Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 8 de 8
Filter
1.
Health Res Policy Syst ; 20(1): 124, 2022 Nov 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2108789

ABSTRACT

Public health emergencies (PHEs), such as the COVID-19 crisis, are threats to global health and public order. We recommend that countries bolster their PHE responses by investing in health technology assessment (HTA), defined as a systematic process of gathering pertinent information on and evaluating health technologies from a medical, economic, social and ethical standpoint. We present examples of how HTA organizations in low- and middle-income countries have adapted to supporting PHE-related decisions during COVID-19 and describe the ways HTA can help the response to a PHE. In turn, we advocate for HTA capacity to be further developed globally and for increased institutional acceptance of these methods as a building block for preparedness and response to future PHEs. Finally, the long-term potential of HTA in strengthening health systems and embedding confidence and transparency into scientific policy should be recognized.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Technology Assessment, Biomedical , Humans , Public Health , Health Policy , Emergencies
2.
Travel Med Infect Dis ; 48: 102358, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1852151

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: There are ongoing calls to harmonise and increase the use of COVID-19 vaccination certificates (CVCs) in Asia. Identifying groups in Asian societies who oppose CVCs and understanding their reasons can help formulate an effective CVCs policy in the region. However, no formal studies have explored this issue in Asia. METHOD: The COVID-19 Vaccination Policy Research and Decision-Support Initiative in Asia (CORESIA) was established to address policy questions related to CVCs. An online cross-sectional survey was conducted from June to October 2021 in nine Asian countries. Multivariable logistical regression analyses were performed to identify potential opposers of CVCs. RESULTS: Six groups were identified as potential opposers of CVCs: (i) unvaccinated (Odd Ratio (OR): 2.01, 95% Confidence Interval (CI): 1.65-2.46); vaccine hesitant and those without access to COVID-19 vaccines; (ii) those not wanting existing NPIs to continue (OR: 2.97, 95% CI: 2.51-3.53); (iii) those with low level of trust in governments (OR: 1.25, 95% CI: 1.02-2.52); (iv) those without travel plans (OR: 1.58, 95% CI: 1.31-1.90); (v) those expecting no financial gains from CVCs (OR: 2.35, 95% CI: 1.98-2.78); and (vi) those disagreeing to use CVCs for employment, education, events, hospitality, and domestic travel. CONCLUSIONS: Addressing recurring public health bottlenecks such as vaccine hesitancy and equitable access, adherence to policies, public trust, and changing the narrative from 'societal-benefit' to 'personal-benefit' may be necessary and may help increase wider adoption of CVCs in Asia.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines , COVID-19 , Asia , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Cross-Sectional Studies , Humans , Vaccination
3.
Vaccines (Basel) ; 10(4)2022 Apr 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1810350

ABSTRACT

An effective Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) framework helps vaccination programme managers determine progress and effectiveness for agreed indicators against clear benchmarks and targets. We aimed to identify the literature on M&E frameworks and indicators used in national vaccination programmes and synthesise approaches and lessons to inform development of future frameworks. We conducted a scoping review using Arksey and O'Malley's six-stage framework to identify and synthesise sources on monitoring or evaluation of national vaccination implementation that described a framework or indicators. The findings were summarised thematically. We included 43 eligible sources of 4291 screened. Most (95%) were in English and discussed high-income (51%) or middle-income (30%) settings, with 13 in Europe (30%), 10 in Asia-Pacific (23%), nine in Africa (21%), and eight in the Americas (19%), respectively, while three crossed regions. Only five (12%) specified the use of an M&E framework. Most (32/43; 74%) explicitly or implicitly included vaccine coverage indicators, followed by 12 including operational (28%), five including clinical (12%), and two including cost indicators (5%). The use of M&E frameworks was seldom explicit or clearly defined in our sources, with indicators rarely fully defined or benchmarked against targets. Sources focused on ways to improve vaccination programmes without explicitly considering ways to improve assessment. Literature on M&E framework and indicator use in national vaccination programmes is limited and focused on routine childhood vaccination. Therefore, documentation of more experiences and lessons is needed to better inform vaccination M&E beyond childhood.

4.
Int J Health Policy Manag ; 2021 Dec 26.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1614606

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The rapid spread of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic demonstrates the value of regional cooperation in infectious disease prevention and control. We explored the literature on regional infectious disease control bodies, to identify lessons, barriers and enablers to inform operationalisation of a regional infectious disease control body or network in southeast Asia. METHODS: We conducted a scoping review to examine existing literature on regional infectious disease control bodies and networks, and to identify lessons that can be learned that will be useful for operationalisation of a regional infectious disease control body such as the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) Center for Public Health Emergency and Emerging Diseases. RESULTS: Of the 57 articles included, 53 (93%) were in English, with two (3%) in Spanish and one (2%) each in Dutch and French. Most were commentaries or review articles describing programme initiatives. Sixteen (28%) publications focused on organisations in the Asian continent, with 14 (25%) focused on Africa, and 14 (25%) primarily focused on the European region. Key lessons focused on organisational factors, diagnosis and detection, human resources, communication, accreditation, funding, and sustainability. Enablers and constraints were consistent across regions/ organisations. A clear understanding of the regional context, budgets, cultural or language issues, staffing capacity and governmental priorities, is pivotal. An initial workshop inclusive of the various bodies involved in the design, implementation, monitoring or evaluation of programmes is essential. Clear governance structure, with individual responsibilities clear from the beginning, will reduce friction. Secure, long-term funding is also a key aspect of the success of any programme. CONCLUSION: Operationalisation of regional infectious disease bodies and networks is complicated, but with extensive groundwork, and focus on organisational factors, diagnosis and detection, human resources, communication, accreditation, funding, and sustainability, it is achievable. Ways to promote success are to include as many stakeholders as possible from the beginning, to ensure that context-specific factors are considered, and to encourage employees through capacity building and mentoring, to ensure they feel valued and reduce staff turnover.

5.
Lancet Reg Health Eur ; 9: 100221, 2021 Oct.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1466768

ABSTRACT

Since 2005, the world has faced several public health emergencies of international concern arising from infectious disease outbreaks. Of these, the COVID-19 pandemic has had by far the greatest health and economic consequences. During these emergencies, responses taken by one country often have an impact on other countries. The implication is that coordination between countries is likely to achieve better outcomes, individually and collectively, than each country independently pursuing its own self-interest. During the COVID-19 pandemic, gaps in multilateral cooperation on research and information sharing, vaccine development and deployment, and travel policies have hampered the speed and equity of global recovery. In this Health Policy article, we explore how multilateral collaboration between countries is crucial to successful responses to public health emergencies linked to infectious disease outbreaks. Responding to future global infectious disease threats and other health emergencies will require the creation of stronger mechanisms for multilateral collaboration before they arise. A change to the governance of multilateral institutions is a logical next step, with a focus on providing equal ownership and leadership opportunities to all member countries. Europe can be an example and advocate for stronger and better governed multilateral institutions.

6.
Syst Rev ; 10(1): 242, 2021 09 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1430478

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is accelerated by the widespread and often indiscriminate use of antimicrobials in humans, animals, and the environment. In 2015, the World Health Organization recognised AMR as one of the top ten global health threats, due to its potential to neutralise humanity's advancements in western medicine by enabling the emergence of new strains of existing pathogens, many of which have no available treatments. Over the past decade, several countries, including those in low- and middle-income contexts, have started implementing interventions to tackle AMR. However, economic evidence regarding the cost-effectiveness of these interventions remains weak. To address this evidence gap, we will conduct a systematic literature review to provide a comprehensive summary on the value for money of different AMR interventions. METHODS: We aim to conduct a systematic literature review of all available economic evaluations on interventions addressing AMR and will provide a narrative synthesis of our findings. Systematic searches for relevant studies will be performed across all suitable databases as well as in grey literature sources such as unpublished studies, reports, and other relevant documents. All economic evaluation studies will be included as long as they report an economic outcome and have stated that the analysed intervention will reduce antimicrobial resistance or antimicrobial use in the abstract. Those studies reporting clinical endpoints alone will be excluded. Selection for final inclusion and data extraction will be performed by two independent reviewers. DISCUSSION: The review will be one of the first of its kind, and the most recent, to systematically review literature on the cost-effectiveness of AMR interventions, an important evidence gap in the economics of AMR. The findings will enable policy and decision-makers, particularly in resource-constrained settings, to better use available resources when selecting interventions to address AMR burdens, SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42020190310.


Subject(s)
Anti-Bacterial Agents , Anti-Infective Agents , Animals , Anti-Bacterial Agents/therapeutic use , Anti-Infective Agents/therapeutic use , Cost-Benefit Analysis , Drug Resistance, Bacterial , Humans , Policy , Systematic Reviews as Topic
8.
Int J Technol Assess Health Care ; 37: e45, 2021 Mar 17.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1137721

ABSTRACT

Traditional and complementary medicines are increasingly considered possible options for prevention and symptomatic treatment of the novel coronavirus, COVID-19. With renewed attention on these therapies from researchers and policy makers alike, the well-documented challenges of evaluating their safety and efficacy are once again of global concern. Between 2005 and 2018, the World Health Organization conducted a series of surveys, in which 88 percent of responding member states confirmed that their biggest challenge in traditional medicine was the need for technical guidance on research and evaluation. As a first step in pursuing this need, our commentary summarizes thirteen international and regional guidance documents by three broad categories on evaluating safety, efficacy, and product quality for market-based approval and distribution of these treatments. We highlight the paucity of updated international recommendations on these subjects and identify gaps that could inform the current evidence base. All available guidance note the need for evidence surrounding the efficacy of these treatments and practices but are also quick to caution against methodological difficulties in the conduct of such evaluations. Evidence suggests that improved evaluation methods on efficacy and effectiveness are crucial toward expanding future research into establishing the cost-effectiveness of these therapies, in the context of shifting acceptance, interest, and integration of traditional medicines into health systems, and as another step toward Universal Health Coverage.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/therapy , Complementary Therapies/economics , Complementary Therapies/methods , Global Health , Complementary Therapies/adverse effects , Complementary Therapies/standards , Cost-Benefit Analysis , Humans , Phytotherapy/methods , Phytotherapy/standards , Practice Guidelines as Topic , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , SARS-CoV-2
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL