Re-evaluating Our Knowledge of Health System Resilience During COVID-19: Lessons From the First Two Years of the Pandemic

Background: Health challenges like coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are becoming increasingly complex, transnational, and unpredictable. Studying health system responses to the COVID-19 pandemic is an opportunity to enhance our understanding of health system resilience and establish a clearer link between theoretical concepts and practical ideas on how to build resilience. Methods: This narrative literature review aims to address four questions using a health system resilience framework: (i) What do we understand about the dimensions of resilience? (ii) What aspects of the resilience dimensions remain uncertain? (iii) What aspects of the resilience dimensions are missing from the COVID-19 discussions? and (iv) What has COVID-19 taught us about resilience that is missing from the framework? A scientific literature database search was conducted in December 2020 and in April 2022 to identify publications that discussed health system resilience in relation to COVID-19, excluding articles on psychological and other types of resilience. A total of 63 publications were included. Results: There is good understanding around information sharing, flexibility and good leadership, learning, maintaining essential services, and the need for legitimate, interdependent systems. Decision-making, localized trust, influences on interdependence, and transformation remain uncertain. Vertical interdependence, monitoring risks beyond the health system, and consequences of changes on the system were not discussed. Teamwork, actor legitimacy, values, inclusivity, trans-sectoral resilience, and the role of the private sector are identified as lessons from COVID-19 that should be further explored for health system resilience. Conclusion: Knowledge of health system resilience has continued to cohere following the pandemic. The eventual consequences of system changes and the resilience of subsystems are underexplored. Through governance, the concept of health system resilience can be linked to wider issues raised by the pandemic, like inclusivity. Our findings show the utility of resilience theory for strengthening health systems for crises and the benefit of continuing to refine existing resilience theory.

Strengthening primary care for diabetes and hypertension in Eswatini: study protocol for a nationwide cluster-randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Diabetes and hypertension are increasingly important population health challenges in Eswatini. Prior to this project, healthcare for these conditions was primarily provided through physician-led teams at tertiary care facilities and accessed by only a small fraction of people living with diabetes or hypertension. This trial tests and evaluates two community-based healthcare service models implemented at the national level, which involve health care personnel at primary care facilities and utilize the country's public sector community health worker cadre (the rural health motivators [RHMs]) to help generate demand for care. METHODS: This study is a cluster-randomized controlled trial with two treatment arms and one control arm. The unit of randomization is a primary healthcare facility along with all RHMs (and their corresponding service areas) assigned to the facility. A total of 84 primary healthcare facilities were randomized in a 1:1:1 ratio to the three study arms. The first treatment arm implements differentiated service delivery (DSD) models at the clinic and community levels with the objective of improving treatment uptake and adherence among clients with diabetes or hypertension. In the second treatment arm, community distribution points (CDPs), which previously targeted clients living with human immunodeficiency virus, extend their services to clients with diabetes or hypertension by allowing them to pick up medications and obtain routine nurse-led follow-up visits in their community rather than at the healthcare facility. In both treatment arms, RHMs visit households regularly, screen clients at risk, provide personalized counseling, and refer clients to either primary care clinics or the nearest CDP. In the control arm, primary care clinics provide diabetes and hypertension care services but without the involvement of RHMs and the implementation of DSD models or CDPs. The primary endpoints are mean glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) and systolic blood pressure among adults aged 40 years and older living with diabetes or hypertension, respectively. These endpoints will be assessed through a household survey in the RHM service areas. In addition to the health impact evaluation, we will conduct studies on cost-effectiveness, syndemics, and the intervention's implementation processes. DISCUSSION: This study has the ambition to assist the Eswatini government in selecting the most effective delivery model for diabetes and hypertension care. The evidence generated with this national-level cluster-randomized controlled trial may also prove useful to policy makers in the wider Sub-Saharan African region. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT04183413. Trial registration date: December 3, 2019.

Burden of Covid-19 restrictions: National, regional and global estimates.

BACKGROUND: A growing literature has documented the high global morbidity, mortality and mental health burden associated with the current Covid-19 pandemic. In this paper, we aimed to quantify the total utility and quality of life loss resulting from Covid-19-related government restrictions imposed at the national, regional and global levels. METHODS: We conducted quality of life online surveys in France, India, Italy, UK and the United States of America between June 21st and September 13th 2021, and used regression models to estimate the average quality of life loss due to light and severe restrictions in these countries. We then combined estimated disutility weights from the pooled sample with the latest data on Covid-19 restrictions exposure in each country to estimate the total disutility generated by restrictions at the national, regional and global level. We also embedded a discrete choice experiment (DCE) into the online survey to estimate average willingness to pay to avoid specific restrictions. FINDINGS: A total of 947 surveys were completed. Thirty-five percent of respondents were female, and 69.5% were between 18 and 39 years old. The weighted average utility weight was 0.71 (95% CIs 0.69-0.74) for light restrictions, and 0.65 (0.63-0.68) for severe restrictions. At the global scale, this implies a total loss of 3259 million QALYs (95% 3021, 3496) as of September 6th, 2021, with the highest burden in lower and upper middle-income countries. Utility losses appear to be particularly large for closures of schools and daycares as well as restaurants and bars, and seem relatively small for wearing masks and travel restrictions. INTERPRETATION: The results presented here suggest that the QALY losses due to restrictions are substantial. Future mitigation strategies should try to balance potential reductions in disease transmission achievable through specific measures against their respective impact on quality of life. Additional research is needed to determine differences in restriction-specific disutilities across countries, and to determine optimal policy responses to similar future disease threats. FUNDING: No funding was received for this project.

A health systems resilience research agenda: moving from concept to practice.

Health system resilience, known as the ability for health systems to absorb, adapt or transform to maintain essential functions when stressed or shocked, has quickly gained popularity following shocks like COVID-19. The concept is relatively new in health policy and systems research and the existing research remains mostly theoretical. Research to date has viewed resilience as an outcome that can be measured through performance outcomes, as an ability of complex adaptive systems that is derived from dynamic behaviour and interactions, or as both. However, there is little congruence on the theory and the existing frameworks have not been widely used, which as diluted the research applications for health system resilience. A global group of health system researchers were convened in March 2021 to discuss and identify priorities for health system resilience research and implementation based on lessons from COVID-19 and other health emergencies. Five research priority areas were identified: (1) measuring and managing systems dynamic performance, (2) the linkages between societal resilience and health system resilience, (3) the effect of governance on the capacity for resilience, (4) creating legitimacy and (5) the influence of the private sector on health system resilience. A key to filling these research gaps will be longitudinal and comparative case studies that use cocreation and coproduction approaches that go beyond researchers to include policy-makers, practitioners and the public.

Building a multisystemic understanding of societal resilience to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The current global systemic crisis reveals how globalised societies are unprepared to face a pandemic. Beyond the dramatic loss of human life, the COVID-19 pandemic has triggered widespread disturbances in health, social, economic, environmental and governance systems in many countries across the world. Resilience describes the capacities of natural and human systems to prevent, react to and recover from shocks. Societal resilience to the current COVID-19 pandemic relates to the ability of societies in maintaining their core functions while minimising the impact of the pandemic and other societal effects. Drawing on the emerging evidence about resilience in health, social, economic, environmental and governance systems, this paper delineates a multisystemic understanding of societal resilience to COVID-19. Such an understanding provides the foundation for an integrated approach to build societal resilience to current and future pandemics.