Challenges and opportunities for health policy and systems research funding in the Western Pacific region.

Objectives and importance of study: This study examines how health policy and systems research (HPSR) is funded in eight countries and areas in the World Health Organization Western Pacific Region (WPRO). The aim of the research is to provide a guide for HPSR practitioners and organisations to understand the landscape of research funding priorities across the WPRO and to inform demand generation and advocacy activities for HPSR funding and output. STUDY TYPE: Mixed methods. METHODS: A desk review was conducted relating to HPSR funding, followed by in-depth interviews. Eight countries and areas were selected to represent characteristics of different health systems. Literature reviews included an analysis of available data relating to HPSR funding and national research and development (R&D) budgets, between 2010 and 2019 (inclusive). In-depth interviews were conducted with 23 stakeholders using an approved interview guide, to assess the attitudes of HPSR funding decision makers towards HPSR, determinants for HPSR and health research funding decisions, and proposals to strengthen HPSR funding and output. RESULTS: There are four main characteristics of HPSR funding in the WPRO: 1) a general absence of studies on HPSR funding and its determinants; 2) no universally accepted understanding of HPSR; 3) an absence of granular health research funding data in general and for HPSR in particular; and 4) HPSR funding is generally perceived to be minimal. In-depth interviews show that HPSR has different interpretations and emphases across WPRO countries, leading to a fragmented landscape where decision makers generally favour biomedical or clinical research. Participants indicate that political involvement increases overall research funding, especially if there is a clear connection between funders, producers and HPSR users. Suggestions from participants to strengthen HPSR include: appropriately using central agencies to generate demand and raise HPSR as a national priority; adopting interdisciplinary HPSR; and building HPSR capacity and organisational structures. CONCLUSIONS: HPSR in the Western Pacific region is generally not well funded, with biomedical and public health research often perceived as a higher priority. Although funding is a crucial component of the quality, quantity and relevance of HPSR outputs, HPSR practitioners and organisations must also generate demand for HPSR, build capacity for increasing the quantity and quality of HPSR outputs, and build pathways to translate HPSR outputs into real-world policies.

Accelerating action on cervical screening in lower- and middle-income countries (LMICs) post COVID-19 era.

Cervical cancer remains the fourth most common cancer in women, with 85% of deaths occurring in LMICs. Despite the existence of effective vaccine and screening tools, efforts to reduce the burden of cervical cancer must be considered in the context of the social structures within the health systems of LMICs. Compounding this existing challenge is the global COVID-19 pandemic, declared in March 2020. While it is too soon to tell how health systems priorities will change as a result of COVID-19 and its impact on the cervical cancer elimination agenda, there are opportunities to strengthen cervical screening by leveraging on several trends. Many LMICs maximized the strengths of their long established community-based primary care and public health systems with expansion of surveillance systems which incorporated mobile technologies. LMICs can harness the momentum of the measures taken against COVID-19 to consolidate the efforts against cervical cancer. Self-sampling, molecular human papillomavirus (HPV) testing and digital health will shift health systems towards stronger public health and primary care networks and away from expensive hospital-based care investments. While COVID-19 will change health systems priorities in LMICs in ways that may de-prioritize cervical cancer screening, there are significant opportunities for integration into longer-term trends towards universal health coverage, self-care and digital health.

How should front-line general practitioners use personal protective equipment (PPE)?

@#The COVID-19 outbreak continues to evolve with the number of cases increasing in Malaysia, placing a significant burden on general practitioners (GPs) to assess and manage suspected cases. GPs must be well equipped with knowledge to set up their clinics, use Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) appropriately, adopt standard protocols on triaging and referrals, as well as educate patients about PPE. The correct use of PPE will help GPs balance between personal safety and appropriate levels of public concern.