Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 29
Antibiotics (Basel) ; 11(6)2022 Jun 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1869452


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.

EuropePMC; 2022.
Preprint in English | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-330798


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.

Euro Surveill ; 27(10)2022 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1742168

COVID-19 , Humans , SARS-CoV-2
Lancet ; 398(10316): 2109-2124, 2021 12 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1598178


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.

COVID-19/epidemiology , Pandemics , Animals , COVID-19/transmission , China/epidemiology , Disease Outbreaks , Global Health/legislation & jurisprudence , Humans , Information Dissemination , International Cooperation , International Health Regulations , Risk Assessment , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Time Factors , World Health Organization , Zoonoses/virology
Lancet Public Health ; 7(1): e86-e92, 2022 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1562177


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.

COVID-19/prevention & control , Public Policy , Universal Health Insurance , Vulnerable Populations/psychology , Global Health , Humans , Public Health
Nat Med ; 27(6): 964-980, 2021 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1232071


Health systems resilience is key to learning lessons from country responses to crises such as coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). In this perspective, we review COVID-19 responses in 28 countries using a new health systems resilience framework. Through a combination of literature review, national government submissions and interviews with experts, we conducted a comparative analysis of national responses. We report on domains addressing governance and financing, health workforce, medical products and technologies, public health functions, health service delivery and community engagement to prevent and mitigate the spread of COVID-19. We then synthesize four salient elements that underlie highly effective national responses and offer recommendations toward strengthening health systems resilience globally.

COVID-19/epidemiology , Global Health , Pandemics , Public Health , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19/virology , Delivery of Health Care , Government , Government Programs , Humans , SARS-CoV-2/pathogenicity
BMC Health Serv Res ; 21(1): 20, 2021 Jan 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1067225


BACKGROUND: The choices that policymakers make are shaped by how their problems are framed. At last, non-communicable diseases (NCDs) have risen high on the global policy agenda, but there are many disputed issues. First, what are they? Their name refers not to what they are but what they are not. Second, where do their boundaries lie? What diseases are included? Third, should we view their causes as mainly biomedical, behavioural, or social, or a combination? Our failure to resolve these issues has been invoked as a reason for our limited progress in developing and implementing effective remedies. In this scoping review, we ask "What is known from the existing literature about how NCDs are framed in the global policy discourses?" We answer it by reviewing the frames employed in policy and academic discourses. METHODS: We searched nine electronic databases for articles published since inception to 31 May 2019. We also reviewed websites of eight international organisations to identify global NCDs policies. We extracted data and synthesised findings to identify key thematic frames. RESULTS: We included 36 articles and nine policy documents on global NCDs policies. We identified five discursive domains that have been used and where there are differing perspectives. These are: "Expanding the NCDs frame to include mental health and air pollution"; "NCDs and their determinants"; "A rights-based approach to NCDs"; "Approaches to achieving policy coherence in NCDs globally"; and "NCDs as part of Sustainable Socio-economic Development". We further identified 12 frames within the five discursive domains. CONCLUSIONS: This scoping review identifies issues that remain unresolved and points to a need for alignment of perspectives among global health policy actors, as well as synergies with those working on mental health, maternal health, and child health. The current COVID-19 pandemic warrants greater consideration of its impact on global NCDs policies. Future global strategies for NCDs need to consider explicitly how NCDs are framed in a changing global health discourse and ensure adequate alignment with implementation and global health issues. There is a need for global strategies to recognise the pertinent role of actors in shaping policy discourses.

Global Health , Health Policy , Noncommunicable Diseases , COVID-19 , Humans