Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 3 de 3
Add filters

Document Type
Year range
BMJ Glob Health ; 8(1)2023 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2193741


In response to shortcomings in epidemic preparedness and response that were revealed by the COVID-19 pandemic, there have been numerous proposals for ways to improve preparedness and response financing. Included among these is the World Bank's Pandemic Fund, formerly known as the Financial Intermediary Fund for Pandemic Prevention, Preparedness, and Response, which was launched in September 2022. This analysis piece examines the Pandemic Fund, where it fits into ongoing discussions surrounding financing for preparedness and response efforts and discusses emerging apprehensions about the new financing mechanism. Briefly, the Pandemic Fund is not the first time that the World Bank has hosted a financing mechanism to provide support for pandemic response. Notably the Pandemic Emergency Financing Facility (PEF)-which was launched in 2017 and closed in 2021-was criticised for generally failing to realise its potential. However, the Pandemic Fund seems to be addressing several of these critiques by placing a greater emphasis on prevention and preparedness financing, as opposed to response financing. Still, there is an important need for response funding mechanisms, and concerningly, the Pandemic Fund seems to support response efforts in name only. While it is clearly desirable to prepare for and prevent outbreaks for a multitude of reasons, it is also naive to assume that strengthening preparedness capacities will eliminate outbreaks and the need for response financing altogether. Accordingly, there is a need to complement this new financing mechanism with dedicated funding for responding to infectious disease outbreaks and to closely link this response financing with health security frameworks and instruments.

COVID-19 , Financial Management , Humans , Pandemics/prevention & control , COVID-19/prevention & control , Disease Outbreaks/prevention & control
J Prim Care Community Health ; 13: 21501319221074470, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1874985


BACKGROUND: Before the COVID-19 pandemic, Guinea has been the epicenter of the huge West Africa Ebola outbreak (2014-2016), that impact heavily the health system. Demographic information is one of the most basic data sources for health systems and services delivery, and yet can be very difficult to obtain with any accuracy. The objectives were to contribute among other to: (i) a determination of the catchment area (health coverage area and responsibility) of the Kirikilan health facility (PCM); (ii) geocoded mapping to find out exactly where these populations per sector of Kirikilan neighborhood lives; (iii) an approach for regular and systematic annual demographic follow up of target populations. METHODS: The study was a 3-year community-based survey with annual follow up of the population within the quartier of Kirikilan in Dubreka Prefecture in Guinea. It was an exhaustive enumeration of the population, sector by sector of the quartier, then there was no sampling size neither estimation. RESULTS: In October 2017 as a baseline of the study, the enumeration showed the total population was 8824 persons, 936 compounds, 1435 households, and the breakdown by sub quartier (sector) has been performed. It's showed the interest of the mapping of the target populations with geo-referenced localization. The annual follow up by demographic enumerus showed a dramatic increase of the size of the population, including strong migration of the evicted population due to urbanization purpose in some districts of Conakry, the capital. CONCLUSION: The study showed the importance of the enumeration and follow up of the target populations, but also of the setting up community data based to improve the district health information system (DHIS 2) in Guinea. The approach has a best practice could be an importunity to improve data sharing, mapping, health quality access, and affordability for a sustainable health toward universal health coverage.

COVID-19 , Hemorrhagic Fever, Ebola , Disease Outbreaks , Guinea/epidemiology , Hemorrhagic Fever, Ebola/epidemiology , Humans , Pandemics
Confl Health ; 16(1): 4, 2022 Feb 14.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1686020


BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has necessitated rapid development of preparedness and response plans to quell transmission and prevent illness across the world. Increasingly, there is an appreciation of the need to consider equity issues in the development and implementation of these plans, not least with respect to gender, given the demonstrated differences in the impacts both of the disease and of control measures on men, women, and non-binary individuals. Humanitarian crises, and particularly those resulting from conflict or violence, exacerbate pre-existing gender inequality and discrimination. To this end, there is a particularly urgent need to assess the extent to which COVID-19 response plans, as developed for conflict-affected states and forcibly displaced populations, are gender responsive. METHODS: Using a multi-step selection process, we identified and analyzed 30 plans from states affected by conflict and those hosting forcibly displaced refugees and utilized an adapted version of the World Health Organization's Gender Responsive Assessment Scale (WHO-GRAS) to determine whether existing COVID-19 response plans were gender-negative, gender-blind, gender-sensitive, or gender-transformative. RESULTS: We find that although few plans were gender-blind and none were gender-negative, no plans were gender-transformative. Most gender-sensitive plans only discuss issues specifically related to women (such as gender-based violence and reproductive health) rather than mainstream gender considerations throughout all sectors of policy planning. CONCLUSIONS: Despite overwhelming evidence about the importance of intentionally embedding gender considerations into the COVID-19 planning and response, none of the plans reviewed in this study were classified as 'gender transformative.' We use these results to make specific recommendations for how infectious disease control efforts, for COVID-19 and beyond, can better integrate gender considerations in humanitarian settings, and particularly those affected by violence or conflict.