Dr. Ryan Meili, a Saskatoon Family Doctor and the Director of Upstream talks about evidence-based policy-making, and improving health outcomes by addressing the social determinants of health.
A version of this commentary appeared in the Toronto Star, Winnipeg Free Press and the Huffington Post As the snow begins to fall and the mercury begins to drop, Health Canada has found itself in some hot water. The trouble has been years in the making — since at least 2013. That was when Canadian Plasma […]
L’investissement dans les programmes sociaux améliore les conditions sociales et, par conséquent, améliore la vie de la population.
Climate change has been recognized by the World Health Organization (WHO) as the biggest health threat of the 21st century.
In emergency rooms and frontline clinics, patients are triaged based on the urgency of their illness. The sickest are seen first, followed by those in less immediate danger.
Investing in social programs improves social conditions and, as a consequence, improves people’s lives. That’s fairly obvious. What hasn’t always been as obvious, however, is that such social spending doesn’t tend to come at the cost of economic growth.
When parents bring a child into the clinic, they do so hoping for help to treat an acute illness or a longer-term problem.
Does more healthcare create better outcomes? In other words, do more medications, tests and interventions necessarily result in healthier patients?
It turns out more care is, all too often, unnecessary care.
In a world affected by numerous diseases, disabilities and illnesses, how do governments, health care providers, media or the general public decide which ones are most important?
Un manipulateur d’aliments qui se rend au travail avec une toux, un parent qui envoie son enfant malade à l’école ou une infirmière de salle d’urgence grippée qui prend des décisions rapides le cerveau embrumé.
