Intensive care unit (ICU) strain, characterized by a discrepancy between perceived or actual intensive care resources and demand, significantly impacts patient outcomes and healthcare worker well-being. The coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic exacerbated ICU strain, leading to increased mortality and extended hospital stays, affecting both critically ill patients with and without COVID-19. A systematic review identified 16 leading and lagging indicators of ICU capacity strain, including queuing, premature and after-hours ICU discharge, use of temporary space, length of stay, burnout, staffing and nurse-to-patient ratio, ICU census, acuity and turnover, standardized mortality ratio, readmissions, availability of critical supplies, ventilator use, and surgery cancellation. However, variability in operational definitions and limited evidence regarding the reliability, validity, usability, and feasibility limit the value of single indicators for informed strategic planning and policy guidance. Regional and national policies and programs are essential to enhance real-time monitoring for effective management of critical care resources, and they mitigate the impact of ICU strain, facilitating complex interhospital transfers to reduce strain and ensuring comprehensive strategies for enhancing ICU resilience. Proactive regional cooperation is advocated for policy formulation, knowledge exchange, and resource allocation to anticipate and mitigate ICU strain, ensuring equitable healthcare access during global health crises. The policy implications for future preparedness emphasize the importance of evidence-based triage and adaptable patient management strategies alongside ethical considerations in resource allocation and the role of behavioral economic insights in optimizing resource utilization and collaborative healthcare practices. This multifaceted approach for addressing ICU strain comprehensively and effectively during a pandemic would promote health equity and enhance healthcare system resilience under both routine operations and crisis conditions.

IntroductionHealth information literacy is critical for individuals to obtain, understand, screen, and apply health information. However, there is currently no specific tool available to evaluate all four dimensions of health information literacy in China. Public health emergencies can present an opportunity to evaluate and monitor the health information literacy level of residents. Therefore, this study aimed to develop a questionnaire to evaluate the level of health information literacy and to measure the reliability and validity. MethodsThe development process of the questionnaire consisted of the determination of questionnaire items, expert consultation, and validation. Based on the National Residents Health Literacy Monitoring Questionnaire (2020) and the 2019 Informed Health Choices key concepts, the researchers drafted the questionnaire, including all four dimensions of health information literacy. Experts in relevant fields were invited to evaluate the draft questionnaire, and revisions were made accordingly. Finally, the reliability and validity of the finalized version were examined in Gansu Province, China. ResultsThe research team preliminarily formulated 14 items encompassing the four dimensions of health information literacy. After consulting with 28 experts, modifications were made. A convenience sample of 185 Chinese residents was invited to participate. Cronbach's alpha coefficient was 0.715 and McDonald's omega was 0.739 for internal consistency, and the test-retest intra-class correlation coefficient after 4 weeks was 0.906, indicating that the questionnaire content and measurement structure was relatively stable. ConclusionThis questionnaire is the first evidence-based assessment tool developed for monitoring health information literacy in China, and it has shown good reliability and validity. It can help to monitor the health information literacy levels of Chinese residents, promote evidence-based decision-making, and guide interventions to improve health information literacy.

The pandemic affects rural areas as much as it does urban areas, though the spread in rural areas began later than in urban area. However, because of greater health inequities and poor access to health care in rural areas, the consequences of the pandemic could be worse in rural areas. We draw on existing data from various sources including print media in order to examine and contextualise urban-rural differentials and the State's response to the Covid-19 pandemic. In the short run, protecting rural areas from further suffering caused by the pandemic requires a combination of a robust disease surveillance programme, an effective health communication strategy, and a public outreach programme that ensures universal vaccination. In the long run, health systems preparedness and resilience require greater public health expenditure, strengthening public health services, and ensuring that these services have adequate surge capacity and support from effective public health informatics.