Mitigating the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on vulnerable populations: Lessons for improving health and social equity.

The COVID-19 pandemic had an inequitable and disproportionate impact on vulnerable populations, reversing decades of progress toward healthy populations and poverty alleviation. This study examines various programmatic tools and policy measures used by governments to support vulnerable populations during the pandemic. A comparative case study of 15 countries representing all World Health Organization's regions offers a comprehensive picture of countries with varying income statuses, health system arrangements and COVID-19 public health measures. Through a systematic desk review and key informant interviews, we report a spectrum of mitigation strategies deployed in these countries to address five major types of vulnerabilities (health, economic, social, institutional and communicative). We found a multitude of strategies that supported vulnerable populations such as migrant workers, sex workers, prisoners, older persons and school-going children. Prioritising vulnerable populations during the early phase of COVID-19 vaccination campaigns, direct financial subsidies and food assistance programmes were the most common measures reported. Additionally, framing public health information and implementing culturally sensitive health promotion interventions helped bridge the communication barriers in certain instances. However, these measures remain insufficient to protect vulnerable populations comprehensively. Our findings point to the need to expand fiscal space for health, enlarge healthcare coverage, incorporate equity principles in all policies, leverage technology, multi-stakeholder co-production of policies and tailored community engagement mechanisms.

Communicating risk during early phases of COVID-19: Comparing governing structures for emergency risk communication across four contexts.

Background: Emergency risk communication (ERC) is key to achieving compliance with public health measures during pandemics. Yet, the factors that facilitated ERC during COVID-19 have not been analyzed. We compare ERC in the early stages of the pandemic across four socio-economic settings to identify how risk communication can be improved in public health emergencies (PHE). Methods: To map and assess the content, process, actors, and context of ERC in Germany, Guinea, Nigeria, and Singapore, we performed a qualitative document review, and thematically analyzed semi-structured key informant interviews with 155 stakeholders involved in ERC at national and sub-national levels. We applied Walt and Gilson's health policy triangle as a framework to structure the results. Results: We identified distinct ERC strategies in each of the four countries. Various actors, including governmental leads, experts, and organizations with close contact to the public, collaborated closely to implement ERC strategies. Early integration of ERC into preparedness and response plans, lessons from previous experiences, existing structures and networks, and clear leadership were identified as crucial for ensuring message clarity, consistency, relevance, and an efficient use of resources. Areas of improvement primarily included two-way communication, community engagement, and monitoring and evaluation. Countries with recurrent experiences of pandemics appeared to be more prepared and equipped to implement ERC strategies. Conclusion: We found that considerable potential exists for countries to improve communication during public health emergencies, particularly in the areas of bilateral communication and community engagement as well as monitoring and evaluation. Building adaptive structures and maintaining long-term relationships with at-risk communities reportedly facilitated suitable communication. The findings suggest considerable potential and transferable learning opportunities exist between countries in the global north and countries in the global south with experience of managing outbreaks.

Austerity Measures and Underfunding of the Spanish Health System during the COVID-19 Pandemic-Perception of Healthcare Staff in Spain.

Insufficient pandemic preparedness and underfunding of human and economic resources have conditioned the response to COVID-19 in Spain. This underfunding has continued since the austerity measures introduced during the 2008 financial crisis. This study aims to understand the perceptions of healthcare staff in Spain on the relationship between the funding of the health system and its capacity to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic. To this end, we carried out a thematic content analysis, based on 79 online semi-structured interviews with healthcare staff across the regions most affected by the COVID-19 first wave. Participants reported a lack of material resources, which had compromised the capacity of the health system before the pandemic. The lack of human resources was to be addressed by staff reorganisation, such as reinforcing hospital units to the detriment of primary health care. Staff shortages continued straining the COVID-19 response, even after material scarcities were later partially alleviated. Personnel shortages need to be adequately addressed in order to adequately respond to future health crises.

COVID-19 public health and social measures: a comprehensive picture of six Asian countries.

The COVID-19 pandemic will not be the last of its kind. As the world charts a way towards an equitable and resilient recovery, Public Health and Social Measures (PHSMs) that were implemented since the beginning of the pandemic need to be made a permanent feature of health systems that can be activated and readily deployed to tackle sudden surges in infections going forward. Although PHSMs aim to blunt the spread of the virus, and in turn protect lives and preserve health system capacity, there are also unintended consequences attributed to them. Importantly, the interactions between PHSMs and their accompanying key indicators that influence the strength and duration of PHSMs are elements that require in-depth exploration. This research employs case studies from six Asian countries, namely Indonesia, Singapore, South Korea, Thailand, the Philippines and Vietnam, to paint a comprehensive picture of PHSMs that protect the lives and livelihoods of populations. Nine typologies of PHSMs that emerged are as follows: (1) physical distancing, (2) border controls, (3) personal protective equipment requirements, (4) transmission monitoring, (5) surge health infrastructure capacity, (6) surge medical supplies, (7) surge human resources, (8) vaccine availability and roll-out and (9) social and economic support measures. The key indicators that influence the strength and duration of PHSMs are as follows: (1) size of community transmission, (2) number of severe cases and mortality, (3) health system capacity, (4) vaccine coverage, (5) fiscal space and (6) technology. Interactions between PHSMs can be synergistic or inhibiting, depending on various contextual factors. Fundamentally, PHSMs do not operate in silos, and a suite of PHSMs that are complementary is required to ensure that lives and livelihoods are safeguarded with an equity lens. For that to be achieved, strong governance structures and community engagement are also required at all levels of the health system.

A comparative analysis of experienced uncertainties in relation to risk communication during COVID19: a four-country study.

BACKGROUND: During outbreaks, uncertainties experienced by affected communities can influence their compliance to government guidance on public health. Communicators and authorities are, hence, encouraged to acknowledge and address such uncertainties. However, in the midst of public health crises, it can become difficult to define and identify uncertainties that are most relevant to address. We analyzed data on COVID-19-related uncertainties from four socio-economic contexts to explore how uncertainties can influence people's perception of, and response to Risk Communication and Community Engagement (RCCE) strategies. RESULTS: This qualitative study, which adopts an interpretative approach, is based on data from a documentary review, key informant interviews (KII), and focus group discussions (FGD) with members of the general public and people with barriers to information from Germany, Guinea, Nigeria, and Singapore. Transcripts from the KII and FGD were coded and analyzed thematically. We interviewed a total of 155 KIs and conducted 73 FGD. Our analysis uncovered a divergence between uncertainties deemed relevant by stakeholders involved in policy making and uncertainties that people reportedly had to navigate in their everyday lives and which they considered relevant during the pandemic. We identified four types of uncertainties that seemed to have influenced people's assessment of the disease risk and their trust in the pandemic control strategies including RCCE efforts: epidemiological uncertainties (related to the nature and severity of the virus), information uncertainties (related to access to reliable information), social uncertainties (related to social behavior in times of heightened risk), and economic uncertainties (related to financial insecurities). CONCLUSION: We suggest that in future outbreaks, communicators and policy makers could improve the way in which affected communities assess their risk, and increase the trust of these communities in response efforts by addressing non-epidemiological uncertainties in RCCE strategies.

Antimicrobial Resistance Research Collaborations in Asia: Challenges and Opportunities to Equitable Partnerships.

Antimicrobial Resistance is recognized as a major threat to global health security. The WHO Southeast Asia region is dubbed a "global hub for AMR emergence", as it runs the highest risk for AMR emergence among all WHO regions in Asia. Hence, there is a need for Asia-centric, collaborative AMR research aligned with the true needs and priorities of the region. This study aimed to identify and understand the challenges and opportunities for such collaborative endeavors to enhance equitable partnerships. This qualitative study adopted an interpretative approach involving a thematic analysis of 15 semi-structured interviews with AMR experts conducting research in the region. The study identified several factors influencing research collaborations, such as the multi-dimensional nature of AMR, limited or lack of funds, different AMR research priorities in Asian countries, absence of Asia-centric AMR leadership, lack of trust and, unequal power relationships between researchers, and the negative impact of the COVID-19 pandemic in research collaborations. It also identified some opportunities, such as the willingness of researchers to collaborate, the formation of a few networks, and the prioritization by many academics of the One Health paradigm for framing AMR research. Participants reported that the initiation of stronger cross-discipline and cross-country networks, the development of Asia-centric AMR leadership, flexible research agendas with shared priorities, transparent and transferable funds, and support to enhance research capacity in LMICs could assist in developing more equitable collaborative research in Asia.

How an outbreak became a pandemic: a chronological analysis of crucial junctures and international obligations in the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Understanding the spread of SARS-CoV-2, how and when evidence emerged, and the timing of local, national, regional, and global responses is essential to establish how an outbreak became a pandemic and to prepare for future health threats. With that aim, the Independent Panel for Pandemic Preparedness and Response has developed a chronology of events, actions, and recommendations, from December, 2019, when the first cases of COVID-19 were identified in China, to the end of March, 2020, by which time the outbreak had spread extensively worldwide and had been characterised as a pandemic. Datapoints are based on two literature reviews, WHO documents and correspondence, submissions to the Panel, and an expert verification process. The retrospective analysis of the chronology shows a dedicated initial response by WHO and some national governments, but also aspects of the response that could have been quicker, including outbreak notifications under the International Health Regulations (IHR), presumption and confirmation of human-to-human transmission of SARS-CoV-2, declaration of a Public Health Emergency of International Concern, and, most importantly, the public health response of many national governments. The chronology also shows that some countries, largely those with previous experience with similar outbreaks, reacted quickly, even ahead of WHO alerts, and were more successful in initially containing the virus. Mapping actions against IHR obligations, the chronology shows where efficiency and accountability could be improved at local, national, and international levels to more quickly alert and contain health threats in the future. In particular, these improvements include necessary reforms to international law and governance for pandemic preparedness and response, including the IHR and a potential framework convention on pandemic preparedness and response.

Safeguarding people living in vulnerable conditions in the COVID-19 era through universal health coverage and social protection.

The COVID-19 pandemic is unprecedented. The pandemic not only induced a public health crisis, but has led to severe economic, social, and educational crises. Across economies and societies, the distributional consequences of the pandemic have been uneven. Among groups living in vulnerable conditions, the pandemic substantially magnified the inequality gaps, with possible negative implications for these individuals' long-term physical, socioeconomic, and mental wellbeing. This Viewpoint proposes priority, programmatic, and policy recommendations that governments, resource partners, and relevant stakeholders should consider in formulating medium-term to long-term strategies for preventing the spread of COVID-19, addressing the virus's impacts, and decreasing health inequalities. The world is at a never more crucial moment, requiring collaboration and cooperation from all sectors to mitigate the inequality gaps and improve people's health and wellbeing with universal health coverage and social protection, in addition to implementation of the health in all policies approach.