Measuring the global response to antimicrobial resistance, 2020-21: a systematic governance analysis of 114 countries.

BACKGROUND: Understanding strategic commitments and policy responses to overcome antimicrobial resistance at the national, regional, and global levels is required to evaluate current progress and direct future planning. National action plans (NAPs) are the primary mechanism for guiding national strategy and action for antimicrobial resistance governance. Although several NAPs have been developed, no comprehensive content analysis of these plans exists. Using a governance framework, we aimed to assess all publicly available NAPs on antimicrobial resistance. METHODS: We systematically reviewed the contents of NAPs on antimicrobial resistance from 114 countries, applying a governance framework containing 18 domains and 54 indicators in three integral areas: policy design, implementation tools, and monitoring and evaluation. As well as manually searching NAPs and doing online and literature searches that were relevant to specific indicators from repository inception to June 1, 2022, several data sources were used to generate scores, including the Tripartite Antimicrobial Resistance Country Self-Assessment Survey, the Global Antimicrobial Resistance and Use Surveillance System, the Global Antimicrobial Resistance Research and Development Hub, and various WHO datasets. NAPs were included if the country had also submitted the NAP to the Tripartite Antimicrobial Resistance Country Self-Assessment Survey 2020-21, if the NAP was retrievable through a publicly accessible database or website, and if the NAP was either published in English or eligible for machine translation. Three researchers independently reviewed each NAP and were initially blinded to the evaluations of other researchers. They generated a score using a quantification system for each of 54 indicators. The Cochrane protocol for ensuring reliability was followed. The three researchers were then unblinded and met to resolve any disagreements in scoring to reach a consensus agreement. In each case of discrepancy, consensus was reached between the researchers. We developed criteria to standardise the process of quantifying each indicator. We also weighted and collated relevant national data from various sources to generate composite scores concordant with the key governance areas. We transformed these data to a scale of 0 (worst) to 100 (best), ranked countries on the basis of their mean scores, and used descriptive statistics to analyse global and regional trends. FINDINGS: 306 NAPs were identified and 114 were eligible for analysis. Between 2020 and 2021, the mean antimicrobial resistance governance score was 51 (SD 14). Norway had the highest governance score (mean 85 [SD 32]), and the Federated States of Micronesia had the lowest governance score (28 [37]). The highest scoring domain was participation (83 [16]), and the lowest scoring domains were accountability (30 [18]) and feedback mechanism (30 [25]). Domains relating to policy design (55 [13]) and implementation tools (54 [17]) scored similarly, whereas monitoring and evaluation (38 [20]) efforts were lower. INTERPRETATION: International efforts to control antimicrobial resistance varied considerably between countries. Monitoring and evaluation efforts need improving for continuous understanding of national and international progress. International response might not be commensurate with the scale and severity of antimicrobial resistance. FUNDING: None.

Firearm injury-a preventable public health issue.

Firearm-related injury is a leading cause of death disproportionately affecting adolescents and young adults across the world, especially in the Americas. Little progress has been made over the past four decades, as inaction and the adoption of ineffective or unevidenced interventions have become commonplace. The COVID-19 pandemic reconfigured health systems towards prevention and harm reduction, sharpened public attention to the burden of preventable deaths, and inspired a fresh ambition of eliminating avertable deaths. In this Viewpoint, we argue that preventing firearm injury should garner bolder action in post-pandemic public health and we present a case for reducing the global burden of firearm injury supported by evidence and international examples. Crucially, we aim to guide policy making in directions that end the cycle of grief, anger, activism, deflection, and inaction and create more peaceful and fairer societies.

Interrogating the World Bank's role in global health knowledge production, governance, and finance.

BACKGROUND: In the nearly half century since it began lending for population projects, the World Bank has become one of the largest financiers of global health projects and programs, a powerful voice in shaping health agendas in global governance spaces, and a mass producer of evidentiary knowledge for its preferred global health interventions. How can social scientists interrogate the role of the World Bank in shaping 'global health' in the current era? MAIN BODY: As a group of historians, social scientists, and public health officials with experience studying the effects of the institution's investment in health, we identify three challenges to this research. First, a future research agenda requires recognizing that the Bank is not a monolith, but rather has distinct inter-organizational groups that have shaped investment and discourse in complicated, and sometimes contradictory, ways. Second, we must consider how its influence on health policy and investment has changed significantly over time. Third, we must analyze its modes of engagement with other institutions within the global health landscape, and with the private sector. The unique relationships between Bank entities and countries that shape health policy, and the Bank's position as a center of research, permit it to have a formative influence on health economics as applied to international development. Addressing these challenges, we propose a future research agenda for the Bank's influence on global health through three overlapping objects of and domains for study: knowledge-based (shaping health policy knowledge), governance-based (shaping health governance), and finance-based (shaping health financing). We provide a review of case studies in each of these categories to inform this research agenda. CONCLUSIONS: As the COVID-19 pandemic continues to rage, and as state and non-state actors work to build more inclusive and robust health systems around the world, it is more important than ever to consider how to best document and analyze the impacts of Bank's financial and technical investments in the Global South.

Hindsight is 2020? Lessons in global health governance one year into the pandemic.

Fourteen months into the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, we identify key lessons in the global and national responses to the pandemic. The World Health Organization has played a pivotal technical, normative and coordinating role, but has been constrained by its lack of authority over sovereign member states. Many governments also mistakenly attempted to manage COVID-19 like influenza, resulting in repeated lockdowns, high excess morbidity and mortality, and poor economic recovery. Despite the incredible speed of the development and approval of effective and safe vaccines, the emergence of new SARS-CoV-2 variants means that all countries will have to rely on a globally coordinated public health effort for several years to defeat this pandemic.

Government responses and COVID-19 deaths: Global evidence across multiple pandemic waves.

We provide an assessment of the impact of government closure and containment measures on deaths from COVID-19 across sequential waves of the COVID-19 pandemic globally. Daily data was collected on a range of containment and closure policies for 186 countries from January 1, 2020 until March 11th, 2021. These data were combined into an aggregate stringency index (SI) score for each country on each day (range: 0-100). Countries were divided into successive waves via a mathematical algorithm to identify peaks and troughs of disease. Within our period of analysis, 63 countries experienced at least one wave, 40 countries experienced two waves, and 10 countries saw three waves, as defined by our approach. Within each wave, regression was used to assess the relationship between the strength of government stringency and subsequent deaths related to COVID-19 with a number of controls for time and country-specific demographic, health system, and economic characteristics. Across the full period of our analysis and 113 countries, an increase of 10 points on the SI was linked to 6 percentage points (P < 0.001, 95% CI = [5%, 7%]) lower average daily deaths. In the first wave, in countries that ultimately experiences 3 waves of the pandemic to date, ten additional points on the SI resulted in lower average daily deaths by 21 percentage points (P < .001, 95% CI = [8%, 16%]). This effect was sustained in the third wave with reductions in deaths of 28 percentage points (P < .001, 95% CI = [13%, 21%]). Moreover, interaction effects show that government policies were effective in reducing deaths in all waves in all groups of countries. These findings highlight the enduring importance of non-pharmaceutical responses to COVID-19 over time.