Search results

The purpose of this study was to elucidate facilitators and barriers to health system resilience and resilient responses at local and regional levels during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic in Finland.

The authors utilized a qualitative research approach and conducted semi-structured interviews (n = 32) with study participants representing five different regions in Finland. Study participants were recruited using purposive and snowball sampling. All study participants had been in management and civil servant positions during the first year of the pandemic, representing municipalities, municipalities' social and healthcare services, hospital districts and regional state administrative agencies. All interviews were completed remotely from April to December 2021 and the recordings transcribed verbatim. The authors coded the transcripts in ATLAS.ti 9.1 using directed content analysis.

The findings highlighted a wide range of localized responses to the pandemic in Finland. Facilitators to health system resilience included active networks of cooperation, crisis anticipation, transitioning into crisis leadership mode, learning how to incorporate new modes of operation, as well as relying on the competencies and motivation of health workforce. The authors found several barriers to health system resilience, including fragmented organization and management particularly in settings where integrated health care systems were not in place, insufficient preparedness to a prolonged crisis, lack of reliable information regarding COVID-19, not having plans in place for crisis communication, pandemic fatigue, and outflux of health workforce to other positions with better compensation and working conditions.

Factors affecting health system resilience are often studied at the aggregate level of a nation. This study offers insights into what resilient responses look like from the perspective of local and regional actors in a decentralized health system. The results highlight that local capacities and context matter greatly for resilience. The authors call for more nuanced analyses on health systems and health system resilience at the sub-national level.

In the realm of applied psychology, the major factors explaining organizational behavior in the context of organizational intervention are emotion, cognition, and context. In organizational analysis and intervention, however, organizational behavior models explicitly rooted in a theory of mind that assumes and thoroughly addresses their conjoint interplay are rare. To address this issue, we review definitions of emotion and cognition with a view to clarifying their specificity, as well as their differences from similar but potentially confounding constructs (e.g., perception, consciousness, and awareness). We also review the most common definitions of unconscious as a relevant intersection between cognition and emotion. Our ultimate objective therefore is to introduce an interactionist (individual-context) model of both cognitive and emotional levels of functioning of mind, based on what we refer to as the theory of analysis of demand (TAD). Finally, we outline and discuss its related intervention methodology, the Individual-Setting of consultation, Organization (I-S-O) technique.

Despite considerable investigations of the various outcomes of perceived brand globalness (PBG), the concept itself remains ambiguous, demanding further conceptual refinement. The purpose of this paper is to contribute to global branding literature by suggesting an extended conceptualization of PBG, and empirically testing a corresponding extended model of global brand effects, relative to the conventional operationalization.

An empirical study (n=907) involving 63 brands across eight different product categories provides new insights into the composition of global brand effects by explicitly discriminating between different facets of consumers’ brand globalness perceptions (i.e. perceived market reach (PMR), perceived standardization (PST) and global consumer culture positioning (GCCP)).

The results clearly show that effects associated with global brands are not exclusively positive. While PMR and GCCP have positive effects on consumers’ brand evaluations and attitudes, PST has a strong negative effect on the same outcomes. These effects apply to both domestic and foreign global brands and occur irrespective of the perceived level of risk associated with a given product category.

The results provide managers a clearer picture of the up- and downsides of brand globalness perceptions and urge future studies on global brands to incorporate constructs that account for facets beyond a brand’s market reach to capture the phenomenon holistically.