Which countries need COVID-19 vaccines the most? Development of a prioritisation tool.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic and associated non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) have affected all countries. With a scarcity of COVID-19 vaccines there has been a need to prioritize populations, but assessing relative needs has been challenging. The COVAX Facility allocates vaccines to cover 20% of each national population, followed by a needs assessment that considers five quantitative metrics alongside a qualitative assessment. The objective of this study was to identify the most important factors for assessing countries' needs for vaccines, and to weight each, generating a scoring tool for prioritising countries. METHODS: The study was conducted between March and November 2021. The first stage involved an online Delphi survey with a purposive and snowball sample of public health experts, to reach consensus on country-level factors for assessing relative needs for COVID-19 vaccines. The second stage involved a discrete choice experiment (DCE) to determine weights for the most important factors. RESULTS: Responses were received from 28 experts working across 13 different countries and globally. The most common job titles reported were director and professor, with most based in national public health institutes (n = 9) and universities (n = 8). The Delphi survey found 37 distinct factors related to needs. Nine of the most important factors were included in the DCE. Among these, the most important factor was the 'proportion of overall population not fully vaccinated' (with a mean weight of 19.5), followed by 'proportion of high-risk population not fully vaccinated' (16.1), 'health system capacity' (14.2), 'capacity to purchase vaccines' (11.9) and the 'proportion of the population clinically vulnerable' (11.3). CONCLUSIONS: Several factors exist, extending beyond those currently used, which may lead to some countries having a greater need for vaccines compared to others. By assessing relative needs, this scoring tool can build on existing methods to further the role of equity in global COVID-19 vaccine allocation.

Digital Education for Health Professionals: An Evidence Map, Conceptual Framework, and Research Agenda.

BACKGROUND: Health professions education has undergone major changes with the advent and adoption of digital technologies worldwide. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to map the existing evidence and identify gaps and research priorities to enable robust and relevant research in digital health professions education. METHODS: We searched for systematic reviews on the digital education of practicing and student health care professionals. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, Educational Research Information Center, CINAHL, and gray literature sources from January 2014 to July 2020. A total of 2 authors independently screened the studies, extracted the data, and synthesized the findings. We outlined the key characteristics of the included reviews, the quality of the evidence they synthesized, and recommendations for future research. We mapped the empirical findings and research recommendations against the newly developed conceptual framework. RESULTS: We identified 77 eligible systematic reviews. All of them included experimental studies and evaluated the effectiveness of digital education interventions in different health care disciplines or different digital education modalities. Most reviews included studies on various digital education modalities (22/77, 29%), virtual reality (19/77, 25%), and online education (10/77, 13%). Most reviews focused on health professions education in general (36/77, 47%), surgery (13/77, 17%), and nursing (11/77, 14%). The reviews mainly assessed participants' skills (51/77, 66%) and knowledge (49/77, 64%) and included data from high-income countries (53/77, 69%). Our novel conceptual framework of digital health professions education comprises 6 key domains (context, infrastructure, education, learners, research, and quality improvement) and 16 subdomains. Finally, we identified 61 unique questions for future research in these reviews; these mapped to framework domains of education (29/61, 47% recommendations), context (17/61, 28% recommendations), infrastructure (9/61, 15% recommendations), learners (3/61, 5% recommendations), and research (3/61, 5% recommendations). CONCLUSIONS: We identified a large number of research questions regarding digital education, which collectively reflect a diverse and comprehensive research agenda. Our conceptual framework will help educators and researchers plan, develop, and study digital education. More evidence from low- and middle-income countries is needed.

Strengthening Health Systems To Face Pandemics: Subnational Policy Responses To COVID-19 In Latin America.

Nonpharmaceutical interventions such as stay-at-home orders continue to be the main policy response to the COVID-19 pandemic in countries with limited or slow vaccine rollout. Often, nonpharmaceutical interventions are managed or implemented at the subnational level, yet little information exists on within-country variation in nonpharmaceutical intervention policies. We focused on Latin America, a COVID-19 epicenter, and collected and analyzed daily subnational data on public health measures in Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Mexico, and Peru to compare within- and across-country nonpharmaceutical interventions. We showed high heterogeneity in the adoption of these interventions at the subnational level in Brazil and Mexico; consistent national guidelines with subnational heterogeneity in Argentina and Colombia; and homogeneous policies guided by centralized national policies in Bolivia, Chile, and Peru. Our results point to the role of subnational policies and governments in responding to health crises. We found that subnational responses cannot replace coordinated national policy. Our findings imply that governments should focus on evidence-based national policies while coordinating with subnational governments to tailor local responses to changing local conditions.

Economic impact of tuberculosis mortality in 120 countries and the cost of not achieving the Sustainable Development Goals tuberculosis targets: a full-income analysis.

BACKGROUND: The tuberculosis targets for the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) call for a 90% reduction in tuberculosis deaths by 2030, compared with 2015, but meeting this target now seems highly improbable. To assess the economic impact of not meeting the target until 2045, we estimated full-income losses in 120 countries, including those due to excess deaths resulting from COVID-19-related disruptions to tuberculosis services, for the period 2020-50. METHODS: Annual mortality risk changes at each age in each year from 2020 to 2050 were estimated for 120 countries. This risk change was then converted to full-income risk by calculating a population-level mortality risk change and multiplying it by the value of a statistical life-year in each country and year. As a comparator, we assumed that current rates of tuberculosis continue to decline through the period of analysis. We calculated the full-income losses, and mean life expectancy losses per person, at birth and at age 35 years, under scenarios in which the SDG targets are met in 2030 and in 2045. We defined the cost of inaction as the difference in full-income losses and tuberculosis mortality between these two scenarios. FINDINGS: From 2020 to 2050, based on the current annual decrease in tuberculosis deaths of 2%, 31·8 million tuberculosis deaths (95% uncertainty interval 25·2 million-39·5 million) are estimated to occur, corresponding to an economic loss of US$17·5 trillion (14·9 trillion-20·4 trillion). If the SDG tuberculosis mortality target is met in 2030, 23·8 million tuberculosis deaths (18·9 million-29·5 million) and $13·1 trillion (11·2 trillion-15·3 trillion) in economic losses can be avoided. If the target is met in 2045, 18·1 million tuberculosis deaths (14·3 million-22·4 million) and $10·2 trillion (8·7 trillion-11·8 trillion) can be avoided. The cost of inaction of not meeting the SDG tuberculosis mortality target until 2045 (vs 2030) is, therefore, 5·7 million tuberculosis deaths (5·1 million-8·1 million) and $3·0 trillion (2·5 trillion-3·5 trillion) in economic losses. COVID-19-related disruptions add $290·3 billion (260·2 billion-570·1 billion) to this cost. INTERPRETATION: Failure to achieve the SDG tuberculosis mortality target by 2030 will lead to profound economic and health losses. The effects of delay will be greatest in sub-Saharan Africa. Affected countries, donor nations, and the private sector should redouble efforts to finance tuberculosis programmes and research because the economic dividend of such strategies is likely to be substantial. FUNDING: None.

The Prevalence of Islet Autoantibodies in Children and Adolescents With Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus: A Global Scoping Review.

Background and Purpose: Pancreatic islet autoantibodies (iAb) are the hallmark of autoimmunity in type 1 diabetes. A more comprehensive understanding of the global iAb prevalence could help reduce avertible morbidity and mortality among children and adolescents and contribute to the understanding in the observed differences in the incidence, prevalence and health outcomes of children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes across and within countries. We present the first scoping review that provides a global synthesis of the prevalence of iAb in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes. Research Design and Methods: We searched Ovid MEDLINE® with Daily Update, Embase (Elsevier, embase.com) and PubMed (National Library of Medicine -NCBI), for studies pertaining to prevalence in children and adolescents (0-19) with type 1 diabetes published between 1 Jan 1990 and 18 June 2021. Results were synthesized using Covidence systematic review software and meta-analysis was completed using R v3·6·1. Two reviewers independently screened abstracts with a third reviewer resolving conflicts (k= 0·92). Results: The review revealed 125 studies from 48 different countries, with 92 from high-income countries. Globally, in new-onset type 1 diabetes, IA-2A was the most prevalent iAb 0·714 [95% CI (0·71, 0·72)], followed by ICA 0·681 [95% CI (0·67, 0·69)], ZnT8A was 0·654 [95% CI (0·64, 0·66)], GADA 0·636 [95% CI (0·63, 0·66)] and then IAA 0·424 [95% CI (0·42, 0·43)], with substantial variation across world regions. The weighted mean prevalence of IA-2A was more variable, highest in Europe at 0·749 [95% CI (0·74, 0·76)] followed by Northern America 0·662 [95% CI (0·64, 0·69)], Latin America and the Caribbean 0·632 [95% CI (0·54, 0·72)], Oceania 0·603 [95% CI (0·54, 0·67)], Asia 0·466 [95% CI (0·44, 0·50)] and Africa 0·311 [95% CI (0·23, 0·40)]. In established cases of type 1 diabetes, GADA was the most prevalent iAb 0·407 [95% CI (0·39, 0·42)] followed by ZnT8A 0·322 [95% CI (0·29, 0·36)], IA-2A 0·302 [95% CI (0·29, 0·32)], IAA 0·258 [95% CI (0·24, 0·26)] and ICA 0·145 [95% CI (0·13, 0·16)], again with substantial variation across world regions. Conclusion: Understanding the global prevalence of iAb in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes could help with earlier identification of those at-risk of developing type 1 diabetes and inform clinical practice, health policies, resource allocation, and targeted healthcare interventions to better screen, diagnose and manage children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes.

Integrating HIV services and other health services: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Integration of HIV services with other health services has been proposed as an important strategy to boost the sustainability of the global HIV response. We conducted a systematic and comprehensive synthesis of the existing scientific evidence on the impact of service integration on the HIV care cascade, health outcomes, and cost-effectiveness. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We reviewed the global quantitative empirical evidence on integration published between 1 January 2010 and 10 September 2021. We included experimental and observational studies that featured both an integration intervention and a comparator in our review. Of the 7,118 unique peer-reviewed English-language studies that our search algorithm identified, 114 met all of our selection criteria for data extraction. Most of the studies (90) were conducted in sub-Saharan Africa, primarily in East Africa (55) and Southern Africa (24). The most common forms of integration were (i) HIV testing and counselling added to non-HIV services and (ii) non-HIV services added to antiretroviral therapy (ART). The most commonly integrated non-HIV services were maternal and child healthcare, tuberculosis testing and treatment, primary healthcare, family planning, and sexual and reproductive health services. Values for HIV care cascade outcomes tended to be better in integrated services: uptake of HIV testing and counselling (pooled risk ratio [RR] across 37 studies: 1.67 [95% CI 1.41-1.99], p < 0.001), ART initiation coverage (pooled RR across 19 studies: 1.42 [95% CI 1.16-1.75], p = 0.002), time until ART initiation (pooled RR across 5 studies: 0.45 [95% CI 0.20-1.00], p = 0.050), retention in HIV care (pooled RR across 19 studies: 1.68 [95% CI 1.05-2.69], p = 0.031), and viral suppression (pooled RR across 9 studies: 1.19 [95% CI 1.03-1.37], p = 0.025). Also, treatment success for non-HIV-related diseases and conditions and the uptake of non-HIV services were commonly higher in integrated services. We did not find any significant differences for the following outcomes in our meta-analyses: HIV testing yield, ART adherence, HIV-free survival among infants, and HIV and non-HIV mortality. We could not conduct meta-analyses for several outcomes (HIV infections averted, costs, and cost-effectiveness), because our systematic review did not identify sufficient poolable studies. Study limitations included possible publication bias of studies with significant or favourable findings and comparatively weak evidence from some world regions and on integration of services for key populations in the HIV response. CONCLUSIONS: Integration of HIV services and other health services tends to improve health and health systems outcomes. Despite some scientific limitations, the global evidence shows that service integration can be a valuable strategy to boost the sustainability of the HIV response and contribute to the goal of 'ending AIDS by 2030', while simultaneously supporting progress towards universal health coverage.

Punt Politics as Failure of Health System Stewardship: Evidence from the COVID-19 Pandemic Response in Brazil and Mexico.

We present a new concept, Punt Politics, and apply it to the COVID-19 non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPI) in two epicenters of the pandemic: Mexico and Brazil. Punt Politics refers to national leaders in federal systems deferring or deflecting responsibility for health systems decision-making to sub-national entities without evidence or coordination. The fragmentation of authority and overlapping functions in federal, decentralized political systems make them more susceptible to coordination problems than centralized, unitary systems. We apply the concept to pandemics, which require national health system stewardship, using sub-national NPI data that we developed and curated through the Observatory for the Containment of COVID-19 in the Americas to illustrate Punt Politics in Mexico and Brazil. Both countries suffer from protracted, high levels of COVID-19 mortality and inadequate pandemic responses, including little testing and disregard for scientific evidence. We illustrate how populist leadership drove Punt Politics and how partisan politics contributed to disabling an evidence-based response in Mexico and Brazil. These cases illustrate the combination of decentralization and populist leadership that is most conducive to punting responsibility. We discuss how Punt Politics reduces health system functionality, providing lessons for other countries and future pandemic responses, including vaccine rollout.

Estimating the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on diagnosis and survival of five cancers in Chile from 2020 to 2030: a simulation-based analysis.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has strained health system capacity worldwide due to a surge of hospital admissions, while mitigation measures have simultaneously reduced patients' access to health care, affecting the diagnosis and treatment of other diseases such as cancer. We estimated the impact of delayed diagnosis on cancer outcomes in Chile using a novel modelling approach to inform policies and planning to mitigate the forthcoming cancer-related health impacts of the pandemic in Chile. METHODS: We developed a microsimulation model of five cancers in Chile (breast, cervix, colorectal, prostate, and stomach) for which reliable data were available, which simulates cancer incidence and progression in a nationally representative virtual population, as well as stage-specific cancer detection and survival probabilities. We calibrated the model to empirical data on monthly detected cases, as well as stage at diagnosis and 5-year net survival. We accounted for the impact of COVID-19 on excess mortality and cancer detection by month during the pandemic, and projected diagnosed cancer cases and outcomes of stage at diagnosis and survival up to 2030. For comparison, we simulated a no COVID-19 scenario in which the impacts of COVID-19 on excess mortality and cancer detection were removed. FINDINGS: Our modelling showed a sharp decrease in the number of diagnosed cancer cases during the COVID-19 pandemic, with a large projected short-term increase in future diagnosed cases. Due to the projected backlog in diagnosis, we estimated that in 2021 there will be an extra 3198 cases (95% uncertainty interval [UI] 1356-5017) diagnosed among the five modelled cancers, an increase of nearly 14% compared with the no COVID-19 scenario, falling to a projected 10% increase in 2022 with 2674 extra cases (1318-4032) diagnosed. As a result of delayed diagnosis, we found a worse stage distribution for detected cancers in 2020-22, which is estimated to lead to 3542 excess cancer deaths (95% UI 2236-4816) in 2022-30, compared with the no COVID-19 scenario, among the five modelled cancers, most of which (3299 deaths, 2151-4431) are projected to occur before 2025. INTERPRETATION: In addition to a large projected surge in diagnosed cancer cases, we found that delays in diagnosis will result in worse cancer stage at presentation, leading to worse survival outcomes. These findings can help to inform surge capacity planning and highlight the importance of ensuring appropriate health system capacity levels to detect and care for the increased cancer cases in the coming years, while maintaining the timeliness and quality of cancer care. Potential delays in treatment and adverse impacts on quality of care, which were not considered in this model, are likely to contribute to even more excess deaths from cancer than projected. FUNDING: Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health. TRANSLATIONS: For the Spanish and Portuguese translations of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

Shifting the paradigm: using disease outbreaks to build resilient health systems

[...]events push weak health systems to a breaking point, as witnessed during recent outbreaks of cholera, drug-resistant tuberculosis, Ebola virus disease and Zika virus disease.1–4 The current COVID-19 pandemic is testing the response and resilience of health systems worldwide, including well-resourced systems in Europe and North America, where health institutions and public health agencies are operating beyond capacity, diagnostics are lacking, triage systems are faltering, personal protective equipment are insufficient, and front-line health workers are facing risks of disease and death.5 Building responsive and resilient health systems is an imperative for the global health community. [...]many aspects of outbreak response lay the groundwork for health system strengthening (HSS), such as enhancing surveillance systems and training the health workforce.12 Over the last two decades, numerous mechanisms, frameworks and agreements have been developed to promote health systems that are resilient to outbreaks and major health emergencies, such as the International Health Regulations (IHR)—an agreement between 196 countries to work together to mitigate global health security threats and a cornerstone of efforts aimed at ensuring sufficient health system infrastructure to detect, assess and report major events impacting public health.13 Through the IHR, in 2016 the Joint External Evaluations were created to identify critical gaps within health systems and prioritise actions to enhance preparedness and response within a country.14 There is not yet a framework, toolkit or formalised targets for HSS activities during outbreaks. [...]during the current COVID-19 pandemic the USA approved a US$2 trillion-dollar stimulus bill, of which US$157 billion was directly allocated to the health system and research.15 While it is critical and ethically necessary to prioritise immediate response activities, the organisational infrastructure, capacity and networks which typically result from these investments could be leveraged to also strengthen health systems, in particular those components that are directly impacted during the outbreak, such as health information systems, healthcare services, medical and public health workforce, supply chain management and essential medicines and vaccines. Lessons could be learned from industries, such as military, nuclear, oil and gas and aviation that have similar high-pressure and complex environments as the biomedically oriented institutions and experience major events and disasters, and have used methodologies to effectively address acute challenges while building better, more sustainable systems and processes along the way.16 Methodologies like systems analysis and applied systems thinking could be adapted and used during an acute response to both further enhance response effectiveness and strengthen health systems.16 We have identified 10 activities that could be implemented during health emergencies to ensure that health systems are strengthened during the response.

Guidance for Health Care Leaders During the Recovery Stage of the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Consensus Statement.

Importance: The COVID-19 pandemic is the greatest global test of health leadership of our generation. There is an urgent need to provide guidance for leaders at all levels during the unprecedented preresolution recovery stage. Objective: To create an evidence- and expertise-informed framework of leadership imperatives to serve as a resource to guide health and public health leaders during the postemergency stage of the pandemic. Evidence Review: A literature search in PubMed, MEDLINE, and Embase revealed 10 910 articles published between 2000 and 2021 that included the terms leadership and variations of emergency, crisis, disaster, pandemic, COVID-19, or public health. Using the Standards for Quality Improvement Reporting Excellence reporting guideline for consensus statement development, this assessment adopted a 6-round modified Delphi approach involving 32 expert coauthors from 17 countries who participated in creating and validating a framework outlining essential leadership imperatives. Findings: The 10 imperatives in the framework are: (1) acknowledge staff and celebrate successes; (2) provide support for staff well-being; (3) develop a clear understanding of the current local and global context, along with informed projections; (4) prepare for future emergencies (personnel, resources, protocols, contingency plans, coalitions, and training); (5) reassess priorities explicitly and regularly and provide purpose, meaning, and direction; (6) maximize team, organizational, and system performance and discuss enhancements; (7) manage the backlog of paused services and consider improvements while avoiding burnout and moral distress; (8) sustain learning, innovations, and collaborations, and imagine future possibilities; (9) provide regular communication and engender trust; and (10) in consultation with public health and fellow leaders, provide safety information and recommendations to government, other organizations, staff, and the community to improve equitable and integrated care and emergency preparedness systemwide. Conclusions and Relevance: Leaders who most effectively implement these imperatives are ideally positioned to address urgent needs and inequalities in health systems and to cocreate with their organizations a future that best serves stakeholders and communities.

Macro level factors influencing strategic responses to emergent pandemics: A scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Strategic planning is critical for successful pandemic management. This study aimed to identify and review the scope and analytic depth of situation analyses conducted to understand their utility, and capture the documented macro-level factors impacting pandemic management. METHODS: To synthesise this disparate body of literature, we adopted a two-step search and review process. A systematic search of the literature was conducted to identify all studies since 2000, that have 1) employed a situation analysis; and 2) examined contextual factors influencing pandemic management. The included studies are analysed using a seven-domain systems approach from the discipline of strategic management. RESULTS: Nineteen studies were included in the final review ranging from single country (6) to regional, multi-country studies (13). Fourteen studies had a single disease focus, with 5 studies evaluating responses to one or more of COVID-19, Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS), Influenza A (H1N1), Ebola virus disease, and Zika virus disease pandemics. Six studies examined a single domain from political, economic, sociological, technological, ecological or wider industry (PESTELI), 5 studies examined two to four domains, and 8 studies examined five or more domains. Methods employed were predominantly literature reviews. The recommendations focus predominantly on addressing inhibitors in the sociological and technological domains with few recommendations articulated in the political domain. Overall, the legislative domain is least represented. CONCLUSIONS: Ex-post analysis using the seven-domain strategic management framework provides further opportunities for a planned systematic response to pandemics which remains critical as the current COVID-19 pandemic evolves.

Macro level influences on strategic responses to the COVID-19 pandemic - an international survey and tool for national assessments.

BACKGROUND: Variation in the approaches taken to contain the SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) pandemic at country level has been shaped by economic and political considerations, technical capacity, and assumptions about public behaviours. To address the limited application of learning from previous pandemics, this study aimed to analyse perceived facilitators and inhibitors during the pandemic and to inform the development of an assessment tool for pandemic response planning. METHODS: A cross-sectional electronic survey of health and non-health care professionals (5 May - 5 June 2020) in six languages, with respondents recruited via email, social media and website posting. Participants were asked to score inhibitors (-10 to 0) or facilitators (0 to +10) impacting country response to COVID-19 from the following domains - Political, Economic, Sociological, Technological, Ecological, Legislative, and wider Industry (the PESTELI framework). Participants were then asked to explain their responses using free text. Descriptive and thematic analysis was followed by triangulation with the literature and expert validation to develop the assessment tool, which was then compared with four existing pandemic planning frameworks. RESULTS: 928 respondents from 66 countries (57% health care professionals) participated. Political and economic influences were consistently perceived as powerful negative forces and technology as a facilitator across high- and low-income countries. The 103-item tool developed for guiding rapid situational assessment for pandemic planning is comprehensive when compared to existing tools and highlights the interconnectedness of the 7 domains. CONCLUSIONS: The tool developed and proposed addresses the problems associated with decision making in disciplinary silos and offers a means to refine future use of epidemic modelling.

Effect of socioeconomic inequalities and vulnerabilities on health-system preparedness and response to COVID-19 in Brazil: a comprehensive analysis.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 spread rapidly in Brazil despite the country's well established health and social protection systems. Understanding the relationships between health-system preparedness, responses to COVID-19, and the pattern of spread of the epidemic is particularly important in a country marked by wide inequalities in socioeconomic characteristics (eg, housing and employment status) and other health risks (age structure and burden of chronic disease). METHODS: From several publicly available sources in Brazil, we obtained data on health risk factors for severe COVID-19 (proportion of the population with chronic disease and proportion aged ≥60 years), socioeconomic vulnerability (proportions of the population with housing vulnerability or without formal work), health-system capacity (numbers of intensive care unit beds and physicians), coverage of health and social assistance, deaths from COVID-19, and state-level responses of government in terms of physical distancing policies. We also obtained data on the proportion of the population staying at home, based on locational data, as a measure of physical distancing adherence. We developed a socioeconomic vulnerability index (SVI) based on household characteristics and the Human Development Index. Data were analysed at the state and municipal levels. Descriptive statistics and correlations between state-level indicators were used to characterise the relationship between the availability of health-care resources and socioeconomic characteristics and the spread of the epidemic and the response of governments and populations in terms of new investments, legislation, and physical distancing. We used linear regressions on a municipality-by-month dataset from February to October, 2020, to characterise the dynamics of COVID-19 deaths and response to the epidemic across municipalities. FINDINGS: The initial spread of COVID-19 was mostly affected by patterns of socioeconomic vulnerability as measured by the SVI rather than population age structure and prevalence of health risk factors. The states with a high (greater than median) SVI were able to expand hospital capacity, to enact stringent COVID-19-related legislation, and to increase physical distancing adherence in the population, although not sufficiently to prevent higher COVID-19 mortality during the initial phase of the epidemic compared with states with a low SVI. Death rates accelerated until June, 2020, particularly in municipalities with the highest socioeconomic vulnerability. Throughout the following months, however, differences in policy response converged in municipalities with lower and higher SVIs, while physical distancing remained relatively higher and death rates became relatively lower in the municipalities with the highest SVIs compared with those with lower SVIs. INTERPRETATION: In Brazil, existing socioeconomic inequalities, rather than age, health status, and other risk factors for COVID-19, have affected the course of the epidemic, with a disproportionate adverse burden on states and municipalities with high socioeconomic vulnerability. Local government responses and population behaviour in the states and municipalities with higher socioeconomic vulnerability have helped to contain the effects of the epidemic. Targeted policies and actions are needed to protect those with the greatest socioeconomic vulnerability. This experience could be relevant in other low-income and middle-income countries where socioeconomic vulnerability varies greatly. FUNDING: None. TRANSLATION: For the Portuguese translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

Impact of non-communicable disease multimorbidity on health service use, catastrophic health expenditure and productivity loss in Indonesia: a population-based panel data analysis study.

OBJECTIVES: To examine non-communicable diseases (NCDs) multimorbidity level and its relation to households' socioeconomic characteristics, health service use, catastrophic health expenditures and productivity loss. DESIGN: This study used panel data of the Indonesian Family Life Survey conducted in 2007 (Wave 4) and 2014 (Wave 5). SETTING: The original sampling frame was based on 13 out of 27 provinces in 1993, representing 83% of the Indonesian population. PARTICIPANTS: We included respondents aged 50 years and above in 2007, excluding those who did not participate in both Waves 4 and 5. The total number of participants in this study are 3678 respondents. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES: We examined three main outcomes; health service use (outpatient and inpatient care), financial burden (catastrophic health expenditure) and productivity loss (labour participation, days primary activity missed, days confined in bed). We applied multilevel mixed-effects regression models to assess the associations between NCD multimorbidity and outcome variables, RESULTS: Women were more likely to have NCD multimorbidity than men and the prevalence of NCD multimorbidity increased with higher socioeconomic status. NCD multimorbidity was associated with a higher number of outpatient visits (compared with those without NCD, incidence rate ratio (IRR) 4.25, 95% CI 3.33 to 5.42 for individuals with >3 NCDs) and inpatient visits (IRR 3.68, 95% CI 2.21 to 6.12 for individuals with >3 NCDs). NCD multimorbidity was also associated with a greater likelihood of experiencing catastrophic health expenditure (for >3 NCDs, adjusted OR (aOR) 1.69, 95% CI 1.02 to 2.81) and lower participation in the labour force (aOR 0.23, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.33) compared with no NCD. CONCLUSIONS: NCD multimorbidity is associated with substantial direct and indirect costs to individuals, households and the wider society. Our study highlights the importance of preparing health systems for addressing the burden of multimorbidity in low-income and middle-income countries.

The allocation of USdollar;105 billion in global funding from G20 countries for infectious disease research between 2000 and 2017: a content analysis of investments.

BACKGROUND: Each year, billions of US$ are spent globally on infectious disease research and development. However, there is little systematic tracking of global research and development. We present research on investments into infectious diseases research from funders in the G20 countries across an 18-year time period spanning 2000-17, comparing amounts invested for different conditions and considering the global burden of disease to identify potential areas of relative underfunding. METHODS: The study examined research awards made between 2000 and 2017 for infectious disease research from G20-based public and philanthropic funders. We searched research databases using a range of keywords, and open access data were extracted from funder websites. Awards were categorised by type of science, specialty, and disease or pathogen. Data collected included study title, abstract, award amount, funder, and year. We used descriptive statistics and Spearman's correlation coefficient to investigate the association between research investment and disease burden, using Global Burden of Disease 2017 study data. FINDINGS: The final 2000-17 dataset included 94 074 awards for infectious disease research, with a sum investment of $104·9 billion (annual range 4·1 billion to 8·4 billion) and a median award size of $257 176 (IQR 62 562-770 661). Pre-clinical research received $61·1 billion (58·2%) across 70 337 (74·8%) awards and public health research received $29·5 billion (28·1%) from 19 197 (20·4%) awards. HIV/AIDS received $42·1 billion (40·1%), tuberculosis received $7·0 billion (6·7%), malaria received $5·6 billion (5·3%), and pneumonia received $3·5 billion (3·3%). Funding for Ebola virus ($1·2 billion), Zika virus ($0·3 billion), influenza ($4·4 billion), and coronavirus ($0·5 billion) was typically highest soon after a high-profile outbreak. There was a general increase in year-on-year investment in infectious disease research between 2000 and 2006, with a decline between 2007 and 2017. Funders based in the USA provided $81·6 billion (77·8%). Based on funding per 2017 disability-adjusted life years (DALYs), HIV/AIDS received the greatest relative investment ($772 per DALY), compared with tuberculosis ($156 per DALY), malaria ($125 per DALY), and pneumonia ($33 per DALY). Syphilis and scabies received the least relative investment (both $9 per DALY). We observed weak positive correlation (r=0·30) between investment and 2017 disease burden. INTERPRETATION: HIV research received the highest amount of investment relative to DALY burden. Scabies and syphilis received the lowest relative funding. Investments for high-threat pathogens (eg, Ebola virus and coronavirus) were often reactive and followed outbreaks. We found little evidence that funding is proactively guided by global burden or pandemic risk. Our findings show how research investments are allocated and how this relates to disease burden and diseases with pandemic potential. FUNDING: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

COVID-19 Response in Latin America.

Effective management of a pandemic due to a respiratory virus requires public health capacity for a coordinated response for mandatory restrictions, large-scale testing to identify infected individuals, capacity to isolate infected cases and track and test contacts, and health services for those infected who require hospitalization. Because of contextual and socioeconomic factors, it has been hard for Latin America to confront this epidemic. In this article, we discuss the context and the initial responses of eight selected Latin American countries, including similarities and differences in public health, economic, and fiscal measures, and provide reflections on what worked and what did not work and what to expect moving forward.