Diplomatic response to global health challenges in recognizing patient needs: A qualitative interview study

Background Global health diplomacy is the applied practice of foreign affairs to further national goals that focus on health issues requiring international cooperation and collective action. We aimed to determine how international diplomats and health policy-related professionals in the EU understand the concept of health diplomacy, which impacts both diplomatic relations as well as patients' rights. Methods In a qualitative interview study, we used a heterogeneous stratified purposeful sampling to reach participants from different countries and different practitioners from the Pyramid of Health Diplomacy: core, multi-stakeholder, and informal. Reflexive thematic analysis was used to identify the main themes. Findings We contacted 131 practitioners of GHD, of which 37 responded, and nine agreed to be interviewed. From 11 interview questions, four main themes emerged from the analysis of the individual interview. The participants reported limited knowledge about the definition of GHD but also that they engaged in daily activities and decisions of inter-governmental bodies. They were not aware of existing special education and training for health attachés and made suggestions for improving the field and practice of GHD. They were not fully familiar with the European Charter of Patients' Rights. There was a consensus from all participants that patient rights need to improve as a fundamental right. They stressed the fact that the hospital lockdown and the right access to healthcare were impaired during the COVID pandemic. Interpretation The role of health diplomacy in linking public health and foreign affairs is key to respecting patients' rights. Health over other interests is becoming an increasingly critical element in foreign policy. Establishing a clear career path for health attachés is necessary to foster effective global health agreements and coordination across countries.

Research priorities to reduce the impact of COVID-19 in low- and middle-income countries

Background The COVID-19 pandemic has caused disruptions to the functioning of societies and their health systems. Prior to the pandemic, health systems in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) were particularly stretched and vulnerable. The International Society of Global Health (ISoGH) sought to systematically identify priorities for health research that would have the potential to reduce the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic in LMICs. Methods The Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative (CHNRI) method was used to identify COVID-19-related research priorities. All ISoGH members were invited to participate. Seventy-nine experts in clinical, translational, and population research contributed 192 research questions for consideration. Fifty-two experts then scored those questions based on five pre-defined criteria that were selected for this exercise: 1) feasibility and answerability;2) potential for burden reduction;3) potential for a paradigm shift;4) potential for translation and implementation;and 5) impact on equity. Results Among the top 10 research priorities, research questions related to vaccination were prominent: health care system access barriers to equitable uptake of COVID-19 vaccination (ranked 1st), determinants of vaccine hesitancy (4th), development and evaluation of effective interventions to decrease vaccine hesitancy (5th), and vaccination impacts on vulnerable population/s (6th). Health care delivery questions also ranked highly, including: effective strategies to manage COVID-19 globally and in LMICs (2nd) and integrating health care for COVID-19 with other essential health services in LMICs (3rd). Additionally, the assessment of COVID-19 patients’ needs in rural areas of LMICs was ranked 7th, and studying the leading socioeconomic determinants and consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic in LMICs using multi-faceted approaches was ranked 8th. The remaining questions in the top 10 were: clarifying paediatric case-fatality rates (CFR) in LMICs and identifying effective strategies for community engagement against COVID-19 in different LMIC contexts. Interpretation Health policy and systems research to inform COVID-19 vaccine uptake and equitable access to care are urgently needed, especially for rural, vulnerable, and/or marginalised populations. This research should occur in parallel with studies that will identify approaches to minimise vaccine hesitancy and effectively integrate care for COVID-19 with other essential health services in LMICs. ISoGH calls on the funders of health research in LMICs to consider the urgency and priority of this research during the COVID-19 pandemic and support studies that could make a positive difference for the populations of LMICs.

The rule of global health diplomacy to support medical doctors in the pandemic

Global health diplomacy (GHD) is a novel concept in health with a focus on the interactions in foreign affairs. GHD coordinates policies for improving global health, which was particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic.This study aimed to evaluate how GHD can help healthcare professionals (HCP), and identify the problems for the HCP in practice as well dilemmas to providing only emergency treatments in the pandemic lockdowns. We performed 9 semistructured interviews with participants responsible for health in the EU as members of governments and health-related sectors through purposive sampling from 12/2020 to 02/2021 via MS Teams. Interviews were conducted in English, voice recorded, and transcribed. The data analysis included coding of the transcripts, categorization of initial codes, and identification of themes using NVivo 12 software. All participants signed the informed consent. The research was approved by the University of Split Medical School ethical board. Participants agree that the global solution to this pandemic is to ensure universal access to healthcare. Global diplomatic response to the pandemic was uncoordinated. Participants stated that the pandemic hit HCPs especially hard, as they have to balance the fear about their safety and providing care. HCP are also faced with ethical and moral dilemmas regarding limiting access to healthcare. The participants agreed that the best example of a coordinated GHD effort was the centralised EU approach to securing supplies and development of a vaccine. Participants stressed the importance of the patients’ rights in the GHD. The participants discussed what can be learnt from the failures of diplomatic response to the COVID-19 and how future global crises should be handled. We identified lessons that GHD can apply to help HCP. GHD in times of COVID-19 underlines the increasing politicization of global health. As the pandemic continues, it is worth asking what GHD will look like in the aftermath of COVID-19.

Antifragility of healthcare systems in Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina: Learning from man-made and natural crises.

Acute crises, such as a war or a pandemic, are the ultimate tests for health care systems' resilience (temporary response to stress with change and adaptation) and antifragility (permanent benefit from change in response to stress). In this Health Policy paper, we analyse and discuss how the healthcare systems of two European countries - Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croatia - adapted to war as a man-made disaster, and how they adapted to COVID-19 pandemic twenty-five years later. These countries experienced full scale wars in recent history, which significantly changed their political and healthcare systems. This experience prepared the countries for the response to the pandemic, which coincided with two earthquakes in Croatia. We argue that healthcare systems in Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina are not only resilient but antifragile, and that they benefited from stressors they were exposed to. The antifragility of the two systems were primarily based on human effort - the strength, adaptability and resilience of health care professionals. We will look at lessons from the wars that were applied to the pandemic and discuss newly recognized opportunities and improvements.

Novel Coronavirus Infection (COVID-19) in Humans: A Scoping Review and Meta-Analysis.

A growing body of literature on the 2019 novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) is becoming available, but a synthesis of available data has not been conducted. We performed a scoping review of currently available clinical, epidemiological, laboratory, and chest imaging data related to the SARS-CoV-2 infection. We searched MEDLINE, Cochrane CENTRAL, EMBASE, Scopus and LILACS from 01 January 2019 to 24 February 2020. Study selection, data extraction and risk of bias assessment were performed by two independent reviewers. Qualitative synthesis and meta-analysis were conducted using the clinical and laboratory data, and random-effects models were applied to estimate pooled results. A total of 61 studies were included (59,254 patients). The most common disease-related symptoms were fever (82%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 56%-99%; n = 4410), cough (61%, 95% CI 39%-81%; n = 3985), muscle aches and/or fatigue (36%, 95% CI 18%-55%; n = 3778), dyspnea (26%, 95% CI 12%-41%; n = 3700), headache in 12% (95% CI 4%-23%, n = 3598 patients), sore throat in 10% (95% CI 5%-17%, n = 1387) and gastrointestinal symptoms in 9% (95% CI 3%-17%, n = 1744). Laboratory findings were described in a lower number of patients and revealed lymphopenia (0.93 × 109/L, 95% CI 0.83-1.03 × 109/L, n = 464) and abnormal C-reactive protein (33.72 mg/dL, 95% CI 21.54-45.91 mg/dL; n = 1637). Radiological findings varied, but mostly described ground-glass opacities and consolidation. Data on treatment options were limited. All-cause mortality was 0.3% (95% CI 0.0%-1.0%; n = 53,631). Epidemiological studies showed that mortality was higher in males and elderly patients. The majority of reported clinical symptoms and laboratory findings related to SARS-CoV-2 infection are non-specific. Clinical suspicion, accompanied by a relevant epidemiological history, should be followed by early imaging and virological assay.

Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic: an overview of systematic reviews.

BACKGROUND: Navigating the rapidly growing body of scientific literature on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic is challenging, and ongoing critical appraisal of this output is essential. We aimed to summarize and critically appraise systematic reviews of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) in humans that were available at the beginning of the pandemic. METHODS: Nine databases (Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, Web of Sciences, PDQ-Evidence, WHO's Global Research, LILACS, and Epistemonikos) were searched from December 1, 2019, to March 24, 2020. Systematic reviews analyzing primary studies of COVID-19 were included. Two authors independently undertook screening, selection, extraction (data on clinical symptoms, prevalence, pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions, diagnostic test assessment, laboratory, and radiological findings), and quality assessment (AMSTAR 2). A meta-analysis was performed of the prevalence of clinical outcomes. RESULTS: Eighteen systematic reviews were included; one was empty (did not identify any relevant study). Using AMSTAR 2, confidence in the results of all 18 reviews was rated as "critically low". Identified symptoms of COVID-19 were (range values of point estimates): fever (82-95%), cough with or without sputum (58-72%), dyspnea (26-59%), myalgia or muscle fatigue (29-51%), sore throat (10-13%), headache (8-12%) and gastrointestinal complaints (5-9%). Severe symptoms were more common in men. Elevated C-reactive protein and lactate dehydrogenase, and slightly elevated aspartate and alanine aminotransferase, were commonly described. Thrombocytopenia and elevated levels of procalcitonin and cardiac troponin I were associated with severe disease. A frequent finding on chest imaging was uni- or bilateral multilobar ground-glass opacity. A single review investigated the impact of medication (chloroquine) but found no verifiable clinical data. All-cause mortality ranged from 0.3 to 13.9%. CONCLUSIONS: In this overview of systematic reviews, we analyzed evidence from the first 18 systematic reviews that were published after the emergence of COVID-19. However, confidence in the results of all reviews was "critically low". Thus, systematic reviews that were published early on in the pandemic were of questionable usefulness. Even during public health emergencies, studies and systematic reviews should adhere to established methodological standards.

Clinical, laboratory and radiological characteristics and outcomes of novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) infection in humans: A systematic review and series of meta-analyses.

New evidence on the COVID-19 pandemic is being published daily. Ongoing high-quality assessment of this literature is therefore needed to enable clinical practice to be evidence-based. This review builds on a previous scoping review and aimed to identify associations between disease severity and various clinical, laboratory and radiological characteristics. We searched MEDLINE, CENTRAL, EMBASE, Scopus and LILACS for studies published between January 1, 2019 and March 22, 2020. Clinical studies including ≥10 patients with confirmed COVID-19 of any study design were eligible. Two investigators independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. A quality effects model was used for the meta-analyses. Subgroup analysis and meta-regression identified sources of heterogeneity. For hospitalized patients, studies were ordered by overall disease severity of each population and this order was used as the modifier variable in meta-regression. Overall, 86 studies (n = 91,621) contributed data to the meta-analyses. Severe disease was strongly associated with fever, cough, dyspnea, pneumonia, any computed tomography findings, any ground glass opacity, lymphocytopenia, elevated C-reactive protein, elevated alanine aminotransferase, elevated aspartate aminotransferase, older age and male sex. These variables typically increased in prevalence by 30-73% from mild/early disease through to moderate/severe disease. Among hospitalized patients, 30-78% of heterogeneity was explained by severity of disease. Elevated white blood cell count was strongly associated with more severe disease among moderate/severe hospitalized patients. Elevated lymphocytes, low platelets, interleukin-6, erythrocyte sedimentation rate and D-dimers showed potential associations, while fatigue, gastrointestinal symptoms, consolidation and septal thickening showed non-linear association patterns. Headache and sore throat were associated with the presence of disease, but not with more severe disease. In COVID-19, more severe disease is strongly associated with several clinical, laboratory and radiological characteristics. Symptoms and other variables in early/mild disease appear non-specific and highly heterogeneous. Clinical Trial Registration: PROSPERO CRD42020170623.