Evidence-based policymaking when evidence is incomplete: The case of HIV programme integration

Jan Hontelez and co-authors discuss the use of different types of evidence to inform HIV program integration.

Summary points

• Sustainable Development Goal 3 aims to “ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages” and has set a target of achieving global universal health coverage, representing a major policy shift away from mostly disease-specific “vertical programmes”.
• While health service integration can be a promising strategy to improve healthcare coverage, health outcomes, and efficiency, the exact impact of integration in different settings is hard to predict, and policy makers need to choose from a large variety of integration strategies and opportunities with varying levels of scientific evidence.
• Using the case of health service integration for HIV in low- and middle-income countries, we outline implementation strategies for integration opportunities with lacking or scarce high-level causal evidence, based on existing frameworks and methodologies from within and beyond healthcare and implementation science.
• Proper use of scientific evidence in other contexts requires adequate and systematic assessments of the transportability of an intervention. Several methods exist that allow for judging transferability and comprehensively identifying key context-specific indicators across studies that can affect the reported impact of interventions.
• When (transferable) evidence is absent, we propose that by drawing on well-established design and implementation methodologies—underpinned by ongoing learning and iterative improvement of local service delivery strategies—countries could substantially improve decision-making even in the absence of scientific evidence.
• Reaching the goal of making the HIV response an integral part of a larger, universal, people-centred health system that meets the needs and requirements of citizens can be facilitated by applying lessons learned from implementation science and novel design methodologies.

     

Beyond UHC: Monitoring Health and Social Protection Coverage in the Context of Tuberculosis Care and Prevention

Tuberculosis (TB) remains a major global public health problem. In all societies, the disease affects the poorest individuals the worst. A new post-2015 global TB strategy has been developed by WHO, which explicitly highlights the key role of universal health coverage (UHC) and social protection. One of the proposed targets is that “No TB affected families experience catastrophic costs due to TB.” High direct and indirect costs of care hamper access, increase the risk of poor TB treatment outcomes, exacerbate poverty, and contribute to sustaining TB transmission. UHC, conventionally defined as access to health care without risk of financial hardship due to out-of-pocket health care expenditures, is essential but not sufficient for effective and equitable TB care and prevention. Social protection interventions that prevent or mitigate other financial risks associated with TB, including income losses and non-medical expenditures such as on transport and food, are also important. We propose a framework for monitoring both health and social protection coverage, and their impact on TB epidemiology. We describe key indicators and review methodological considerations. We show that while monitoring of general health care access will be important to track the health system environment within which TB services are delivered, specific indicators on TB access, quality, and financial risk protection can also serve as equity-sensitive tracers for progress towards and achievement of overall access and social protection.

This paper is part of the PLOS Universal Health Coverage Collection.

Summary Points

1. The WHO has developed a post-2015 Global TB Strategy emphasizing that significant improvement to TB care and prevention will be impossible without the progressive realization of both universal health coverage and social protection. This paper discusses indicators and measurement approaches for both.
2. While access to high-quality TB diagnosis and treatment has improved dramatically in recent decades, there is still insufficient coverage, especially for correct diagnosis and treatment of multi-drug resistant TB.
3. Continued and expanded monitoring of effective coverage of TB diagnosis and treatment is needed, for which further improvements to existing surveillance systems are required.
4. Many households face severe financial hardship due to TB. Out-of-pocket costs for medical care, transport, and food are often high. However, income loss is the largest financial threat for TB-affected households.
5. Consequently, the financial risk protection target in the post-2015 Global TB Strategy—“No TB affected families experience catastrophic costs due to TB”—concerns all direct costs as well as income loss. This definition is more inclusive than the one conventionally used for “catastrophic health expenditure,” which concerns only direct medical costs.

     

Effective Coverage: A Metric for Monitoring Universal Health Coverage

A major challenge in monitoring universal health coverage (UHC) is identifying an indicator that can adequately capture the multiple components underlying the UHC initiative. Effective coverage, which unites individual and intervention characteristics into a single metric, offers a direct and flexible means to measure health system performance at different levels. We view effective coverage as a relevant and actionable metric for tracking progress towards achieving UHC. In this paper, we review the concept of effective coverage and delineate the three components of the metric — need, use, and quality — using several examples. Further, we explain how the metric can be used for monitoring interventions at both local and global levels. We also discuss the ways that current health information systems can support generating estimates of effective coverage. We conclude by recognizing some of the challenges associated with producing estimates of effective coverage. Despite these challenges, effective coverage is a powerful metric that can provide a more nuanced understanding of whether, and how well, a health system is delivering services to its populations.

This paper is part of the PLOS Universal Health Coverage Collection.

Summary Points

• Effective coverage unites intervention need, use, and quality into a simple but data-rich metric, reflecting the core components of UHC.
• Effective coverage can be applied to understand the health gains delivered by interventions at a range of levels, from individual benefits to national impact.
• Effective coverage can be measured and used across resource settings. Lower-income countries can harness data from existing survey data to feed into effective coverage estimations.
• The broader use of effective coverage remains hindered by the availability and quality of health data, especially at subnational levels.

     

A call for diversity,equity, and inclusion: Highlights from the Consortium of Universities for Global Health 2021 conference

Beryne Odeny reports from the CUGH 2021 virtual conference.

The first virtual Consortium of Universities for Global Health (CUGH) 2021 conference was held in March, 2021 [1]. Two weeks of satellite symposia culminated in this highly prestigious conference, which drew an eclectic group of renowned speakers, global health leaders, program implementers, researchers, and students from across the globe. There were more than 5000 delegates from diverse disciplines including public health, politics, education, medicine, planetary health, and finance. Top of the agenda was addressing critical gaps in global health and development against the backdrop of the COVID-19 pandemic.CUGH is an organization of over 170 academic institutions and organizations throughout the world, engaged in addressing global health challenges [1]. The 2021 conference was meticulously and creatively planned as was evidenced by the dynamic virtual platform, which hosted several global leader interviews, general sessions, 40 concurrent sessions, 7 plenary sessions, over 700 poster programs, and the Pulitzer Center Film festivals–yes, movies were on the menu [2]. Best of all, the platform held up, with minimal technical difficulties. The conference agenda had curated sessions carefully customized to varying attendee interests and expertise. Participants could seamlessly and discreetly shuttle between sessions.The inaugural interviews, with Dr. Anthony Fauci of the United States and Dr. Hugo Lopez-Gatell of Mexico, set the tone with emphasis on a much-needed global response to the ongoing pandemic. “2020 was a watershed moment in Global Health,” said Dr. Fauci. The COVID-19 pandemic indiscriminately unveiled the fragility of health systems in high income countries (HIC) and low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) alike. He unpacked the origins, evolution, and contention around current public health mandates such as mask wearing. He discussed vaccines–exploring vaccine manufacturing in LMICs, open patents, implications of emerging COVID-19 variants, and advice on curbing the prevailing vaccine infodemic (i.e., pandemic of misinformation) [2–4]. Dr. Lopez-Gatell described the pandemic as a “massive social event” fueled by deficits in health systems, politics, and governance, and by the growing tide of non-communicable diseases (NCDs) [5]. In a brief video recording, Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, WHO’s Director-General, implored global partners to sign the COVID-19 Declaration on vaccine equity which he termed “the defining challenge of 2021” [6].The post-pandemic forecast for global health was dire. COVID-19 has disrupted decades of progress toward attainment of Universal Health Care (UHC) and it will be doubly difficult to restore, by 2035, health indicators to their levels prior to the pandemic [7–9]. A modelling study by Dr. Wenhui Mao of Duke University showed that, even in the most optimistic scenario, it may not be possible to achieve UHC in the next decade without breakthrough technologies and exceptional political commitment. Among four critical indicators of TB mortality rate, HIV mortality rate, under 5 mortality ratio, and maternal mortality ratio, Dr. Mao found that only the HIV indicator had potential for recovery by 2035.The metaphorical elephant in the room, and now its opposite, “the elephant not in the room”, respectively encapsulate two themes: neocolonialism and equity, especially for marginalized groups. Neocolonialism–a progeny of colonialism–resulting from sustained global North-South power imbalances, manifests in low prioritization of the most pressing challenges and diseases in LMICs. Equity was a poignant theme across the CUGH sessions and satellite symposia. Sessions were dedicated to exploring the hegemonic structures and institutional systems that underpin adverse health system performance and outcomes. A sampling of wide-ranging topics on global challenges exacerbated by neocolonialism and inequities comprised: a) elevating the visibility and power of researchers in LMICs, including fragile and conflict affected settings, through equitable access to funding, research autonomy and leadership, access to scholarly publishing, and senior authorship of research articles [10]; b) training next-generation global health professionals and building capacity for resource-challenged settings to address NCDs, including cancer care [5]; c) the Latin American and Caribbean health crises drawn by social gradients and inequities; d) navigating conflicting interests between public health and the corporate food industry; e) the dearth and role of women leaders in global health and in the COVID-19 response; f) the disproportionate incidence of HIV in adolescent girls and young women in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) [11]; g) the disparate burden of neonatal mortality in LMICs and marginalized communities within HIC; and h) leveraging the power of film to evoke emotion and induce a consolidated response to global challenges. In addition, various facets of the human ecosystem were unpacked including climate change, biodiversity preservation, political climate, and the global kleptocracy, with attention to their implications for the health of the most marginalized populations.Despite the highlighted issues, there is, potentially, a panacea for these inequities and challenges. One speaker, Dr. Lisa Adams of Dartmouth College, proposed a paradigm shift that summarized a wide range of deliberations–“moving global health out of the realm of charity into global citizenship, security, human rights, equal partnership, and interdisciplinary collaboration between LMICs and HICs.” Moving forward, more deliberate effort should be given to some elements. First, rethinking governance and funding at a global level while promoting the autonomy of LMICs and conflict-affected settings to drive their health agenda–independent from HIC interests. Bringing the elephant into the room by making equal space for LMICs to set the agenda at global tables of discussion around funding, research, and development will be pivotal to dismantling neocolonialism. Furthermore, funders and partners should work with in-country systems in LMICs as opposed to bypassing them. This is essential to building resilient health systems unified at national levels to allow for cross-discipline collaborations and swift responses to health threats. Rwanda is a laudable example, having swiftly remodeled its existing health systems including routine electronic information systems for nationwide COVID-19 surveillance, testing, contact tracing, and vaccination. Second, investing time to build trusting relationships between researchers or implementers and policy makers by upholding a participatory approach to research and implementation of evidence-based practices. This is essential globally, to support development of global public goods such as vaccines, free from market dynamics and aimed at universal and equitable access. Third, introduce policies that engage economies to produce with less fragmentation of nature and reduced pollution. These include protected area management, financing of nature-positive projects, and conservationist work for natural capital preservation. Global and public health practitioners need to educate and empower citizens to choose healthy and ecologically sustainable consumption practices. Fourth, promoting development of novel technologies for preventing HIV infection, such as broadly neutralizing antibodies, could overturn the unequal burden of HIV in adolescents and young women in SSA. Finally, HIC have a lot they can learn from LMICs. COVID-19 evidently demonstrated that a country’s Global Health Security Index ranking is not necessarily commensurate to its degree of success in handling pandemics, among other public health threats [8,12,13].Throughout the conference, it was apparent that equity and collectivity in global health are necessary–not optional. Dr. Elvin Geng of Washington University, St. Louis remarked that the path to equity should be measurable with routinely incorporated metrics that track interventions to redress inequity and foster accountability. To achieve this, the tools of implementation science can be employed at both regional and global levels [14]. Overall, the remarkable interlacing of diverse disciplinary sessions at CUGH 2021 not only brought to light pressing world problems but equipped participants with a wellspring of potential remedies and collaborative opportunities. The panelists and speakers effectively portrayed the layered and multidimensional nature of global challenges underscoring the need for similarly multifaceted solutions. CUGH 2021 sparked thought-provoking discourse around global health strategies and re-invigorated the collective passion of global health experts, novices, and everyone in between, to build forward better.     

Building global health research capacity to address research imperatives following the COVID-19 pandemic

Peter Kilmarx and Roger Glass discuss strengthening health research capabilities as a response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Research and development of new tools and interventions are necessary to improve global health, as has been made apparent by the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic [1]. As of mid-July 2021, there have been nearly 190 million cases reported worldwide and more than 4 million deaths; and yet, less than a year after the outbreak was first reported, in an unprecedented global effort, researchers had developed home rapid self-tests [2], established treatment protocols proven effective to improve survival [3], and discovered highly effective vaccines that are already being produced and administered at a large scale [4].The COVID-19 pandemic also illustrates the importance of having research capacity in place as a critical element of pandemic preparedness. China, with its robust research capacity, was able to rapidly sequence the novel Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) virus in January 2020 [5] and quickly share the results, thereby jumpstarting global development of diagnostic tests and vaccines. In contrast, when outbreaks have occurred in countries with less research capacity, the development of countermeasures—diagnostics, therapeutics, and vaccines—may be delayed. We examined the relationship between a country’s preexisting research capacity and the output of scientific publications in PubMed by the country’s scientists following an outbreak. In the first 2 years after the Ebola outbreak was recognized in Guinea, only 42 papers on Ebola were published with authors with a Guinean affiliation, and there were significant challenges in launching Ebola treatment and vaccine studies. From Brazil, with its strong research infrastructure, 312 publications about Zika were authored by scientists with a Brazilian affiliation in the 2 years after that outbreak was detected, and substantial progress was made in rapidly characterizing the newly recognized, diverse clinical manifestations. Finally, authors affiliated with a Chinese institution published 8,921 articles on COVID-19 since the current outbreak was recognized, with remarkable progress in developing medical countermeasures.Anticipating significant progress in controlling COVID-19 in 2021, what are the future priorities for global health research? A helpful guide is the 2019 report of the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study [6]. This comprehensive synthesis showed that the largest absolute increases in number of disability-adjusted life years between 1990 and 2019 mostly included noncommunicable diseases, i.e., ischemic heart disease, diabetes, stroke, chronic kidney disease, and lung cancer. These illnesses have overlapping risk factors—hypertension, high fasting plasma glucose, high body mass index, tobacco use, and ambient air pollution—which are also highly prevalent and mostly increasing over time [7], further suggesting important areas for research. Notably, some of these diseases and risk factors are also predisposing factors for more severe COVID-19 and prolonged symptoms post-COVID-19.Many other critical COVID-19 research questions in the NIH-Wide Strategic Plan for COVID-19 Research [8] remain unanswered, and new urgent questions have arisen. These include the following: What can we learn from how genetic and other factors explain the high individual variation in the clinical course of COVID-19 to improve treatment interventions? How can diagnostic tests be optimized for home use and low-resource settings, and can testing platforms be created for rapid adaptation with new emerging pathogens? With the potential for waning immunity and immune escape variants, what strategies will be needed for COVID-19 vaccine booster doses? Lastly, how best can public health interventions and medical countermeasures be delivered to reduce poor outcomes, especially in racial/ethnic minority and other vulnerable populations?Several other important perspectives on threats to global health cut across multiple disease entities and provide useful frameworks and new imperatives for prioritizing global health research. The One Health concept encompasses interconnections between humans, animals, plants, and the environment and embraces a transdisciplinary approach to address major emerging threats including zoonotic diseases (e.g., COVID-19), vector-borne diseases, antimicrobial resistance, food safety, and environmental contamination [9]. Another framework is Planetary Health, which focuses on the already large and growing health impacts of our extensive disruptions of earth’s systems, especially climate change, but also declining biodiversity, increasing pollution, and shortages of fresh water, land, and ocean resources [10]. In addition, humanitarian crises such as armed conflicts, natural disasters, and disease outbreaks are impacting more people than ever before. New research approaches and partnerships are needed to address evidence gaps and to establish capacities for future challenges [11]. The impact of COVID-19 on routine health services is a striking current example. Lastly, implementation research on promoting the uptake of evidence-based interventions and policies into routine healthcare and public health settings is needed across each of these fields of health research to address persistent gaps between the promise of proven effective innovations and their successful implementation, especially in underserved and marginalized populations that have been more severely impacted by COVID-19 [12].We believe the greatest priority should be on building health research capacity in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) where the health burdens and threats are greater and research capacity is often lower than in higher-income countries. Basic pillars of capacity are needed to establish a robust, responsive research environment. Foremost among these is human capacity. Over decades of experience, we have learned that developing research leaders in LMICs requires well-trained individuals with protected time to conduct research and with strong mentorship and networking with both international and local scientists. It is encouraging to see such investigators trained in other research topics such as HIV and tuberculosis now emerge as leaders in their country’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic in Asia, Africa, and the Americas [13]. Other critical capacities include laboratory testing, data management and statistical analysis, clinical trial and community research site development, behavioral and social science, community engagement, ethical review boards, and regulatory systems. A promising emerging approach is to use basic metrics of national and institutional health research capacity to help coordinate and increase efficiency of capacity building efforts, identify and support countries with lowest capacity levels, and facilitate increased research on national health priorities [14]. As we have seen with COVID-19, these capacities can also be rapidly brought to bear to address new health threats. Notably, of the 30 countries taking part in the SOLIDARITY trial of COVID-19 treatment, 16 are LMICs [15]. A critical limitation and emerging priority underscored by COVID-19 is in vaccine research, development, and manufacturing capacity, especially in Africa [16].COVID-19 has necessitated many other substantial changes in our usual practices of global health research, some of which are likely to persist. Use of digital platforms for telecommunications has exploded. In many settings, telework and distance learning are proving to be very effective and sometimes preferable to the expense and risk of face-to-face meetings. We have seen greater participation in many webinars and network meetings, especially from early-career and LMIC colleagues who did not have the time or the budget for in-person meetings [17]. Importantly, the environmental costs of these virtual meetings are also much lower. Along with increases in telemedicine, there have also been advances in teleresearch whereby participants can be enrolled or followed via their mobile phones, potentially decreasing the costs and barriers to participation and improving study retention. The speed of research, formation of collaborations, and communication of results have all increased remarkably with digital collaboration platforms and rapid publication, including publication of preprints, which are now available on PubMed [18]. International collaboration and coordination in research and regulatory processes have also been critical to the rapid development of medical countermeasures through platforms such as the Access to COVID-19 Tools (ACT) Accelerator of the World Health Organization [19] and the Accelerating COVID-19 Therapeutic Interventions and Vaccines (ACTIV) public–private partnership led by the National Institutes of Health [20].Unfortunately, there has also been an “infodemic” of misinformation (i.e., any false information) and disinformation (deliberately false or misleading information) around the source and impact of COVID-19 and the science of its prevention and treatment [21]. This is not a new phenomenon, but with the growth of digital platforms with domestic and international rivalries, a major threat has emerged requiring research to better understand and counter that threat.Finally, COVID-19 is likely to recalibrate perspectives of levels of expertise in north–south relationships among higher- and lower-income countries. At the time of this writing, the public health, healthcare system, and policy approaches in the COVID-19 response of many high-income countries in the north have greatly underperformed in comparison to some lower-income countries in the global south, especially in regard to protecting vulnerable and marginalized populations. This has increased momentum to democratize global health, with the recognition that a new sense of humility and equity will be critical to understand all of the lessons to be learned and improve global health following COVID-19. We applaud the growing role of LMIC scientists in setting the global health research agenda [22].In conclusion, while the COVID-19 pandemic has already taken a devastating global toll on global health and well-being, it has also provided a strong example of the importance of health research capacity as an essential element of pandemic preparedness. The world faces a wide range of health challenges, from chronic diseases and risk factors to emerging global threats. Building research capacity, especially in countries with lower levels, while learning the lessons of COVID-19, must become a higher priority to achieve our current shared global health goals while increasing resilience to address future health threats.     

Monitoring Intervention Coverage in the Context of Universal Health Coverage

Monitoring universal health coverage (UHC) focuses on information on health intervention coverage and financial protection. This paper addresses monitoring intervention coverage, related to the full spectrum of UHC, including health promotion and disease prevention, treatment, rehabilitation, and palliation. A comprehensive core set of indicators most relevant to the country situation should be monitored on a regular basis as part of health progress and systems performance assessment for all countries. UHC monitoring should be embedded in a broad results framework for the country health system, but focus on indicators related to the coverage of interventions that most directly reflect the results of UHC investments and strategies in each country. A set of tracer coverage indicators can be selected, divided into two groups—promotion/prevention, and treatment/care—as illustrated in this paper. Disaggregation of the indicators by the main equity stratifiers is critical to monitor progress in all population groups. Targets need to be set in accordance with baselines, historical rate of progress, and measurement considerations. Critical measurement gaps also exist, especially for treatment indicators, covering issues such as mental health, injuries, chronic conditions, surgical interventions, rehabilitation, and palliation. Consequently, further research and proxy indicators need to be used in the interim. Ideally, indicators should include a quality of intervention dimension. For some interventions, use of a single indicator is feasible, such as management of hypertension; but in many areas additional indicators are needed to capture quality of service provision. The monitoring of UHC has significant implications for health information systems. Major data gaps will need to be filled. At a minimum, countries will need to administer regular household health surveys with biological and clinical data collection. Countries will also need to improve the production of reliable, comprehensive, and timely health facility data. Please see later in the article for the Editors'' Summary

Summary Points

• Monitoring universal health coverage (UHC) should be integral to overall tracking of health progress and performance, which requires regular assessment of health system inputs (finances, health workforce, and medicines), outputs (service provision), coverage of interventions, and health impacts, as well as the social determinants of health.
• Within this overall context, we propose that UHC monitoring focus on financial protection and intervention coverage indicators, with a strong equity focus. This paper focuses on intervention coverage.
• Progress towards UHC should be tracked using tracer intervention coverage indicators selected on the basis of objective considerations and designed to keep the numbers of indicators small and manageable while covering a range of health interventions to capture the essence of the UHC goal.
• Since UHC is about progressive realization and countries differ in epidemiology, health systems, socioeconomic development, and people''s expectations, the indicator sets will not be the same everywhere.
• Coverage indicators should cover promotion and prevention, as well as treatment, rehabilitation, and palliation. While there are several suitable indicators for the first two, there are major gaps for coverage indicators of treatment, as population need for treatment is difficult to measure.
• A small set of well-established international intervention tracer coverage indicators can be identified for monitoring UHC. Where no good indicators are currently available, proxy indicators and equity analysis of service utilization can provide some insights.
• Special attention needs to be paid to quality of services, either through the tracer indicator itself (referred to as effective coverage) or through additional indicators on quality of services or health impact of the intervention.
• Targets should be set in accordance with baseline, historical rate of progress, and measurement considerations.
• The main data sources of intervention coverage indicators are household surveys and health facility reports. Investments in both are needed to improve the ability of countries to monitor progress towards UHC.
• It is essential to find effective ways of communicating progress towards UHC in ways that are meaningful to the general public and that capture the attention of policy makers.

This paper is part of the PLOS Universal Health Coverage Collection.

     

COVID-19 and indirect health implications in Africa: Impact,mitigation measures,and lessons learned for improved disease control

Seth Inzaule and co-authors discuss implications of the COVID-19 pandemic for health in African countries.

Summary points

• Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) and the mitigation measures taken to limit its spread have significantly disrupted other essential health services in Africa. This disruption has threatened the control of major high-burden diseases such as HIV, tuberculosis (TB), and malaria as well as the prevention of maternal and child mortality.
• While the 2020 WHO global reports for HIV, TB, and malaria show progress in control of these diseases in African countries, there are still significant gaps in meeting the global targets. Similarly, modeling studies predict that most African countries are unlikely to meet the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) 2030 targets for reductions in maternal and child mortality under the current rate of progress.
• Prediction models and emerging empirical data indicate that the implemented mitigation measures against COVID-19 such as travel restrictions and lockdowns as well as the repurposing of health resources and suspension of prevention programs such as immunizations will lead to an increase in new infections and deaths, significantly reversing the gains achieved in the control of these health challenges.
• A more comprehensive COVID-19 response that minimizes indirect deaths is therefore warranted in Africa. These include implementing WHO recommendations that limit contact with the clinic where possible, such as multimonths drug dispensing, self-testing, virtual platforms for case management, community- and home-based prevention, and care services such as home distribution of test kits, vaccines, treatment, and mosquito nets.
• This is in addition to ensuring effective implementation of COVID-19 infection prevention and control measures in healthcare facilities including providing healthcare workers with personal protective equipment and prioritizing them for COVID-19 immunization.
• There is also a need to incorporate aggressive recovery plans to reverse the lost gains in disease control efforts and put African countries back on course toward achieving the global targets. This includes leveraging on the wider COVID-19 response enablements such as the increased political will and global solidarity funding efforts to support a more comprehensive response that accounts for the indirect public health effects of the pandemic.

     

Monitoring Progress towards Universal Health Coverage at Country and Global Levels

Universal health coverage (UHC) has been defined as the desired outcome of health system performance whereby all people who need health services (promotion, prevention, treatment, rehabilitation, and palliation) receive them, without undue financial hardship. UHC has two interrelated components: the full spectrum of good-quality, essential health services according to need, and protection from financial hardship, including possible impoverishment, due to out-of-pocket payments for health services. Both components should benefit the entire population.This paper summarizes the findings from 13 country case studies and five technical reviews, which were conducted as part of the development of a global framework for monitoring progress towards UHC.The case studies show the relevance and feasibility of focusing UHC monitoring on two discrete components of health system performance: levels of coverage with health services and financial protection, with a focus on equity. These components link directly to the definition of UHC and measure the direct results of strategies and policies for UHC. The studies also show how UHC monitoring can be fully embedded in often existing, regular overall monitoring of health sector progress and performance. Several methodological and practical issues related to the monitoring of coverage of essential health services, financial protection, and equity, are highlighted. Addressing the gaps in the availability and quality of data required for monitoring progress towards UHC is critical in most countries.

Summary Points

• The overall goal of universal health coverage (UHC) is that all people obtain the good-quality essential health services, including promotion, prevention, treatment, rehabilitation, and palliation, that they need without enduring financial hardship.
• A global UHC monitoring framework, developed by WHO and the World Bank Group in interaction with the process that led to this PLOS Collection, was used in 13 country case studies, underpinned by five technical reviews.
• The UHC monitoring framework focuses on the simultaneous monitoring of coverage of the population with essential health services and with financial protection against catastrophic out-of-pocket health payments, stratified by wealth quintile, place of residence, and sex.
• Most countries focus on regular monitoring of a set of tracer indicators for priority health services, as well as the occurrence of financial hardship and impoverishment due to out-of-pocket health expenses. The indicators generally follow international standards of measurement and can be used for global comparisons.
• Most countries do not have an explicit framework for UHC monitoring. The monitoring of UHC is, however, partially embedded in regular overall health sector progress and performance reviews which include health system inputs, service delivery, and health status indicators.
• There are major gaps in the availability and quality of data required for monitoring progress towards UHC. Countries mostly rely on international survey programs or national surveys to obtain disaggregated data on coverage and financial protection indicators, complemented by health facility data, but often the frequency and contents of these surveys are not sufficient to meet the country''s information needs.
• Monitoring progress towards the two components of UHC will be complementary and critical to achieving desirable health outcome goals, such as ending preventable deaths and promoting healthy life expectancy, and also reducing poverty and protecting household incomes.

     

Novel coronavirus mitigation measures implemented by radiotherapy centres in low and middle-income countries: a systematic review

BackgroundThe aim of the study was to identify strategies adopted by radiotherapy centres in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) to mitigate the effects of COVID-19. Studies summarising COVID-19 mitigation strategies designed and implemented by radiotherapy centres in LMICs to avoid delays, deferrments and interruptions of radiotherapy services are lacking.Materials and methodsA systematic review was conducted and reported in accordance with the preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis guideline. Ovid Embase, Ovid MEDLINE and CINAHL were searched for peer-reviewed articles that reported measures adopted by radiotherapy centres in LMICs to reduce the risk of COVID-19. Information on different strategies were extracted from the included studies and textual narrative synthesis was conducted.ResultsOf 60 articles retrieved, eleven were included. Majority of the studies were conducted in China. Ten of the included studies employed a qualitative design. Four themes were identified: preparing and equipping staff; reinforcing infection prevention and control policies; strengthening coordination and communication; and maintaining physical distancing. Studies reported that radiotherapy centres had: formed COVID-19 response multidisciplinary team; maximised the use of telehealth; adjusted the layout of waiting areas; divided staff into teams; dedicated a room for isolating suspected cases; and adopted triage systems.ConclusionsLocal adaptation of established global strategies coupled with timely development of guidelines, flexibility and innovation have allowed radiotherapy leaders to continue to deliver radiotherapy services to cancer patients in LMICs during the COVID-19 crisis. Robust data collection must be encouraged in LMICs to provide an evidence-based knowledge for use in the event of another pandemic.     

COVID-19 and global equity for health: The good,the bad,and the wicked

Elvin Geng and co-authors discuss monitoring and achieving equity in provision of vaccines for COVID-19.

Many problems underscored by the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, and highlighted in other papers in this collection [1], center on addressing the grossly unequal availability of vaccine around the world. The problem of equity in the public health response fits Rittel and Webber’s conceptualization of “wicked problems” [2] that describe complex issues that defy conventional scientific analyses. Wicked problems have many characteristics, but three stand out when contemplating an equitable response to the COVID-19 pandemic. First, wicked problems have no definitive problem statement because understanding the problem is the crux of the problem itself. Is an equitable response to COVID-19 the problem, or is inequity in vaccines a symptom of larger inequity in health, economic, and societal systems? And is the problem equity in distribution, or is the root problem scarcity due to unfair trade arrangements? Second, in wicked problems, the elusive problem formulation precludes a shared understanding of success, or even progress, by stakeholders. What would constitute an acceptably equitable response? How would we measure progress without a unified direction? Third, in wicked problems, the absence of a shared agenda (and measures of progress) undermines aligned and effective action. Without true consensus that a fair allocation of vaccines across countries is based on population size instead of disease burden (as proposed by COVAX), targets based on progress toward such a distribution would lack real commitment from global stakeholders. The answers are as critical as they are elusive, not only for how the COVID-19 pandemic evolves, but also for whether we learn from it to better navigate future threats.COVID-19 is not the first wicked problem evident in global public health, however, and the recent past may offer some lessons. Three decades ago, HIV presented an urgent, complex, dynamic, and wicked threat to health around the world in which global inequities were stark and unacceptable. In 2004, 39 million people were living with HIV, 4.9 million new infections occurred, and 3.1 million died of HIV (comparable to the approximately 3.1 million COVID-19 deaths by April 16, 2021) in that year, the vast majority of new infections (>95%) and deaths (>95%) occurred in lower and middle-income countries. At the time, lifesaving antiretroviral therapy was available only in high-income countries, where it was expensive, delivered by highly trained specialists, and accompanied by sophisticated monitoring requirements (e.g., quantitative HIV plasma RNA levels and genotypical analysis). Naysayers warned that providing treatment throughout the world to close these major gaps would lead to “antiretroviral anarchy” and widespread drug resistance. To make progress against HIV, and increase equitability around the world, the world faced many of the same problems that we face today. Was the crux of problem access to antiretrovirals or to medications more generally? Should the priority be on treatment or prevention? Was this a public health problem at all or actually one of poverty and extractive economic systems? Three decades later, HIV treatment is widely available around the world, mostly free of charge, delivered by a robust healthcare workforce, based on stable global financing, and supported by the highest levels of global governance. With all the flaws of the response, from the vantage point of the present, it is clear that progress and greater equity in the response to the HIV epidemic have occurred.In the HIV response, this progress toward a global response was anchored by advocates and activists who successfully put HIV at the center of political agenda and crafted a globally shared commitment to offer treatment to every person living with HIV anywhere in the world in need [3,4]. This shared formulation of the problem (and therefore shared goals) was a critical first step in the global HIV treatment response. Even though the objective to treat all who needed treatment is crystal clear in retrospect, it was one of many competing perspectives. A few advocated a larger scope (i.e., global progress on a wider range of health conditions), while many championed smaller and “more feasible” objectives, (i.e., emphasizing prevention only without treatment). Yet, the goal to treat every person was ultimately adopted by governments, civil society, and the global agencies and therefore carried legitimacy and force. The Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) was established in 1994 through a UN resolution approved by all 193 member states to provide coordinated and aligned actions on HIV at the highest levels. The Global Fund for HIV, TB, and Malaria was created in 2002 to raise, manage, and disburse billions in funding for these priority pandemics. The first Global AIDS Coordinator to oversee the US government’s investment of billions of dollars to address HIV in 2006 reported directly to the US President, elevating the visibility and prioritization of the HIV response where it was most severe.This shared agenda to treat all in need was accompanied by the emergence of a remarkable visual heuristic that provided a shared roadmap for progress:—HIV treatment cascade—a simple and immediately accessible representation of the fraction of individuals living with HIV who are diagnosed, linked to care, started on treatment, retained, and virally suppressed. While subject to a range of criticisms (e.g., the cascade does not represent time, real journeys are cyclical), the heuristic rapidly became a universal mental model of the implementation needs for success in the global treatment response for HIV. Today, this framing is shared by virtually all health officials, healthcare workers, implementers, policy makers, and even elected officials addressing HIV anywhere in the world [5]. The shared understanding of the public health approach allowed a remarkable fluency (or 95-95-95 in some places) of action and alignment of goals across the public health environment [6,7]. Comparisons of the cascade in different regions has also sharpened the focus on equity when large differences are apparent.Finally, the HIV response has used the cascade framework to define clear targets and extract commitments from elected leaders to meet those targets, thereby enabling measurable progress. The overarching UNAIDS strategy for HIV treatment, called “90–90–90," refers to targets in this cascade—that 90% of individuals living with HIV are diagnosed, 90% of diagnosed are on treatment, and 90% of those on treatment are suppressed. Today, virtually every country, state, county, and public health jurisdiction in the world is expected to know how much progress is being made toward 90–90–90 in their own jurisdictions. The International Association of Physicians in AIDS Care’s Fast-Track Cities initiative is one of a number of global policy initiatives based explicitly on obtaining commitments from political leaders and elected officials to meet 90–90–90 cascade targets [8]. The initiative has enrolled over 350 cities around the world—with the mayors of London, Paris, and other cosmopolitan cities all vocal advocates of 90–90–90. Because the cascade is reported, progress toward 90–90–90 can be widely assessed, creating some basis for accountability.Each of these 3 steps have implications for progress against the problem of an equitable global COVID-19 response. At present, the working global targets for distribution of vaccine have been put forth by COVAX, an alliance between GAVI, Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness, and WHO. COVAX seeks to allocate vaccine to cover 20% of the population in all countries. Yet, is a 20% floor targeting success or capitulating to failure? Is its distribution schema based on population fair, or, as proposed by others, should it be based on COVID-19 disease burden [9]? In order to answer these, and many other critical questions of shared global significance, the issue of equity must take center stage in the global policy making conversation at the highest levels. Ottersen and colleagues observed that “conflicts in interests and power asymmetries” between transnational actors on health (e.g., governments, corporations, and civil society) demand institutions to negotiate, articulate, and advocate for collective interests [10]. While the institutional arrangements may take various forms, a high-level UN meeting to establish a common agenda for equity in the global COVID-19 response attended by all 193 member states—as has been done before for HIV, TB, noncommunicable diseases, and antimicrobial resistance—is a minimum step.Like the HIV cascade, consensus for a more equitable COVID-19 response must be accompanied by meaningful, interpretable, publicly facing, and credible metrics that explicitly depict equity [11]. Many candidate metrics for that exist, but more work needs to be done to identify a consensus-based set. For example, the Lorenz curve, which has long been used in economics, could be used to depict the distribution of vaccine globally; as depicted in Fig 1, the Gini index has changed little over time, indicating sluggish, if any, progress toward equitable vaccine distribution. Other candidate metrics include adaptations of the Gini coefficient and/or the Palma ratio (the ratio of the richest 10% of the countries share of vaccines to the poorest 40%’s share). Measures based on Atkinson index could be promising because they would weight changes among those with less as compared to changes among those with relatively more [12]. Such shared mental models of the roadmap, in turn, can be used to demand concrete commitments from global agencies, national governments, and other actors, including from industry.Open in a separate windowFig 1Lorenz curve and Gini coefficient as examples of potential metrics explicitly depicting equity of global distribution of COVID-19 vaccine.COVID-19, Coronavirus Disease 2019; GDP, gross domestic product.Sometimes, change occurs quickly during windows when the right problems, politics, and policy converge [13]—the COVID-19 pandemic presents a critical threat but also potentially a window to catalyze international collective action that can shape the post-COVID-19 landscape and ensure that global responses to future health threats are more equitable and effective. The barriers to using these steps to achieve greater equity in the global response to COVID-19 are myriad: Not all influential actors globally prioritize equity; agreement on metrics may be elusive; low-quality data behind metrics can mislead; and mechanisms for social accountability often fail [14]. Yet, the alternative is more daunting—the absence of a conversation, metrics, and mechanisms for global equity that is commensurate with its unequivocal place at center of global stage will set a dire path for the future. Not everything in the HIV response has gone well—indeed, opportunities for progress have been missed—but the response demonstrates that wicked problems are not completely intractable, but only if we are committed enough to change them.     

Addressing power asymmetries in global health: Imperatives in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic

Seye Abimbola and co-authors argue for a transformation in global health research and practice in the post-COVID-19 world.

Summary points

• The Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, the Black Lives Matter and Women in Global Health movements, and ongoing calls to decolonise global health have all created space for uncomfortable but important conversations that reveal serious asymmetries of power and privilege that permeate all aspects of global health.
• In this article, we, a diverse, gender-balanced group of public (global) health researchers and practitioners (most currently living in the so-called global South), outline what we see as imperatives for change in a post-pandemic world.
• At the individual level (including and especially ourselves), we emphasise the need to emancipate and decolonise our own minds (from the colonial conditionings of our education), straddle and use our privilege responsibly (to empower others and avoid elite capture), and build “Southern” networks (to affirm our ownership of global health).
• At the organisational level, we call for global health organisations to practice real diversity and inclusion (in ways that go beyond the cosmetic), to localise their funding decisions (with people on the ground in the driving seat), and to progressively self-decentralise (and so, divest themselves of financial, epistemic, and political power).
• And at both the individual and organisational level, we emphasise the need to hold ourselves, our governments, and global health organisations accountable to these goals, and especially for governance structures and processes that reflect a commitment to real change.
• By putting a spotlight on coloniality and existing inequalities, the COVID-19 pandemic inspires calls for a more equitable world and for a decolonised and decentralised approach to global health research and practice, one that moves beyond tokenistic box ticking about diversity and inclusion into real and accountable commitments to transformative change.

     

Diagnostic testing holds the key to NTD elimination

“Fit-for-purpose” diagnostic tests have emerged as a prerequisite to achieving global targets for the prevention, control, elimination, and eradication of neglected tropical diseases (NTDs), as highlighted by the World Health Organization’s (WHO) new roadmap. There is an urgent need for the development of new tools for those diseases for which no diagnostics currently exist and for improvement of existing diagnostics for the remaining diseases. Yet, efforts to achieve this, and other crosscutting ambitions, are fragmented, and the burden of these 20 debilitating diseases immense. Compounded by the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, programmatic interruptions, systemic weaknesses, limited investment, and poor commercial viability undermine global efforts—with a lack of coordination between partners, leading to the duplication and potential waste of scant resources. Recognizing the pivotal role of diagnostic testing and the ambition of WHO, to move forward, we must create an ecosystem that prioritizes country-level action, collaboration, creativity, and commitment to new levels of visibility. Only then can we start to accelerate progress and make new gains that move the world closer to the end of NTDs.

Ahead of the second-ever World Neglected Tropical Disease (NTD) Day in January 2021, and amid the global Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) crisis, the World Health Organization (WHO) launched a new roadmap for the prevention, control, elimination, and eradication of NTDs—a group of 20 diseases affecting more than one billion people worldwide [1]. Diagnostic testing is central to safeguarding decades of progress in NTDs and must be strategically leveraged to reach the goals laid out in the new NTD roadmap.Stepping back, we recognize the massive progress that has been made to combat NTDs. Today, 500 million fewer people need treatment for these debilitating diseases than in 2010, and 40 countries or areas have eliminated at least one of the 20 [1]. Yet, despite these gains, NTDs continue to impose a devastating human, social, and economic toll on the world’s poorest and most vulnerable communities [2–6]. COVID-19 is compounding the situation by wreaking havoc on health systems, which impacts progress on NTDs: this includes interruptions to mass treatment campaigns for diseases controlled through preventive chemotherapy (PCT) or individual case management interventions, as well as rerouting the already sparse available funding and resources [7].Diagnostic testing has been central to the COVID-19 response even with the introduction of vaccines. The rapid ramp up of research and development (R&D), the scaling up of low-cost and decentralized testing, and country-led approaches to tailored testing strategies for COVID-19, as well as lessons learned, can also provide new thinking around testing for NTDs. The new NTD roadmap offers a series of multisectoral actions and intensified, cross-cutting approaches to get us back on track—with diagnostics central to unlocking and accelerating this progress [1].However, the NTD roadmap shows that, of all 20 diseases or disease groups, just 2 (yaws and snakebite envenoming) are supported by adequate and accessible diagnostic tools. Six have no diagnostic tests available at all, with tools for each of the remaining conditions in urgent need of adaptation, modification, and/or improved accessibility (likely a more cost-effective option than the development of new diagnostics for these NTDs) [1]. This has to change. NTDs cannot continue to be neglected in favor of other competing priorities, or we risk losing the progress made to date.Until the COVID-19 pandemic thrust testing into the spotlight, diagnostics have been a “silent partner” in healthcare, receiving little by way of international attention and funding, specific country strategies, and dedicated budget lines. NTDs are no exception. Just 5% of the (limited) funding made available to NTDs has been invested in new diagnostics, compared with 44% and 39% on basic research and medicines and vaccines, respectively [1]. For most NTDs, diagnostics are a market failure situation, and as such, are not commercially viable enough to attract private investment. Consequently, very few diagnostic developers engage in this area—contrary, for example, to COVID-19, where developers are in the hundreds. Furthermore, as some diseases approach the last mile of elimination, falling infection rates precipitate the need for increasingly sensitive tests [1]. But progress in R&D is slow and fragmented, with a lack of engagement and coordination between governments, industry, donors, and development actors, leading to the duplication—and potential waste—of scant resources. While serial testing using multiple diagnostic tools or techniques can compensate for low sensitivity [8], such approaches are associated with increased costs of testing, sample collection, and transportation.Closing the diagnostic gap then, is a prerequisite to achieving the global ambition for NTDs, with the new NTD roadmap giving a blueprint for action. It is for this reason that we call on governments, industry, donors, and development actors to

• Prioritize country-level diagnostic action: As we enter a new era in NTD management and control, we need to shift from traditional, donor-led models to country-driven initiatives. Government ministries must engage with, and advocate on behalf of, their poorest and most vulnerable populations so that no one is left behind. Political frameworks should prioritize diagnostics for NTDs in line with local disease burdens, and as part of fully funded, national health action plans that include a commitment to seeing the process through. Capacity building for diagnostics is also essential at country, sub-regional, and regional levels, including the establishment of laboratory networks, so that testing can be implemented in field settings.
• Collaborate and create: There is never going to be a one-size-fits-all for NTD diagnostics. If targets are to be achieved, we need global frameworks that enable industry, manufacturers, and pharmaceutical companies to engage in the whole process, from R&D to supply chain logistics. Companies need to share knowledge, learnings, and innovation across multiple diseases. This will mean breaking silos and finding new ways to harness the power of existing products, technologies, and infrastructures. Further, it will mean creating economies of scale through regional manufacturing hubs and finding new, cross-cutting approaches to drive systemic change. To obtain the maximum access to technology and relevant intellectual property rights for NTD diagnostics, it is important to ensure that such rights are broadly available (non-exclusively) in NTD-endemic countries and are affordable (e.g., zero royalty rights).
• Commit to new levels of visibility: The resources needed to realize that this ambition is limited, with a lack of visibility around the diagnostic landscape undermining progress in NTD management and control. Creating an ecosystem with visibility, transparency, and integration at its core will help streamline programmatic action, reduce the risk of duplication, and leverage the full potential from this limited pool. To do this, industry, donors, and other development actors must provide the information needed to map both funding and product landscapes. Using this information to create a virtual product pipeline will bring an unprecedented level of transparency to diagnostic developments—harmonizing multisectoral efforts and creating a robust information platform from which new collaborations, synergies, and innovation can grow. Developing an online open-access diagnostic pipeline for WHO NTD roadmap priority pathogens would serve multiple purposes: (i) drive advocacy to address critical product and funding gaps; and (ii) reduce the likelihood of duplication of efforts. Together, this would strengthen partnerships across all stakeholders, from donors to industry partners, to accelerate development, evaluation, and adoption of diagnostic solutions for NTDs. The newly established NTD Diagnostic Technical Advisory Group (DTAG) to WHO NTD department has already identified the priority diagnostic needs for NTD programs not only in terms of developing new tools, but also the accessibility of existing tools [9]. Several sub-groups that focus more narrowly on single diseases or specific topics (i.e., skin NTDs or cross-cutting) have been established and have been tasked to develop tool and biomarker agnostic target product profiles (TPPs), which are now available (for the most part) on WHO website for use by any diagnostic manufacturer to support development of their specific technology. Alignment with these diagnostic priorities by all stakeholders is strongly recommended to facilitate attainment of WHO 2030 NTD roadmap goals.

• Establish NTD biobanks: Biobanks are required for the clinical evaluation and validation of new diagnostic tests. Establishing local biobanks would support a country-driven approach as well as allowing for head-to-head comparisons between tests and assessments of cross-reactivity across different NTDs.
• Invest in existing diagnostics: The development of new diagnostics is a complex process, and the time from development to implementation can be lengthy. Training laboratory staff in the use of existing diagnostics and the establishment of robust quality control systems are effective approaches to achieving shorter-term improvements.

There is a long road ahead, but the past 10 years have shown us what can be achieved when governments, industry, donors, and development actors are bound by a shared, global goal. As we look forward to the next decade, we must prioritize country-level action, collaboration, creativity, and commitment to new levels of visibility, if we are to finally end the neglect of NTDs.     

Achieving global equity for COVID-19 vaccines: Stronger international partnerships and greater advocacy and solidarity are needed

Peter Figueroa and co-authors advocate for equity in the worldwide provision of COVID-19 vaccines.

Many may not be aware of the full extent of global inequity in the rollout of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines in response to the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic. As of June 20, 2021, only 0.9% of those living in low-income countries and less than 10% of those in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) had received at least 1 dose of a COVID-19 vaccine compared with 43% of the population living in high-income countries (HICs) [1] (Fig 1). Only 2.4% of the population of Africa had been vaccinated compared with 41% of North America and 38% of Europe [1,2] (S1 Fig). Primarily due to the inability to access COVID-19 vaccines, less than 10% of the population in as many as 85 LMICs had been vaccinated compared with over 60% of the population in 26 HICs [1]. Only 10 countries account for more than 75% of all COVID-19 vaccines administered [3]. This striking and ongoing inequity has occurred despite the explicit ethical principles affirming equity of access to COVID-19 vaccines articulated in WHO SAGE values framework [4,5] prepared in mid-2020, well prior to the availability of COVID-19 vaccines.Open in a separate windowFig 1Proportion of people vaccinated with at least 1 dose of COVID-19 vaccine by income (April 14 to June 23, 2021).Note: Data on China appeared on the database on June 9, hence the jump in upper middle-income countries. COVID-19, Coronavirus Disease 2019. Source: https://ourworldindata.org/covid-vaccinations.The COVID-19 pandemic highlights the grave inequity and inadequacy of the global preparedness and response to serious emerging infections. The establishment of the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) in 2018, the Access to COVID-19 Tools Accelerator (ACT-A), and the COVID-19 Vaccines Global Access (COVAX) Facility in April 2020 and the rapid development of COVID-19 vaccines were all positive and extraordinary developments [6]. The COVAX Facility, as of June 2021, has delivered approximately 83 million vaccine doses to 75 countries, representing approximately 4% of the global supply, and one-fifth of this was for HICs [7]. The COVAX Facility has been challenged to meet its supply commitments to LMICs due to insufficient access to doses of COVID-19 vaccines with the prerequisite WHO emergency use listing (EUL) or, under exceptional circumstances, product approval by a stringent regulatory authority (SRA) [8,9]. Because of the anticipated insufficient COVID-19 vaccine supply through the COVAX Facility, the majority of nonvaccine-producing LMIC countries made the decision, early in the COVID-19 pandemic, to secure and use vaccines produced in China or Russia prior to receipt of WHO EUL or SRA approval. Most of the vaccines used in LMICs as of June 20, 2021 (nearly 1.5 billion doses of the 2.6 billion doses administered) were neither WHO EUL or SRA approved at the time they were given [10]. This may raise possible concerns with respect to the effectiveness, safety, and acceptability of individual vaccines used by many countries [8,9].     

The Grand Convergence: Closing the Divide between Public Health Funding and Global Health Needs

The Global Health 2035 report notes that the “grand convergence”—closure of the infectious, maternal, and child mortality gap between rich and poor countries—is dependent on research and development (R&D) of new drugs, vaccines, diagnostics, and other health tools. However, this convergence (and the R&D underpinning it) will first require an even more fundamental convergence of the different worlds of public health and innovation, where a largely historical gap between global health experts and innovation experts is hindering achievement of the grand convergence in health.The Global Health 2035 report notes that the “grand convergence”—closure of the infectious, maternal, and child mortality gap between rich and poor countries—is dependent on research and development (R&D) of new drugs, vaccines, diagnostics, and other health tools. New tools alone are estimated to deliver a 2% decline each year in the under-5 mortality rate, maternal mortality ratio, and deaths from HIV/AIDS and tuberculosis (TB) [1].However, this convergence (and the R&D underpinning it) is unlikely unless we first have an even more fundamental convergence of the parallel worlds of public health and innovation. At the moment, these worlds are often disconnected, with major gaps to be bridged at both the intellectual and practical levels before we can truly reach a grand convergence in health.     

Achieving a “Grand Convergence” in Global Health: Modeling the Technical Inputs,Costs, and Impacts from 2016 to 2030

Background

The Commission on Investing in Health published its report, GlobalHealth2035, in 2013, estimating an investment case for a grand convergence in health outcomes globally. In support of the drafting of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), we estimate what the grand convergence investment case might achieve—and what investment would be required—by 2030.

Methods and Findings

Our projection focuses on a sub-set of low-income (LIC) or lower-middle-income countries (LMIC). We start with a country-based (bottom-up) analysis of the costs and impact of scaling up reproductive, maternal, and child health tools, and select HIV and malaria interventions. We then incorporate global (top-down) analyses of the costs and impacts of scaling up existing tools for tuberculosis, additional HIV interventions, the costs to strengthen health systems, and the costs and benefits from scaling up new health interventions over the time horizon of this forecast. These data are then allocated to individual countries to provide an aggregate projection of potential cost and impact at the country level. Finally, incremental costs of R&D for low-income economies and the costs of addressing NTDs are added to provide a global total cost estimate of the investment scenario.

Results

Compared with a constant coverage scenario, there would be more than 60 million deaths averted in LIC and 70 million deaths averted in LMIC between 2016 and 2030. For the years 2015, 2020, 2025, and 2030, the incremental costs of convergence in LIC would be (US billion) $24.3, $21.8, $24.7, and $27, respectively; in LMIC, the incremental costs would be (US billion) $34.75, $38.9, $48.7, and $56.3, respectively.

Conclusion

Key health outcomes in low- and low-middle income countries can significantly converge with those of wealthier countries by 2030, and the notion of a “grand convergence” may serve as a unifying theme for health indicators in the SDGs.     

Comparative Performance of Private and Public Healthcare Systems in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Systematic Review

Introduction

Private sector healthcare delivery in low- and middle-income countries is sometimes argued to be more efficient, accountable, and sustainable than public sector delivery. Conversely, the public sector is often regarded as providing more equitable and evidence-based care. We performed a systematic review of research studies investigating the performance of private and public sector delivery in low- and middle-income countries.

Methods and Findings

Peer-reviewed studies including case studies, meta-analyses, reviews, and case-control analyses, as well as reports published by non-governmental organizations and international agencies, were systematically collected through large database searches, filtered through methodological inclusion criteria, and organized into six World Health Organization health system themes: accessibility and responsiveness; quality; outcomes; accountability, transparency, and regulation; fairness and equity; and efficiency. Of 1,178 potentially relevant unique citations, data were obtained from 102 articles describing studies conducted in low- and middle-income countries. Comparative cohort and cross-sectional studies suggested that providers in the private sector more frequently violated medical standards of practice and had poorer patient outcomes, but had greater reported timeliness and hospitality to patients. Reported efficiency tended to be lower in the private than in the public sector, resulting in part from perverse incentives for unnecessary testing and treatment. Public sector services experienced more limited availability of equipment, medications, and trained healthcare workers. When the definition of “private sector” included unlicensed and uncertified providers such as drug shop owners, most patients appeared to access care in the private sector; however, when unlicensed healthcare providers were excluded from the analysis, the majority of people accessed public sector care. “Competitive dynamics” for funding appeared between the two sectors, such that public funds and personnel were redirected to private sector development, followed by reductions in public sector service budgets and staff.

Conclusions

Studies evaluated in this systematic review do not support the claim that the private sector is usually more efficient, accountable, or medically effective than the public sector; however, the public sector appears frequently to lack timeliness and hospitality towards patients. Please see later in the article for the Editors'' Summary     

The COVID-19 pandemic and physical activity during intermittent fasting,is it safe? A call for action

Intermittent fasting (IF) has recently gained popularity, and has been used for centuries in many religious practices. The Ramadan fasting is a mandatory form of IF practiced by millions of healthy adult Muslims globally for a whole lunar month every year. In Islam, the “Sunna” also encourages Muslims to practice IF all along the year (e.g.; two days a week). The 2019-Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic in the context of Ramadan has raised the question whether fasting is safe practice during the COVID-19 pandemic health crisis, and what would be the healthy lifestyle behaviors while fasting that would minimize the risk of infection. As COVID-19 lacks a specific therapy, IF and physical activity could help promote human immunity and be part of holistic preventive strategy against COVID-19. In this commentary, the authors focus on this dilemma and provide recommendations to the fasting communities for safely practicing physical activity in time of COVID-19 pandemic.     

Closing the health equity gap: A role for implementation science?

Beryne Odeny discusses strategies to improve equity in health care and health research.

WHO defines health equity as “the absence of unfair and avoidable or remediable differences in health among population groups defined socially, economically, demographically, or geographically or by other means of stratification” [1]. Yet, contrary to this fundamental aspiration and the international mandate on universal health coverage (UHC), almost 50% of the world’s population does not receive needed health services, and progress toward health equity remains elusive [2].     

Why Do Women Not Use Antenatal Services in Low- and Middle-Income Countries? A Meta-Synthesis of Qualitative Studies

Background

Almost 50% of women in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) don''t receive adequate antenatal care. Women''s views can offer important insights into this problem. Qualitative studies exploring inadequate use of antenatal services have been undertaken in a range of countries, but the findings are not easily transferable. We aimed to inform the development of future antenatal care programmes through a synthesis of findings in all relevant qualitative studies.

Methods and Findings

Using a predetermined search strategy, we identified robust qualitative studies reporting on the views and experiences of women in LMICs who received inadequate antenatal care. We used meta-ethnographic techniques to generate themes and a line-of-argument synthesis. We derived policy-relevant hypotheses from the findings. We included 21 papers representing the views of more than 1,230 women from 15 countries. Three key themes were identified: “pregnancy as socially risky and physiologically healthy”, “resource use and survival in conditions of extreme poverty”, and “not getting it right the first time”. The line-of-argument synthesis describes a dissonance between programme design and cultural contexts that may restrict access and discourage return visits. We hypothesize that centralised, risk-focused antenatal care programmes may be at odds with the resources, beliefs, and experiences of pregnant women who underuse antenatal services.

Conclusions

Our findings suggest that there may be a misalignment between current antenatal care provision and the social and cultural context of some women in LMICs. Antenatal care provision that is theoretically and contextually at odds with local contextual beliefs and experiences is likely to be underused, especially when attendance generates increased personal risks of lost family resources or physical danger during travel, when the promised care is not delivered because of resource constraints, and when women experience covert or overt abuse in care settings. Please see later in the article for the Editors'' Summary