Incorporating resilience when assessing pandemic risk in the Arctic: a case study of Alaska.

The discourse on vulnerability to COVID-19 or any other pandemic is about the susceptibility to the effects of disease outbreaks. Over time, vulnerability has been assessed through various indices calculated using a confluence of societal factors. However, categorising Arctic communities, without considering their socioeconomic, cultural and demographic uniqueness, into the high and low continuum of vulnerability using universal indicators will undoubtedly result in the underestimation of the communities' capacity to withstand and recover from pandemic exposure. By recognising vulnerability and resilience as two separate but interrelated dimensions, this study reviews the Arctic communities' ability to cope with pandemic risks. In particular, we have developed a pandemic vulnerability-resilience framework for Alaska to examine the potential community-level risks of COVID-19 or future pandemics. Based on the combined assessment of the vulnerability and resilience indices, we found that not all highly vulnerable census areas and boroughs had experienced COVID-19 epidemiological outcomes with similar severity. The more resilient a census area or borough is, the lower the cumulative death per 100 000 and case fatality ratio in that area. The insight that pandemic risks are the result of the interaction between vulnerability and resilience could help public officials and concerned parties to accurately identify the populations and communities at most risk or with the greatest need, which, in turn, helps in the efficient allocation of resources and services before, during and after a pandemic. A resilience-vulnerability-focused approach described in this paper can be applied to assess the potential effect of COVID-19 and similar future health crises in remote regions or regions with large Indigenous populations in other parts of the world.

The Individual Water Insecurity Experiences (IWISE) Scale: reliability, equivalence and validity of an individual-level measure of water security.

OBJECTIVE: The lack of a validated and cross-culturally equivalent scale for measuring individual-level water insecurity has prevented identification of those most vulnerable to it. Therefore, we developed the 12-item Individual Water InSecurity Experiences (IWISE) Scale to comparably measure individual experiences with access, use, and stability (reliability) of water. Here, we examine the reliability, cross-country equivalence, and cross-country and within-country validity of the scale in a cross-sectional sample. METHODS: IWISE items were implemented by the Gallup World Poll among nationally representative samples of 43 970 adults (>15 y) in 31 low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). Internal consistency was assessed with Cronbach's alpha. Equivalence was tested using multigroup confirmatory factor analysis (MGCFA), the alignment method, and item response theory. Cross-country validity was assessed by regressing mean national IWISE scores on measures of economic, social, and water infrastructure development. Within-country validity was tested with logistic regression models of dissatisfaction with local water quality by IWISE score and regressing individual IWISE scores on per capita household income and difficulty getting by on current income. FINDINGS: Internal consistency was high; Cronbach's alpha was ≥0.89 in all countries. Goodness-of-fit statistics from MGCFA, the proportion of equivalent item thresholds and loadings in the alignment models, and Rasch output indicated equivalence across countries. Validity across countries was also established; country mean IWISE scores were negatively associated with gross domestic product and percentage of the population with access to basic water services, but positively associated with fertility rate. Validity within countries was also demonstrated; individuals' IWISE scores were positively associated with greater odds of dissatisfaction with water quality and negatively associated with lower financial standing. CONCLUSIONS: The IWISE Scale provides an equivalent measure of individual experiences with water access and use across LMICs. It will be useful for establishing and tracking changes in the prevalence of water insecurity and identifying groups who have been 'left behind'.

Bridging the gap: aligning economic research with disease burden.

INTRODUCTION: Cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) is critical for identifying high-value interventions that address significant unmet need. This study examines whether CEA study volume is proportionate to the burden associated with 21 major disease categories. METHODS: We searched the Tufts Medical Center CEA and Global Health CEA Registries for studies published between 2010 and 2019 that measured cost per quality-adjusted life-year or cost per disability-adjusted life-year (DALY). Stratified by geographical region and country income level, the relationship between literature volume and disease burden (as measured by 2019 Global Burden of Disease estimates of population DALYs) was analysed using ordinary least squares linear regression. Additionally, the number of CEAs per intervention deemed 'essential' for universal health coverage by the Disease Control Priorities Network was assessed to evaluate how many interventions are supported by cost-effectiveness evidence. RESULTS: The results located below the regression line but with relatively high burden suggested disease areas that were 'understudied' compared with expected study volume. Understudied disease areas varied by region. Higher-income and upper-middle-income country (HUMIC) CEA volume for non-communicable diseases (eg, mental/behavioural disorders) was 100-fold higher than that in low-income and lower-middle-income countries (LLMICs). LLMIC study volume remained concentrated in HIV/AIDS as well as other communicable and neglected tropical diseases. Across 60 essential interventions, only 33 had any supporting CEA evidence, and only 21 had a decision context involving a low-income or middle-income country. With the exception of one intervention, available CEA evidence revealed the 21 interventions to be cost-effective, with base-case findings less than three times the GDP per capita. CONCLUSION: Our analysis highlights disease areas that require significant policy attention. Research gaps for highly prevalent, lethal or disabling diseases, as well as essential interventions may be stifling potential efficiency gains. Large research disparities between HUMICs and LLMICs suggest funding opportunities for improving allocative efficiency in LLMIC health systems.

A vulnerability index for COVID-19: spatial analysis at the subnational level in Kenya.

BACKGROUND: Response to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic calls for precision public health reflecting our improved understanding of who is the most vulnerable and their geographical location. We created three vulnerability indices to identify areas and people who require greater support while elucidating health inequities to inform emergency response in Kenya. METHODS: Geospatial indicators were assembled to create three vulnerability indices; Social VulnerabilityIndex (SVI), Epidemiological Vulnerability Index (EVI) and a composite of the two, that is, Social Epidemiological Vulnerability Index (SEVI) resolved at 295 subcounties in Kenya. SVI included 19 indicators that affect the spread of disease; socioeconomic deprivation, access to services and population dynamics, whereas EVI comprised 5 indicators describing comorbidities associated with COVID-19 severe disease progression. The indicators were scaled to a common measurement scale, spatially overlaid via arithmetic mean and equally weighted. The indices were classified into seven classes, 1-2 denoted low vulnerability and 6-7, high vulnerability. The population within vulnerabilities classes was quantified. RESULTS: The spatial variation of each index was heterogeneous across Kenya. Forty-nine northwestern and partly eastern subcounties (6.9 million people) were highly vulnerable, whereas 58 subcounties (9.7 million people) in western and central Kenya were the least vulnerable for SVI. For EVI, 48 subcounties (7.2 million people) in central and the adjacent areas and 81 subcounties (13.2 million people) in northern Kenya were the most and least vulnerable, respectively. Overall (SEVI), 46 subcounties (7.0 million people) around central and southeastern were more vulnerable, whereas 81 subcounties (14.4 million people) were least vulnerable. CONCLUSION: The vulnerability indices created are tools relevant to the county, national government and stakeholders for prioritisation and improved planning. The heterogeneous nature of the vulnerability indices underpins the need for targeted and prioritised actions based on the needs across the subcounties.

Population health, economics and ethics in the age of COVID-19.

Are the steps that have been taken to arrest the spread of COVID-19 justifiable? Specifically, are they likely to have improved public health understood according to widely used aggregate population health measures, such as Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALYs) and Disability Adjusted Life Years (DALYs) as much or more than alternatives? This is a reasonable question, since such measures have been promoted extensively in global and national health policy by influential actors, and they have become almost synonymous with quantification of public health. If the steps taken against COVID-19 did not meet this test, then either the measures or the policies must be re-evaluated. There are indications that policies against COVID-19 may have been unbalanced and therefore not optimal. A balanced approach to protecting population health should be proportionate in its effects across distinct health concerns at a moment, across populations over time and across populations over space. These criteria provide a guide to designing and implementing policies that diminish harm from COVID-19 while also providing due attention to other threats to aggregate population health. They should shape future policies in response to this pandemic and others.