory care. Certain health system characteristics appeared to be more protective, such as insurance coverage, and number of inputs including healthcare workforce and beds.

Many studies have documented differences in maternal health outcomes across high-income countries, noting higher and growing maternal mortality in the US. However, few studies have detailed the journeys of care that may underlie or influence differences in outcomes. This study explores how maternity care entitlements and experiences vary among the US and five high-income countries, to study variations in child delivery care practices. Health systems with different organizational structure, insurance coverage and with known differences in maternal care delivery and maternal health outcomes were selected. Data was collected using a structured questionnaire, comparison of secondary data, and literature scan. We find that, while prenatal care approaches were broadly similar across all six countries, there were some important differences in maternity care provision among the comparator countries: (1) the US has more fragmented coverage during pregnancy than comparator countries (2) there were differences with regards to the main provider delivering care, the US relied primarily on physician specialists rather than midwives for prenatal care and delivery which was more common in other countries, (3) the intensity of labor and delivery care varied, particularly with regards to rates of epidural use which were highest in the US and France and lowest in Japan, and (4), there was large variation in the use of postnatal home visits to assess health and wellbeing, notably lacking in the US. The US’ greater use of specialists and more intensive labor and delivery care may partially explain higher costs of care than in comparator countries. Moreover, US maternal mortality is concentrated in the pre- and postnatal periods and thus may be related to poorer access to prenatal care and the lack of an organized, community-based approach to postnatal care. Given the increase in maternal mortality across countries, policy makers should look across countries to identify promising models of care delivery, and should consider investing in more comprehensive coverage in pre- and postnatal care.

Health systems should be designed to withstand emerging shocks and challenges such as the COVID-19 pandemic, and economic and social crises. The ability for a health system to sustain its performance, or even improve it, in the face of a shock can inform policymakers as to how resilient it is. The WHO’s Health System Performance Assessment (HSPA) Framework for Universal Health Coverage (UHC) offers policymakers a conceptual tool for a comprehensive assessment of health system performance. Specifically, it provides a framework from which to examine the performance of the health system itself, but also of the four health system functions - governance, resource generation, financing and service delivery - that make up health systems. The HSPA framework can thus aid policymakers and researchers in examining health systems and considering how shocks may influence the outcomes they produce, as well as the necessary structures that are required for it to produce and sustain performance. In this chapter, we present in detail how the framework can be used to examine how resilient health system performance is to different types of shocks. We consider through a series of case studies both how to use the framework to assess the vulnerabilities of the four key health system functions to different shocks and also how this may translate into changes in performance.

More than two decades ago, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality developed its Patient Safety Indicators (PSIs) to monitor potentially preventable and severe adverse events within hospitals. Application of PSIs outside the US was explored more than a decade ago, but it is uncertain whether they remain relevant within Europe, as no up-to-date assessments of overall PSI-associated adverse event rates or interhospital variability can be found in the literature. This article assesses the nationwide occurrence and variability of thirteen adverse events for a case study of Belgium. We studied 4,765,850 patient stays across all 101 hospitals for 2016–18. We established that although adverse event rates were generally low, with an adverse event observed in 0.1 percent of medical hospital stays and in 1.2 percent of surgical hospital stays, they were higher than equivalent US rates and were prone to considerable between-hospital variability. Failure-to-rescue rates, for example, equaled 23 percent, whereas some hospitals exceeded nationwide central line–associated bloodstream infection rates by a factor of 8. Policy makers and hospital managers can prioritize PSIs that have high adverse event rates or large variability, such as failure to rescue or central line–associated bloodstream infections, to improve the quality of care in Belgian hospitals.

Irene Papanicolas and colleagues consider the potential of alternatives to quality-based pay-for-performance systems and the remaining challenges

Over the past two decades most healthcare systems have modified the way they pay providers to attach financial incentives directly to quality of care. This type of payment, often referred to as pay for performance, gained momentum in the early 2000s, following several studies highlighting concerns about the quality and safety of healthcare systems.1 However, the evidence suggests they have been largely ineffective in improving quality. In response, health payers in various countries have introduced alternative payment models that encourage more effective, efficient, and integrated healthcare. We examine the early evidence on these alternative models and consider what they can realistically achieve.

Comparing health policy measures before elections and identifying potential gaps in the health policy debate can be challenging. We explored the use of the Health System Performance Assessment for Universal Health Coverage framework to analyse health policy proposals by classifying health policy measures outlined in political manifestos into four health system functions: governance, financing, resource generation and service delivery. As a case study, we analysed the political manifestos of all Portuguese parties with parliamentary representation ahead of the election in March 2024. We calculated the share of measures per health system function for individual political manifestos and identified potential gaps in the health policy debate. When required, we used additional classification criteria and local expertise on political and institutional knowledge.

Wealth-related inequalities in self-reported health status are strong and persistent across countries. Our results suggest that there is meaningful variation across high-income countries in health-wealth dynamics that merits further investigation to better understand whether certain health or welfare systems are more equitable. They also highlight the need to consider social policy and wealth redistribution mechanisms as strategies for improving population health among the less wealthy, in the United States and elsewhere.

The articles in this issue highlight the importance of regular health systems performance assessment to inform policies that advance progress on health system objectives globally, and offer insights on associated data, methods and applications.