Interrogating the World Bank's role in global health knowledge production, governance, and finance.

BACKGROUND: In the nearly half century since it began lending for population projects, the World Bank has become one of the largest financiers of global health projects and programs, a powerful voice in shaping health agendas in global governance spaces, and a mass producer of evidentiary knowledge for its preferred global health interventions. How can social scientists interrogate the role of the World Bank in shaping 'global health' in the current era? MAIN BODY: As a group of historians, social scientists, and public health officials with experience studying the effects of the institution's investment in health, we identify three challenges to this research. First, a future research agenda requires recognizing that the Bank is not a monolith, but rather has distinct inter-organizational groups that have shaped investment and discourse in complicated, and sometimes contradictory, ways. Second, we must consider how its influence on health policy and investment has changed significantly over time. Third, we must analyze its modes of engagement with other institutions within the global health landscape, and with the private sector. The unique relationships between Bank entities and countries that shape health policy, and the Bank's position as a center of research, permit it to have a formative influence on health economics as applied to international development. Addressing these challenges, we propose a future research agenda for the Bank's influence on global health through three overlapping objects of and domains for study: knowledge-based (shaping health policy knowledge), governance-based (shaping health governance), and finance-based (shaping health financing). We provide a review of case studies in each of these categories to inform this research agenda. CONCLUSIONS: As the COVID-19 pandemic continues to rage, and as state and non-state actors work to build more inclusive and robust health systems around the world, it is more important than ever to consider how to best document and analyze the impacts of Bank's financial and technical investments in the Global South.

European Biomedical Research Infrastructures and the Fight against COVID-19 Pandemic.

The study aims to assess the role of EU biomedical research infrastructures in the fight against the COVID-19 pandemic and to analyze their response to the challenges associated with the spread of the new pathogen. Materials and Methods: We analyzed the materials of the Seventh Framework Program for Research and Technological Development (FP7, 2007-2013) of the EU and the Eighth Framework Program "Horizon 2020" (FP8, 2014-2020), official reports of the European Strategic Forum on Research Infrastructures, expert reports, as well as documents of the European Commission, the COVID-19 Data Portal, and other relevant sources of information. Results: The analysis revealed that the mechanisms created within the united European research community provided for a flexible response to the emerging threat of COVID-19 as soon as January-May 2020. In particular, information channels were established to timely analyze the research results and coordinate the efforts in the fight against COVID-19. The biomedical infrastructures created in the EU and proved successful earlier have now been mobilized to search for ways of preventing and treating COVID-19. These mechanisms facilitated communication and data exchange between various research institutions and thus laid the ground for new achievements in this area. Conclusion: The decisions taken to combat the COVID-19 pandemic have convincingly illustrated that the EU research infrastructures, integrated into a united ecosystem, are highly adaptable and flexible, which allows to realign priorities in a short time and to create instruments that enable scientists to respond to new challenges.

Teamwork at the Bench: Strategies for Collaborative Surgical Science in a Pandemic.

The Center for Basic and Translational Science was formed to address the unique challenges faced by surgeon-scientists. Shortly after its inception, COVID-19 upended research workflows at our institution. We discuss how the collaborative Center for Basic and Translational Science framework was adapted to support laboratories during the pandemic by assisting with ramp-down, promoting mentorship and community building, and maintaining research productivity.

Open Development and Clinical Validation of Multiple 3D-Printed Nasopharyngeal Collection Swabs: Rapid Resolution of a Critical COVID-19 Testing Bottleneck.

The pandemic caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has caused a severe international shortage of the nasopharyngeal swabs that are required for collection of optimal specimens, creating a critical bottleneck blocking clinical laboratories' ability to perform high-sensitivity virological testing for SARS-CoV-2. To address this crisis, we designed and executed an innovative, cooperative, rapid-response translational-research program that brought together health care workers, manufacturers, and scientists to emergently develop and clinically validate new swabs for immediate mass production by 3D printing. We performed a multistep preclinical evaluation of 160 swab designs and 48 materials from 24 companies, laboratories, and individuals, and we shared results and other feedback via a public data repository (http://github.com/rarnaout/Covidswab/). We validated four prototypes through an institutional review board (IRB)-approved clinical trial that involved 276 outpatient volunteers who presented to our hospital's drive-through testing center with symptoms suspicious for COVID-19. Each participant was swabbed with a reference swab (the control) and a prototype, and SARS-CoV-2 reverse transcriptase PCR (RT-PCR) results were compared. All prototypes displayed excellent concordance with the control (κ = 0.85 to 0.89). Cycle threshold (CT ) values were not significantly different between each prototype and the control, supporting the new swabs' noninferiority (Mann-Whitney U [MWU] test, P > 0.05). Study staff preferred one of the prototypes over the others and preferred the control swab overall. The total time elapsed between identification of the problem and validation of the first prototype was 22 days. Contact information for ordering can be found at http://printedswabs.org Our experience holds lessons for the rapid development, validation, and deployment of new technology for this pandemic and beyond.

Conducting Translational Gastrointestinal Research in the Era of COVID-19.

Spread of the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 has resulted in a global pandemic that is affecting the health and economy of all World Health Organization [WHO] regions. Clinical and translational research activities have been affected drastically by this global catastrophe. In this document we provide a suggested roadmap for resuming gastrointestinal translational research activities, emphasising physical distancing and use of personal protective equipment. We discuss modes of virus transmission in enclosed environments [including clinical workplaces and laboratories] and potential risks of exposure in the endoscopy environment for research staff. The proposed guidelines should be considered in conjunction with local institutional and government guidelines so that translational research can be resumed as safely as possible.

How to strengthen a health research system: WHO's review, whose literature and who is providing leadership?

BACKGROUND: Health research is important for the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals. However, there are many challenges facing health research, including securing sufficient funds, building capacity, producing research findings and using both local and global evidence, and avoiding waste. A WHO initiative addressed these challenges by developing a conceptual framework with four functions to guide the development of national health research systems. Despite some progress, more is needed before health research systems can meet their full potential of improving health systems. The WHO Regional Office for Europe commissioned an evidence synthesis of the systems-level literature. This Opinion piece considers its findings before reflecting on the vast additional literature available on the range of specific health research system functions related to the various challenges. Finally, it considers who should lead research system strengthening. MAIN TEXT: The evidence synthesis identifies two main approaches for strengthening national health research systems, namely implementing comprehensive and coherent strategies and participation in partnerships. The literature describing these approaches at the systems level also provides data on ways to strengthen each of the four functions of governance, securing financing, capacity-building, and production and use of research. Countries effectively implementing strategies include England, Ireland and Rwanda, whereas West Africa experienced effective partnerships. Recommended policy approaches for system strengthening are context specific. The vast literature on each function and the ever-growing evidence-base are illustrated by considering papers in just one key journal, Health Research Policy and Systems, and analysing the contribution of two national studies. A review of the functions of the Iranian system identifies over 200 relevant and mostly national records; an analysis of the creation of the English National Institute for Health Research describes the key leadership role played by the health department. Furthermore, WHO is playing leadership roles in helping coordinate partnerships within and across health research systems that have been attempting to tackle the COVID-19 crisis. CONCLUSIONS: The evidence synthesis provides a firm basis for decision-making by policy-makers and research leaders looking to strengthen national health research systems within their own national context. It identifies five crucial policy approaches - conducting situation analysis, sustaining a comprehensive strategy, engaging stakeholders, evaluating impacts on health systems, and partnership participation. The vast and ever-growing additional literature could provide further perspectives, including on crucial leadership roles for health ministries.