Was priority setting included in the Canadian COVID-19 pandemic planning and preparedness? A comparative analysis of COVID-19 pandemic plans from Eight provinces and Three territories

Background Variation in priorities during pandemic planning among the federal, provincial and territorial jurisdictions are thought to have impacted Canada's ability to effectively control the spread of the COVID-19 virus, and protect the most vulnerable. The potential influence of diverse and divergent political, cultural, and behavioural factors, regarding inclusion of priority setting (PS) in pandemic preparedness planning across the country is not well understood. This study aimed to examine how the Canadian federal, provincial and territorial COVID-19 pandemic preparedness planning documents integrated PS. Methods A documentary analysis of the federal, eight provincial, three territorial COVID-19 preparedness and response plans. We assessed the degree to which the documented PS processes fulfilled established quality requirements of effective PS using the Kapiriri & Martin framework. Results While the federal plan included most of the parameters of effective PS, the provinces and territories reflected few. The lack of obligation for the provinces and territories to emulate the federal plan is one of the possible reasons for the varying inclusion of these parameters. The parameters included did not vary systematically with the jurisdiction's context. Conclusion Provinces could consider using the framework of the federal plan and the WHO guidelines to guide future pandemic planning. Regular evaluation of the instituted PS would provide a mechanism through which lessons can be harnessed and improvement strategies developed. Future studies should describe and evaluate what PS mechanisms were implemented.

Examining priority setting in the national COVID-19 pandemic plans: A case study from countries in the WHO- South-East Asia Region (WHO-SEARO).

Background: The World Health Organization- South-East Asia Region (WHO-SEARO) accounted for almost 17% of all the confirmed cases and deaths of COVID-19 worldwide. While the literature has documented a weak COVID-19 response in the WHO-SEARO, there has been no discussion of the degree to which this could have been influenced/ mitigated with the integration of priority setting (PS) in the region's COVID-19 response. The purpose of this paper is to describe the degree to which the COVID-19 plans from a sample of WHO-SEARO countries included priority setting. Methods: The study was based on an analysis of national COVID-19 pandemic response and preparedness planning documents from a sample of seven (of the eleven) countries in WHO-SEARO. We described the degree to which the documented priority setting processes adhered to twenty established quality indicators of effective PS and conducted a cross-country comparison. Results: All of the reviewed plans described the required resources during the COVID-19 pandemic. Most, but not all of the plans demonstrated political will, and described stakeholder involvement. However, none of the plans presented a clear description of the PS process including a formal PS framework, and PS criteria. Overall, most of the plans included only a limited number of quality indicators for effective PS. Discussion and conclusion: There was wide variation in the parameters of effective PS in the reviewed plans. However, there were no systematic variations between the parameters presented in the plans and the country's economic, health system and pandemic and PS context and experiences. The political nature of the pandemic, and its high resource demands could have influenced the inclusion of the parameters that were apparent in all the plans. The finding that the plans did not include most of the evidence-based parameters of effective PS highlights the need for further research on how countries operationalize priority setting in their respective contexts as well as deeper understanding of the parameters that are deemed relevant. Further research should explore and describe the experiences of implementing defined priorities and the impact of this decision-making on the pandemic outcomes in each country.

Operational challenges in the pre-intervention phase of a mental health trial in rural India: reflections from SMART Mental Health.

BACKGROUND: Availability of mental health services in low- and middle-income countries is largely concentrated in tertiary care with limited resources and scarcity of trained professionals at the primary care level. SMART Mental Health is a strategy that combines a community anti-stigma campaign with a primary health care workforce strengthening initiative, using electronic decision support with the goal of better identifying and supporting people with common mental disorders in India. METHODS: We describe the challenges faced and lessons learnt during the pre-intervention phase of SMART Mental Health cluster Randomised Controlled Trial. Pre-intervention phase includes preliminary activities for setting-up the trial and research activities prior to delivery of the intervention. Field notes from project site visit, project team meetings and detailed follow-up discussions with members of the project team were used to document operational challenges and strategies adopted to overcome them. The socio-ecological model was used as the analytical framework to organise the findings. RESULTS: Key challenges included delays in government approvals, addressing community health worker needs, and building trust in the community. These were addressed through continuous communication, leveraging support of relevant stakeholders, and addressing concerns of community health workers and community. Issues related to use of digital platform for data collection were addressed by a dedicated technical support team. The COVID-19 pandemic and political unrest led to significant and unexpected challenges requiring important adaptations to successfully implement the project. CONCLUSION: Setting up of this trial has posed challenges at a combination of community, health system and broader socio-political levels. Successful mitigating strategies to overcome these challenges must be innovative, timely and flexibly delivered according to local context. Systematic ongoing documentation of field-level challenges and subsequent adaptations can help optimise implementation processes and support high quality trials. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial is registered with Clinical Trials Registry India (CTRI/2018/08/015355). Registered on 16th August 2018. http://ctri.nic.in/Clinicaltrials/showallp.php?mid1=23254&EncHid=&userName=CTRI/2018/08/015355.

An analysis of how health systems integrated priority-setting in the pandemic planning in a sample of Latin America and the Caribbean countries.

BACKGROUND: Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) are among those regions most affected by the COVID-19 pandemic worldwide. The COVID-19 pandemic has strained health systems in the region. In this context of severe healthcare resource constraints, there is a need for systematic priority-setting to support decision-making which ensures the best use of resources while considering the needs of the most vulnerable groups. The aim of this paper was to provide a critical description and analysis of how health systems considered priority-setting in the COVID-19 response and preparedness plans of a sample of 14 LAC countries; and to identify the associated research gaps. METHODS: A documentary analysis of COVID-19 preparedness and response plans was performed in a sample of 14 countries in the LAC region. We assessed the degree to which the documented priority-setting processes adhered to established quality indicators of effective priority-setting included in the Kapiriri and Martin framework. We conducted a descriptive analysis of the degree to which the reports addressed the quality parameters for each individual country, as well as a cross-country comparison to explore whether parameters varied according to independent variables. RESULTS: While all plans were led and supported by the national governments, most included only a limited number of quality indicators for effective priority-setting. There was no systematic pattern between the number of quality indicators and the country's health system and political contexts; however, the countries that had the least number of quality indicators tended to be economically disadvantaged. CONCLUSION: This study adds to the literature by providing the first descriptive analysis of the inclusion of priority-setting during a pandemic, using the case of COVID-19 response and preparedness plans in the LAC region. The analysis found that despite the strong evidence of political will and stakeholder participation, none of the plans presented a clear priority-setting process, or used a formal priority-setting framework, to define interventions, populations, geographical regions, healthcare setting or resources prioritized. There is need for case studies that analyse how priority-setting actually occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic and the degree to which the implementation reflected the plans and the parameters of effective priority-setting, as well as the impact of the prioritization processes on population health, with a focus on the most vulnerable groups.

Protocol for process evaluation of SMART Mental Health cluster randomised control trial: an intervention for management of common mental disorders in India.

INTRODUCTION: In India about 95% of individuals who need treatment for common mental disorders like depression, stress and anxiety and substance use are unable to access care. Stigma associated with help seeking and lack of trained mental health professionals are important barriers in accessing mental healthcare. Systematic Medical Appraisal, Referral and Treatment (SMART) Mental Health integrates a community-level stigma reduction campaign and task sharing with the help of a mobile-enabled electronic decision support system (EDSS)-to reduce psychiatric morbidity due to stress, depression and self-harm in high-risk individuals. This paper presents and discusses the protocol for process evaluation of SMART Mental Health. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The process evaluation will use mixed quantitative and qualitative methods to evaluate implementation fidelity and identify facilitators of and barriers to implementation of the intervention. Case studies of six intervention and two control clusters will be used. Quantitative data sources will include usage analytics extracted from the mHealth platform for the trial. Qualitative data sources will include focus group discussions and interviews with recruited participants, primary health centre doctors, community health workers (Accredited Social Health Activits) who participated in the project and local community leaders. The design and analysis will be guided by Medical Research Council framework for process evaluations, the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation and Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework, and the normalisation process theory. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has been approved by the ethics committee of the George Institute for Global Health, India and the Institutional Ethics Committee, All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), New Delhi. Findings of the study will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications, stakeholder meetings, digital and social media platforms. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: CTRI/2018/08/015355.

Supporting the pandemic response and timely access to COVID-19 vaccines: a case for stronger priority setting and health system governance in Nigeria.

Priority setting and health system governance are critical for optimising healthcare interventions and determining how best to allocate limited resources. The COVID-19 pandemic has buttressed the need for these especially now that vaccines are available to curb the spread of the disease. In many low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), vaccine coverage remains low, due in large part to sub-optimal priority setting and health system governance which has led to inequities in access and has fuelled vaccine hesitancy. An analysis of the situation in Nigeria identified key issues that have affected the health system response to COVID-19 and impeded timely access to the vaccine. These include weak vaccine procurement strategies, limited evidence on strategies for prioritising recipients and approaches for rolling out mass vaccination programmes for the entire population, lack of a communication strategy to reduce the incidence of vaccine hesitancy and failures to proactively address vaccine hesitancy through the implementation of vaccination programmes. Nigeria and other many other LMICs are still facing the prospect of subsequent and potentially worsening waves of the COVID-19 pandemic. Without effective priority setting, there is a risk that the country will not accelerate vaccine rollout quickly enough to achieve high coverage rates that will ensure herd immunity. In the context of existing weaknesses in health system governance, there is an urgent need to strengthen priority settings in Nigeria and identify and implement context-specific solutions that can improve vaccine coverage for the population.

Priority setting and equity in COVID-19 pandemic plans: a comparative analysis of 18 African countries.

Priority setting represents an even bigger challenge during public health emergencies than routine times. This is because such emergencies compete with routine programmes for the available health resources, strain health systems and shift health-care attention and resources towards containing the spread of the epidemic and treating those that fall seriously ill. This paper is part of a larger global study, the aim of which is to evaluate the degree to which national COVID-19 preparedness and response plans incorporated priority setting concepts. It provides important insights into what and how priority decisions were made in the context of a pandemic. Specifically, with a focus on a sample of 18 African countries' pandemic plans, the paper aims to: (1) explore the degree to which the documented priority setting processes adhere to established quality indicators of effective priority setting and (2) examine if there is a relationship between the number of quality indicators present in the pandemic plans and the country's economic context, health system and prior experiences with disease outbreaks. All the reviewed plans contained some aspects of expected priority setting processes but none of the national plans addressed all quality parameters. Most of the parameters were mentioned by less than 10 of the 18 country plans reviewed, and several plans identified one or two aspects of fair priority setting processes. Very few plans identified equity as a criterion for priority setting. Since the parameters are relevant to the quality of priority setting that is implemented during public health emergencies and most of the countries have pre-existing pandemic plans; it would be advisable that, for the future (if not already happening), countries consider priority setting as a critical part of their routine health emergency and disease outbreak plans. Such an approach would ensure that priority setting is integral to pandemic planning, response and recovery.