Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on access to and utilisation of services for sexual and reproductive health: a scoping review.

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic has negatively impacted health systems globally and widened preexisting disparities. We conducted a scoping review on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on women and girls' access to and utilisation of sexual and reproductive health (SRH) services for contraception, abortion, gender-based and intimate partner violence (GBV/IPV) and sexually transmitted infections (STIs). METHODS: We systematically searched peer reviewed literature and quantitative reports, published between December 2019 and July 2021, focused on women and girls' (15-49 years old) access to and utilisation of selected SRH services during the COVID-19 pandemic. Included studies were grouped based on setting, SRH service area, study design, population and reported impact. Qualitative data were coded, organised thematically and grouped by major findings. RESULTS: We included 83 of 3067 identified studies and found that access to contraception, in-person safe abortion services, in-person services for GBV/IPV and STI/HIV testing, prevention and treatment decreased. The geographical distribution of this body of research was uneven and significantly less representative of countries where COVID-19 restrictions were very strict. Access was limited by demand and supply side barriers including transportation disruptions, financial hardships, limited resources and legal restrictions. Few studies focused on marginalised groups with distinct SRH needs. CONCLUSION: Reports indicated negative impacts on access to and utilisation of SRH services globally, especially for marginalised populations during the pandemic. Our findings call for strengthening of health systems preparedness and resilience to safeguard global access to essential SRH services in ongoing and future emergencies.

'We have a plan for that': a qualitative study of health system resilience through the perspective of health workers managing antenatal and childbirth services during floods in Cambodia.

OBJECTIVE: Health system resilience can increase a system's ability to deal with shocks like floods. Studying health systems that currently exhibit the capacity for resilience when shocked could enhance our understanding about what generates and influences resilience. This study aimed to generate empirical knowledge on health system resilience by exploring how public antenatal and childbirth health services in Cambodia have absorbed, adapted or transformed in response to seasonal and occasional floods. DESIGN: A qualitative study using semi-structured interviews and thematic analysis and informed by the Dimensions of Resilience Governance framework. SETTING: Public sector healthcare facilities and health departments in two districts exposed to flooding. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-three public sector health professionals with experience providing or managing antenatal and birth services during recent flooding. RESULTS: The theme 'Collaboration across the system creates adaptability in the response' reflects how collaboration and social relationships among providers, staff and the community have delineated boundaries for actions and decisions for services during floods. Floods were perceived as having a modest impact on health services. Knowing the boundaries on decision-making and having preparation and response plans let staff prepare and respond in a flexible yet stable way. The theme was derived from ideas of (1) seasonal floods as a minor strain on the system compared with persistent, system-wide organisational stresses the system already experiences, (2) the ability of the health services to adjust and adapt flood plans, (3) a shared purpose and working process during floods, (4) engagement at the local level to fulfil a professional duty to the community, and (5) creating relationships between health system levels and the community to enable flood response. CONCLUSION: The capacity to absorb and adapt to floods was seen among the public sector services. Strategies that enhance stability and flexibility may foster the capacity for health system resilience.

National health governance, science and the media: drivers of COVID-19 responses in Germany, Sweden and the UK in 2020.

The COVID-19 pandemic is an unprecedented global crisis in which governments had to act in a situation of rapid change and substantial uncertainty. The governments of Germany, Sweden and the UK have taken different paths allowing learning for future pandemic preparedness. To help inform discussions on preparedness, inspired by resilience frameworks, this paper reviews governance structures, and the role of science and the media in the COVID-19 response of Germany, Sweden and the UK in 2020. We mapped legitimacy, interdependence, knowledge generation and the capacity to deal with uncertainty.Our analysis revealed stark differences which were linked to pre-existing governing structures, the traditional role of academia, experience of crisis management and the communication of uncertainty-all of which impacted on how much people trusted their government. Germany leveraged diversity and inclusiveness, a 'patchwork quilt', for which it was heavily criticised during the second wave. The Swedish approach avoided plurality and largely excluded academia, while in the UK's academia played an important role in knowledge generation and in forcing the government to review its strategies. However, the vivant debate left the public with confusing and rapidly changing public health messages. Uncertainty and the lack of evidence on how best to manage the COVID-19 pandemic-the main feature during the first wave-was only communicated explicitly in Germany. All country governments lost trust of their populations during the epidemic due to a mix of communication and transparency failures, and increased questioning of government legitimacy and technical capacity by the public.

Essential Emergency and Critical Care: a consensus among global clinical experts.

BACKGROUND: Globally, critical illness results in millions of deaths every year. Although many of these deaths are potentially preventable, the basic, life-saving care of critically ill patients are often overlooked in health systems. Essential Emergency and Critical Care (EECC) has been devised as the care that should be provided to all critically ill patients in all hospitals in the world. EECC includes the effective care of low cost and low complexity for the identification and treatment of critically ill patients across all medical specialties. This study aimed to specify the content of EECC and additionally, given the surge of critical illness in the ongoing pandemic, the essential diagnosis-specific care for critically ill patients with COVID-19. METHODS: In a Delphi process, consensus (>90% agreement) was sought from a diverse panel of global clinical experts. The panel iteratively rated proposed treatments and actions based on previous guidelines and the WHO/ICRC's Basic Emergency Care. The output from the Delphi was adapted iteratively with specialist reviewers into a coherent and feasible package of clinical processes plus a list of hospital readiness requirements. RESULTS: The 269 experts in the Delphi panel had clinical experience in different acute medical specialties from 59 countries and from all resource settings. The agreed EECC package contains 40 clinical processes and 67 requirements, plus additions specific for COVID-19. CONCLUSION: The study has specified the content of care that should be provided to all critically ill patients. Implementing EECC could be an effective strategy for policy makers to reduce preventable deaths worldwide.

A look into the future of the COVID-19 pandemic in Europe: an expert consultation.

How will the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic develop in the coming months and years? Based on an expert survey, we examine key aspects that are likely to influence the COVID-19 pandemic in Europe. The challenges and developments will strongly depend on the progress of national and global vaccination programs, the emergence and spread of variants of concern (VOCs), and public responses to non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs). In the short term, many people remain unvaccinated, VOCs continue to emerge and spread, and mobility and population mixing are expected to increase. Therefore, lifting restrictions too much and too early risk another damaging wave. This challenge remains despite the reduced opportunities for transmission given vaccination progress and reduced indoor mixing in summer 2021. In autumn 2021, increased indoor activity might accelerate the spread again, whilst a necessary reintroduction of NPIs might be too slow. The incidence may strongly rise again, possibly filling intensive care units, if vaccination levels are not high enough. A moderate, adaptive level of NPIs will thus remain necessary. These epidemiological aspects combined with economic, social, and health-related consequences provide a more holistic perspective on the future of the COVID-19 pandemic.

A call for standardised age-disaggregated health data.

The 2030 Sustainable Development Goals agenda calls for health data to be disaggregated by age. However, age groupings used to record and report health data vary greatly, hindering the harmonisation, comparability, and usefulness of these data, within and across countries. This variability has become especially evident during the COVID-19 pandemic, when there was an urgent need for rapid cross-country analyses of epidemiological patterns by age to direct public health action, but such analyses were limited by the lack of standard age categories. In this Personal View, we propose a recommended set of age groupings to address this issue. These groupings are informed by age-specific patterns of morbidity, mortality, and health risks, and by opportunities for prevention and disease intervention. We recommend age groupings of 5 years for all health data, except for those younger than 5 years, during which time there are rapid biological and physiological changes that justify a finer disaggregation. Although the focus of this Personal View is on the standardisation of the analysis and display of age groups, we also outline the challenges faced in collecting data on exact age, especially for health facilities and surveillance data. The proposed age disaggregation should facilitate targeted, age-specific policies and actions for health care and disease management.