How an outbreak became a pandemic: a chronological analysis of crucial junctures and international obligations in the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic.

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.

Health systems resilience in managing the COVID-19 pandemic: lessons from 28 countries.

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.

Measuring Knowledge of Community Health Workers at the Last Mile in Liberia: Feasibility and Results of Clinical Vignette Assessments.

INTRODUCTION: Community health workers (CHWs) can provide lifesaving treatment for children in remote areas, but high-quality care is essential for effective delivery. Measuring the quality of community-based care in remote areas is logistically challenging. Clinical vignettes have been validated in facility settings as a proxy for competency. We assessed feasibility and effectiveness of clinical vignettes to measure CHW knowledge of integrated community case management (iCCM) in Liberia's national CHW program. METHODS: We developed 3 vignettes to measure knowledge of iCCM illnesses (malaria, diarrhea, and pneumonia) in 4 main areas: assessment, diagnosis, treatment, and caregiver instructions. Trained nurse supervisors administered the vignettes to CHWs in 3 counties in rural Liberia as part of routine program supervision between January and May 2019, collected data on CHW knowledge using a standardized checklist tool, and provided feedback and coaching to CHWs in real time after vignette administration. Proportions of vignettes correctly managed, including illness classification, treatment, and referral where necessary, were calculated. We assessed feasibility, defined as the ability of clinical supervisors to administer the vignettes integrated into their routine activities once per year for each CHW, and effectiveness, defined as the ability of the vignettes to measure the primary outcomes of CHW knowledge of diagnosis and treatment including referrals. RESULTS: We were able to integrate this assessment into routine supervision, facilitate real-time coaching, and collect data on iCCM knowledge among 155 CHWs through delivery of 465 vignettes. Diagnosis including severity was correct in 65%-82% of vignettes. CHWs correctly identified danger signs in 44%-50% of vignettes, correctly proposed referral to the facility in 63% of vignettes including danger signs, and chose correct lifesaving treatment in 23%-65% of vignettes. Both diagnosis and lifesaving treatment rates were highest for malaria and lowest for severe pneumonia. CONCLUSION: Administration of vignettes to assess knowledge of correct iCCM case management was feasible and effective in producing results in this setting. Proportions of correct diagnosis and lifesaving treatment varied, with high proportions for uncomplicated disease, but lower for more severe cases, with accurate recognition of danger signs posing a challenge. Future work includes validation of vignettes for use with CHWs through direct observation, strengthening supportive supervision, and program interventions to address identified knowledge gaps.

A framework for identifying and learning from countries that demonstrated exemplary performance in improving health outcomes and systems.

This paper introduces a framework for conducting and disseminating mixed methods research on positive outlier countries that successfully improved their health outcomes and systems. We provide guidance on identifying exemplar countries, assembling multidisciplinary teams, collecting and synthesising pre-existing evidence, undertaking qualitative and quantitative analyses, and preparing dissemination products for various target audiences. Through a range of ongoing research studies, we illustrate application of each step of the framework while highlighting key considerations and lessons learnt. We hope uptake of this comprehensive framework by diverse stakeholders will increase the availability and utilisation of rigorous and comparable insights from global health success stories.

Prioritising the role of community health workers in the COVID-19 response.

COVID-19 disproportionately affects the poor and vulnerable. Community health workers are poised to play a pivotal role in fighting the pandemic, especially in countries with less resilient health systems. Drawing from practitioner expertise across four WHO regions, this article outlines the targeted actions needed at different stages of the pandemic to achieve the following goals: (1) PROTECT healthcare workers, (2) INTERRUPT the virus, (3) MAINTAIN existing healthcare services while surging their capacity, and (4) SHIELD the most vulnerable from socioeconomic shocks. While decisive action must be taken now to blunt the impact of the pandemic in countries likely to be hit the hardest, many of the investments in the supply chain, compensation, dedicated supervision, continuous training and performance management necessary for rapid community response in a pandemic are the same as those required to achieve universal healthcare and prevent the next epidemic.

A Community Health Worker Intervention to Increase Childhood Disease Treatment Coverage in Rural Liberia: A Controlled Before-and-After Evaluation.

OBJECTIVES: To assess a community health worker (CHW) program's impact on childhood illness treatment in rural Liberia. METHODS: We deployed CHWs in half of Rivercess County in August 2015 with the other half constituting a comparison group until July 2016. All CHWs were provided cash incentives, supply chain support, and monthly clinical supervision. We conducted stratified cluster-sample population-based surveys at baseline (March-April 2015) and follow-up (April-June 2016) and performed a difference-in-differences analysis, adjusted by inverse probability of treatment weighting, to assess changes in treatment of fever, diarrhea, and acute respiratory infection by a qualified provider. RESULTS: We estimated a childhood treatment difference-in-differences of 56.4 percentage points (95% confidence interval [CI] = 36.4, 76.3). At follow-up, CHWs provided 57.6% (95% CI = 42.8, 71.2) of treatment in the intervention group. The difference-in-differences diarrhea oral rehydration therapy was 22.4 percentage points (95% CI = -0.7, 45.5). CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of a CHW program in Rivercess County, Liberia, was associated with large, statistically significant improvements treatment by a qualified provider; however, improvements in correct diarrhea treatment were lower than improvements in coverage. Findings from this study offer support for expansion of Liberia's new National Community Health Assistant Program.

5-SPICE: the application of an original framework for community health worker program design, quality improvement and research agenda setting.

INTRODUCTION: Despite decades of experience with community health workers (CHWs) in a wide variety of global health projects, there is no established conceptual framework that structures how implementers and researchers can understand, study and improve their respective programs based on lessons learned by other CHW programs. OBJECTIVE: To apply an original, non-linear framework and case study method, 5-SPICE, to multiple sister projects of a large, international non-governmental organization (NGO), and other CHW projects. DESIGN: Engaging a large group of implementers, researchers and the best available literature, the 5-SPICE framework was refined and then applied to a selection of CHW programs. Insights gleaned from the case study method were summarized in a tabular format named the '5×5-SPICE charts'. This format graphically lists the ways in which essential CHW program elements interact, both positively and negatively, in the implementation field. RESULTS: The 5×5-SPICE charts reveal a variety of insights that come from a more complex understanding of how essential CHW projects interact and influence each other in their unique context. Some have been well described in the literature previously, while others are exclusive to this article. An analysis of how best to compensate CHWs is also offered as an example of the type of insights that this method may yield. CONCLUSIONS: The 5-SPICE framework is a novel instrument that can be used to guide discussions about CHW projects. Insights from this process can help guide quality improvement efforts, or be used as hypothesis that will form the basis of a program's research agenda. Recent experience with research protocols embedded into successfully implemented projects demonstrates how such hypothesis can be rigorously tested.