Asbestos exposure and asbestosis mortality in Italian cement-asbestos cohorts: Dose-response relationship and the role of competing death causes.

OBJECTIVES: In Italy, asbestos was used intensively until its ban in 1992, which was extended for asbestos cement factories until 1994. The aim of this study was to evaluate the dose-response between asbestos exposure and asbestosis mortality across a pool of Italian occupational cohorts, taking into account the presence of competing risks. METHODS: Cohorts were followed for vital status and the cause of death was ascertained by a linkage with mortality registers. Cause-specific (CS) Cox-regression models were used to evaluate the dose-exposure relationship between asbestosis mortality and the time-dependent cumulative exposure index (CEI) to asbestos. Fine and Gray regression models were computed to assess the effect of competing risks of death. RESULTS: The cohort included 12,963 asbestos cement workers. During the follow-up period (1960-2012), of a total of 6961 deaths, we observed 416 deaths attributed to asbestosis, 879 to lung cancer, 400 to primary pleural cancer, 135 to peritoneal cancer, and 1825 to diseases of the circulatory system. The CS model showed a strong association between CEI and asbestosis mortality. Dose-response models estimated an increasing trend in mortality even below a CEI of 25 ff/mL-years. Lung cancer and circulatory diseases were the main competing causes of death. CONCLUSIONS: Asbestos exposure among Italian asbestos-cement workers has led to a very high number of deaths from asbestosis and asbestos-related diseases. The increasing risk trend associated with excess deaths, even at low exposure levels, suggests that the proposed limit values would not have been adequate to prevent disability and mortality from asbestosis.

Pandemic treaty as an instrument to strengthen global health security: Global health diplomacy at its crux.

Background: The World Health Assembly (WHA), on 1st December 2021, unanimously agreed to launch a global process to draft and negotiate a convention, agreement, or other international instrument under the World Health Organization's (WHO's) constitution to strengthen pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response. We aimed to explore the role of global health diplomacy (GHD) in pandemic treaty negotiations by providing deep insight into the ongoing drafting process under the WHO leadership. Methods: We conducted a narrative review by searching Scopus, Web of Sciences, PubMed, MEDLINE, and Google Scholar search engine using the keywords "Pandemic Treaty," OR "International Health Regulations," OR "International conventions," OR "International treaties" in the context of recent COVID-19 pandemic. Besides, we included articles recommending the need for GHD, leadership and governance mechanisms for this international treaty drafting approved by the WHA. Results: Amid the COVID-19 pandemic, the concept of GHD bolstered the international system and remained high on the agendas of many national, regional and global platforms. As per Article 19 of the WHO constitution, the Assembly established an intergovernmental negotiating body (INB) to draft and negotiate this convention/ agreement to protect the world from disease outbreaks of pandemic potential. Since GHD has helped to strengthen international cooperation in health systems and address inequities in achieving health-related global targets, there is a great scope for the successful drafting of this pandemic treaty. Conclusion: The pandemic treaty is a defining moment in global health governance, particularly the pandemic governance reforms. However, the treaty's purpose will only be served if the equity considerations are optimized, accountability mechanisms are established, and a sense of shared responsibility is embraced. While fulfilling treaty commitments might be complex and challenging, it provides an opportunity to rethink and build resilient systems for pandemic preparedness and response in the future.

A closer look at the international health regulations capacities in Lebanon: a mixed method study.

BACKGROUND: Lebanon ratified the International Health Regulations (IHR) (2005) in 2007, and since then, it has been facing complex political deadlocks, financial deterioration, and infectious disease emergencies. We aimed to understand the IHR capacities' scores of Lebanon in comparison to other countries, the IHR milestones and activities in Lebanon, the challenges of maintaining the IHR capacities, the refugee crisis's impact on the development of these capacities; and the possible recommendations to support the IHR performance in Lebanon. METHODS: We used a mixed-method design. The study combined the use of secondary data analysis of the 2020 State Party Self-Assessment Annual Report (SPAR) submissions and qualitative design using semi-structured interviews with key informants. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with nine key informants. The analysis of the data generated was based on inductive thematic analysis. RESULTS: According to SPAR, Lebanon had levels of 4 out of 5 (≤ 80%) in 2020 in the prevention, detection, response, enabling functions, and operational readiness capacities, pertaining that the country was functionally capable of dealing with various events at the national and subnational levels. Lebanon scored more than its neighboring countries, Syria, and Jordan, which have similar contexts of economic crises, emergencies, and refugee waves. Despite this high level of commitment to meeting IHR capacities, the qualitative findings demonstrated several gaps in IHR performance as resource shortage, governance, and political challenges. The study also showed contradictory results regarding the impact of refugees on IHR capacities. Some key informants agreed that the Syrian crisis had a positive impact, while others suggested the opposite. Whether refugees interfere with IHR development is still an area that needs further investigation. CONCLUSION: The study shows that urgent interventions are needed to strengthen the implementation of the IHR capacities in Lebanon. The study recommends 1) reconsidering the weight given to IHR capacities; 2) promoting governance to strengthen IHR compliance; 3) strengthening the multisectoral coordination mechanisms; 4) reinforcing risk communication strategies constantly; 5) mobilizing and advancing human resources at the central and sub-national levels; 6) ensuring sustainable financing; 7) integrating refugees and displaced persons in IHR framework and its assessment tools; 8) acknowledging risk mapping as a pre-requisite to a successful response; and 9) strengthening research on IHR capacities in Lebanon.

Improving global health security through implementation of the National Action Plan for Health Security in Sierra Leone, 2018-2021: lessons from the field.

BACKGROUND: All countries are required to implement International Health Regulations (IHR) through development and implementation of multi-year National Action Plans for Health Security (NAPHS). IHR implementation requires annual operational planning which involves several tools such as NAPHS, State Party Annual Report (SPAR), Joint External Evaluation (JEE) and WHO IHR Benchmarks tool. Sierra Leone has successfully improved IHR capacities across the years through successful annual operational planning using the above tools. We conducted a study to document and share the country's unique approach to implementation of NAPHS. METHODS: This was an observational study where the process of implementing and monitoring NAPHS in Sierra Leone was observed at the national level from 2018 to 2021. Data was obtained through review and analysis of NAPHS annual operational plans, quarterly review reports and annual IHR assessment reports. Available data was supplemented by information from key informants. Qualitative data was captured as notes and analysed for various themes while quantitative data was analyzed mainly for means and proportions. RESULTS: The overall national IHR Joint External Evaluation self-assessment score for human health improved from 44% in 2018 to 51% in 2019 and 57% in 2020. The score for the animal sector improved from 32% in 2018 to 43% in 2019 and 52% in 2020. A new JEE tool with new indicators was used in 2021 and the score for both human and animal sectors declined slightly to 51%. Key enablers of success included strong political commitment, whole-of-government approach, annual assessments using JEE tool, annual operational planning using WHO IHR Benchmarks tool and real time online monitoring of progress. Key challenges included disruption created by COVID-19 response, poor health infrastructure, low funding and inadequate health workforce. CONCLUSION: IHR annual operational planning and implementation using evidence-based data and tools can facilitate strengthening of IHR capacity and should be encouraged.

Assessment of the Implementation of the International Health Regulations during the COVID-19 Pandemic: Portugal as a Case Study.

INTRODUCTION: The International Health Regulations (IHR) were developed to prepare countries to deal with public health emergencies. The spread of SARS-CoV-2 underlined the need for international coordination, although few attempts were made to evaluate the integrated implementation of the IHR's core capacities in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether IHR shortcomings stem from non-compliance or regulatory issues, using Portugal as a European case study due to its size, organization, and previous discrepancies between self-reporting and peer assessment of the IHR's core capacities. METHODS: Fifteen public health medical residents involved in contact tracing in mainland Portugal interpreted the effectiveness of the IHR's core capabilities by reviewing the publicly available evidence and reflecting on their own field experience, then grading each core capability according to the IHR Monitoring Framework. The assessment of IHR enforcement considered efforts made before and after the onset of the pandemic, covering the period up to July 2021. RESULTS: Four out of nine core IHR capacities (surveillance; response; risk communication; and human resource capacity) were classified as level 1, the lowest. Only two were graded level 3 (preparedness; and laboratory), the highest. The remaining three) (national legislation, policy & financing; coordination and national focal point communication; and points of entry) were classified as level 2. CONCLUSION: Portugal exemplifies the extent to which implementation of the IHR was not fully achieved, which has resulted in the underperformance of several core capacities. There is a need to improve preparedness and international cooperation in order to harmonize and strengthen the global response to public health emergencies, with better political, institutional, and financial support.

Contribution of the one health approach to strengthening health security in Uganda: a case study.

BACKGROUND: The One Health approach is key in implementing International Health Regulations (IHR, 2005) and the Global Health Security Agenda (GHSA). Uganda is signatory to the IHR 2005 and in 2017, the country conducted a Joint External Evaluation (JEE) that guided development of the National Action Plan for Health Security (NAPHS) 2019-2023. AIM: This study assessed the contribution of the One Health approach to strengthening health security in Uganda. METHODS: A process evaluation between 25th September and 5th October 2020, using a mixed-methods case study. Participants were Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) from government ministries, departments, agencies and implementing partners. Focus group discussions were conducted for five technical areas (workforce development, real-time surveillance, zoonotic diseases, national laboratory systems and emergency response operations), spanning 18 indicators and 96 activities. Funding and implementation status from the NAPHS launch in August 2019 to October 2020 was assessed with a One Health lens. RESULTS: Full funding was available for 36.5% of activities while 40.6% were partially funded and 22.9% were not funded at all. Majority (65%) of the activities were still in progress, whereas 8.6% were fully implemented and14.2% were not yet done. In workforce development, several multisectoral trainings were conducted including the frontline public health fellowship program, the One Health fellowship and residency program, advanced field epidemiology training program, in-service veterinary trainings and 21 district One Health teams' trainings. Real Time Surveillance was achieved through incorporating animal health events reporting in the electronic integrated disease surveillance and response platform. The national and ten regional veterinary laboratories were assessed for capacity to conduct zoonotic disease diagnostics, two of which were integrated into the national specimen referral and transportation network. Multisectoral planning for emergency response and the actual response to prioritized zoonotic disease outbreaks was done jointly. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates the contribution of 'One Health' implementation in strengthening Uganda's health security. Investment in the funding gaps will reinforce Uganda's health security to achieve the IHR 2005. Future studies could examine the impacts and cost-effectiveness of One Health in curbing prioritized zoonotic disease outbreaks.

What is the appropriate antimicrobial use surveillance tool at the health facility level for Uganda and other low- and middle-income countries?

BACKGROUND: An appropriate antimicrobial use (AMU) surveillance system provides critical data and evidence on which antimicrobial stewardship interventions are based. However, Uganda and most other low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) lack efficient systems for monitoring AMU due to unique health system challenges. METHODS: We reviewed the key tools available for AMU surveillance in health facilities. Based on our implementation experience, we present arguments on the need for country authorities to adapt a customized and standardized tool for national uses. RESULTS: Despite ongoing efforts to set up AMU surveillance programs in Uganda, AMU data remain sparse, with most of the available data collected through antimicrobial stewardship related continuous quality improvement efforts implemented by global AMR control programs. There is variability in the interpretation of available AMU surveillance tools and a need to identify the most appropriate AMU surveillance methodologies and tools for Uganda and other LMICs. Data fields for sex and gender are incorrectly categorized and there is no tool that records pregnancy variable. Based on the past four years of practical implementation experience since the launch of the World Health Organization's Point Prevalence Survey methodology in 2018 for inpatient settings, we believe that the tool should be modified in cognizance of existing capacity and priorities in resource-constrained settings. CONCLUSIONS: The World Health Organization, regional experts, ministry of health authorities, and other stakeholders should urgently review available tools with a view to adopting a customized and standardized facility AMU surveillance methodology suitable for national-level rollout in LMICs.

[COVID-19 in Latin America: inequalities and response capacity of health systems to health emergenciesCOVID-19 en América Latina: desigualdades y capacidad de respuesta de los sistemas de salud ante emergencias de salud]. / Covid-19 na América Latina: desigualdades e capacidades de resposta dos sistemas de saúde a emergências sanitárias.

Objective: To identify correlations between COVID-19, demographic and socioeconomic characteristics, and the capacity of Latin American health systems to respond to health emergencies. Method: An ecological study was performed using secondary data from 20 Latin American countries regarding incidence, mortality, testing and vaccination coverage for covid-19 from 2020 to 2021 as well as demographic and socioeconomic indicators. The preparedness of countries to respond to health emergencies was explored based on the 2019 State Party Self-Assessment Annual Report on the implementation of the International Health Regulations (IHR). Statistical analyses were performed using the Spearman correlation test (rho). Results: A high positive correlation was noted between gross domestic product per capita and the human development index with the incidence of COVID-19, testing, and vaccination coverage; and between the proportion of elderly population and vaccination coverage. No correlations were identified between the covid-19 indicators and previous IHR implementation capacities. Conclusions: The lack of correlation between indicators related to COVID-19 and the ability to implement the IHR may reflect limitations of the indicators used or of the IHR monitoring tool as an instrument that induces the preparedness of countries to face health emergencies. The results suggest the importance of structural conditioning factors and the need for longitudinal, comparative, and qualitative studies to understand the factors that influenced the response of countries to COVID-19.

Objetivo: Determinar las posibles correlaciones entre la COVID-19, las características demográficas y socioeconómicas, y la capacidad de los sistemas de salud latinoamericanos para responder a emergencias de salud. Método: Se realizó un estudio ecológico con datos secundarios de 20 países latinoamericanos sobre la incidencia, la mortalidad, las pruebas y la cobertura de vacunación relativas a la COVID-19 en el período 2020-2021, y con información demográfica y socioeconómica. Se exploró la preparación de los países para responder a emergencias de salud a partir del Informe Anual de Autoevaluación de los Estados Miembros de la Organización Mundial de la Salud del 2019 sobre la implementación del Reglamento Sanitario Internacional (RSI). Los análisis estadísticos se realizaron con la prueba de correlación (ro) de Spearman. Resultados: Se observó una alta correlación positiva del producto interno bruto per cápita y del índice de desarrollo humano con la incidencia, las pruebas y la cobertura de vacunación respecto a la COVID-19, así como de la proporción de personas mayores en la población con la cobertura de vacunación. No se observó ninguna correlación entre los indicadores de COVID-19 y la capacidad previa de implementación del RSI. Conclusiones: La falta de correlación entre los indicadores relativos a la COVID-19 y la capacidad de implementación del RSI puede deberse a limitaciones de los indicadores utilizados o del mecanismo de seguimiento del RSI como instrumento inductor de la preparación de los países para enfrentar emergencias de salud. Los resultados sugieren la importancia de los factores condicionantes estructurales y la necesidad de realizar estudios longitudinales, comparativos y cualitativos para determinar los factores que influyeron en la respuesta de los países a la COVID-19.

Points of entry dynamics: understanding the cross-border threats for Ebola virus disease and COVID-19 in Ghana using a logic model approach.

Background: The influx of people across the national borders of Ghana has been of interest and concern in the public health and national security community in recent times due to the low capacity for the prevention and management of epidemics and other public health risks. Although the international health regulations (IHR) stipulate core public health capacities for designated border facilities such as international airports, seaports, and ground crossings, contextual factors that influence the attainment of effective public health measures and response capabilities remain understudied. Objective: This study aims to assess the relationship between contextual factors and COVID-19 procurement to help strengthen infrastructure resources for points of entry (PoE) public health surveillance functions, thereby eliminating gaps in the design, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation of pandemic-related interventions in Ghana. Methods: This study employed a mixed-methods design, where quantitative variables were examined for relationships and effect size interactions using multiple linear regression techniques and the wild bootstrap technique. Country-level data was sourced from multiple publicly available sources using the social-ecological framework, logic model, and IHR capacity monitoring framework. The qualitative portion included triangulation with an expert panel to determine areas of convergence and divergence. Results: The most general findings were that laboratory capacity and Kotoka International Airport testing center positively predicted COVID-19 procurement, and public health response and airline boarding rule negatively predicted COVID-19 procurement. Conclusion: Contextual understanding of the COVID-19 pandemic and Ebola epidemic is vital for strengthening PoE mitigation measures and preventing disease importation.

COVID-19 pandemic response in the Meuse-Rhine Euroregion: methods, participation and recommendations of a longitudinal cross-border study.

BACKGROUND: Comparative data collection in transborder areas can contribute to informed decision making processes when dealing with borderless health threats such as pandemics, and thus help minimize the negative health effects for its citizens. To examine the pandemic response over time and the impact of infectious disease control in a cross-border setting, a prospective longitudinal study was conducted in the border area between Germany, Belgium and the Netherlands. In the spring of 2021, a random sample of 26,925 adult citizens selected from governmental registries was invited to collect a blood sample at home for SARS-CoV-2 antibody testing and to fill in an online questionnaire on attitudes and behaviour towards infection prevention measures, cross-border mobility, social network and support, COVID-19 self-reported infection(s) and symptoms, vaccination, general self-reported health and socio-demographics. In autumn 2021, participants were invited for a follow-up round. An online tool was developed to coordinate fieldwork procedures, real-time monitoring of participation and consultation of antibody test results. Furthermore, a helpdesk in all three languages for participants' support was set up. RESULTS: In the first round, 6,006 citizens in the Meuse-Rhine Euroregion participated. 15.3% of the invited citizens on the Belgian side of the border participated. In the Netherlands and Germany this was respectively 27% and 23.7%. In the follow-up round 4,286 (71.4%) citizens participated for the second time. The participation rate was highest in the age group 50-69 years and lowest in > 80 in all sub regions of the Meuse-Rhine Euroregion. More women participated than men. Overall, more blood samples were returned than completed questionnaires. In total, 3,344 citizens in the Meuse-Rhine Euroregion completed all components of participation in both rounds. CONCLUSIONS: The collection of comparative data can help better assess the pandemic response and the impact of infectious disease control in a cross-border area. Recommendations for a longitudinal cross-border study include a centralized online environment, mapping out potential challenges related to national regulations in the preparation phase and organizing regional coordination centres to create more familiarity and trust towards the involved organisations.

Moving from assessments to implementation: promising practices for strengthening multisectoral antimicrobial resistance containment capacity.

BACKGROUND: Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) poses a global threat to human, animal, and environmental health. AMR is a technical area in the Global Health Security Agenda initiative which uses the Joint External Evaluation tool to evaluate national AMR containment capacity. This paper describes four promising practices for strengthening national antimicrobial resistance containment capacity based on the experiences of the US Agency for International Development's Medicines, Technologies, and Pharmaceutical Services Program work with 13 countries to implement their national action plans on AMR in the areas of multisectoral coordination, infection prevention and control, and antimicrobial stewardship. METHODS: We use the World Health Organization (WHO) Benchmarks on International Health Regulations Capacities (2019) to guide national, subnational, and facility actions that advance Joint External Evaluation capacity levels from 1 (no capacity) to 5 (sustainable capacity). Our technical approach is based on scoping visits, baseline Joint External Evaluation scores, benchmarks tool guidance, and country resources and priorities. RESULTS: We gleaned four promising practices to achieve AMR containment objectives: (1) implement appropriate actions using the WHO benchmarks tool, which prioritizes actions, making it easier for countries to incrementally increase their Joint External Evaluation capacity from level 1 to 5; (2) integrate AMR into national and global agendas. Ongoing agendas and programs at international, regional, and national levels provide opportunities to mainstream and interlink AMR containment efforts; (3) improve governance through multisectoral coordination on AMR. Strengthening multisectoral bodies' and their technical working groups' governance improved functioning, which led to better engagement with animal/agricultural sectors and a more coordinated COVID-19 pandemic response; and (4) mobilize and diversify funding for AMR containment. Long-term funding from diversified funding streams is vital for advancing and sustaining countries' Joint External Evaluation capacities. CONCLUSIONS: The Global Health Security Agenda work has provided practical support to countries to frame and conduct AMR containment actions in terms of pandemic preparedness and health security. The WHO benchmarks tool that Global Health Security Agenda uses serves as a standardized organizing framework to prioritize capacity-appropriate AMR containment actions and transfer skills to help operationalize national action plans on AMR.

COVID-19 in the Americas: the role of collaborating centers in understanding lessons and best practices in pandemic preparedness and response.

COVID-19 exposed major gaps in global, regional, state, and local responses to public health emergencies. In preparation for the WHA Special Session to consider the benefits of developing an international instrument on pandemic preparedness, the O'Neill Institute in partnership with Foundation for the National Institutes of Health convened 30 of the world's leading authorities on global health law, financing, biomedical science, implementation, and emergency response along with leaders from prominent international organizations. This meeting was followed by regional consultations convened in Latin America-Caribbean, Africa, and Southeast Asia. These high-level expert consultations generated in-depth discussions on weaknesses and persisting gaps in global pandemic preparedness and what a new international agreement might include to address them. Regional intergovernmental organizations like PAHO can work closely with related multilateral development banks to develop financial instruments that can smooth systemic economic disruption; and regional centers of research and manufacturing excellence can offer a strong front line for producing medicines and vaccines rapidly during a pandemic. With our research focused on the regional response to COVID-19 we are able to look at country responses individually and collectively to see how Latin America - Caribbean countries can capitalize and leverage their regional connections to strengthen their pandemic preparedness and response. By identifying existing gaps and examining the responses and approaches taken by PAHO, we can better understand the role of international and regional organizations and their collaborating centers in preparing and responding to pandemics.

La COVID-19 expuso grandes brechas en las respuestas locales, nacionales, regionales y mundiales a las emergencias de salud pública. En preparación para la reunión extraordinaria de la Asamblea Mundial de la Salud para considerar los beneficios de elaborar un instrumento internacional sobre la preparación frente a las pandemias, el Instituto O'Neill, en colaboración con la Fundación para los Institutos Nacionales de Salud, convocó a 30 de las principales autoridades mundiales en materia de derecho, financiamiento, ciencia biomédica, implementación y respuesta a emergencias de salud, así como a líderes de organizaciones internacionales prominentes. A esta reunión le siguieron consultas regionales convocadas en América Latina y el Caribe, África y el sudeste asiático. Estas consultas con expertos de alto nivel generaron debates en profundidad acerca de las debilidades y brechas persistentes en la preparación frente a las pandemias y qué podría incluirse en un nuevo acuerdo internacional sobre cómo abordarlas. Las organizaciones intergubernamentales regionales como la Organización Panamericana de la Salud pueden trabajar en estrecha colaboración con los bancos multilaterales de desarrollo relacionados para elaborar instrumentos financieros que puedan aliviar las perturbaciones económicas sistémicas; y los centros regionales de excelencia en investigación y producción pueden formar una sólida primera línea de acción para producir medicamentos y vacunas rápidamente durante una pandemia. Con esta investigación centrada en la respuesta regional a la COVID-19, podemos analizar las respuestas de los países de forma individual y colectiva para observar la manera en que América Latina y el Caribe pueden capitalizar y aprovechar sus conexiones regionales para fortalecer su preparación y respuesta frente a una pandemia. Al determinar cuáles son las brechas existentes y examinar las respuestas y los enfoques adoptados por la OPS, podemos comprender mejor el papel de las organizaciones regionales e internacionales y sus centros colaboradores en la preparación y respuesta frente a las pandemias.

A COVID-19 expôs grandes lacunas nas respostas globais, regionais, estaduais e locais a emergências de saúde pública. Nos preparativos para a Sessão Especial da Assembleia Mundial da Saúde para avaliar os benefícios de desenvolver um instrumento internacional de preparação para pandemias, o Instituto O'Neill, em parceria com a Fundação para os Institutos Nacionais de Saúde, reuniu 30 das principais autoridades mundiais em direito sanitário global, financiamento, ciências biomédicas, implementação e resposta a emergências, além de líderes de organizações internacionais proeminentes. Essa reunião foi seguida por consultas regionais convocadas na América Latina/Caribe, na África e no sudeste da Ásia. Essas consultas com especialistas de alto nível geraram discussões minuciosas sobre os pontos fracos e as lacunas persistentes na preparação global para pandemias e o que poderia ser incluído em um novo acordo internacional para resolvê-los. Organizações intergovernamentais regionais, como a OPAS, podem trabalhar em estreita colaboração com os bancos multilaterais de desenvolvimento para desenvolver instrumentos financeiros capazes de atenuar a ruptura econômica sistêmica; por outro lado, centros regionais de excelência em pesquisa e fabricação podem oferecer uma linha de frente expressiva para a rápida produção de medicamentos e vacinas durante uma pandemia. Usando os dados da nossa pesquisa sobre a resposta regional à COVID-19, podemos analisar as respostas dos países de forma individual e coletiva para avaliar como os países da América Latina e do Caribe podem capitalizar e alavancar suas conexões regionais para fortalecer sua preparação e resposta à pandemia. Ao identificar lacunas existentes e analisar as respostas e abordagens adotadas pela OPAS, podemos compreender melhor o papel das organizações internacionais e regionais e de seus centros colaboradores na preparação e resposta a pandemias.

Building National Health Security Through a Rapid Self-Assessment and Annual Operational Plan in Uganda, May to September 2021.

Uganda established a National Action Plan for Health Security in 2019, following a Joint External Evaluation (JEE) of International Health Regulations (2005) capacities in 2017. The action plan enhanced national health security awareness, but implementation efforts were affected by limited funding, excess of activities, and challenges related to monitoring and evaluation. To improve implementation, Uganda conducted a multisectoral health security self-assessment in 2021 using the second edition of the JEE tool and developed a 1-year operational plan. From 2017 to 2021, Uganda's composite ReadyScore improved by 20%, with improvement in 13 of the 19 technical areas. Indicator scores showing limited capacity declined from 30% to 20%, and indicators with no capacity declined from 10% to 2%. More indicators had developed (47% vs 40%), demonstrated (29% vs 20%), and sustained (2% vs 0%) capacities in 2021 compared with 2017. Using the self-assessment JEE scores, 72 specific activities from the International Health Regulations (2005) benchmarks tool were selected for inclusion in a 1-year operational plan (2021-2022). In contrast to the 264 broad activities in the 5-year national action plan, the operational plan prioritized a small number of activities to enable sectors to focus limited resources on implementation. While certain capacities improved before and during implementation of the action plan, countries may benefit from using short-term operational planning to develop realistic and actionable health security plans to improve health security capacities.

Medical Device Regulations and custom-made device documentation: A further ten frequently asked questions and their answers.

During the 1990s, three Directives were enacted that aimed to harmonise the regulation of medical devices within the European Union (EU). Custom-made devices (CMDs) were subject to Council Directive 93/42/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning medical devices (Medical Device Directive [MDD]), which was given effect in the UK by the Medical Devices Regulations 2002 (UK MDR 2002). Regulation (EU) 2017/745 (Medical Device Regulation [EU MDR]) replaced the MDD and was transposed into the Medical Devices (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 in the UK. The UK left the EU on 31 January 2020 and entered an 11-month implementation period (IP), during which any new EU legislation that was enacted also took effect in the UK. The EU MDR was scheduled to be fully implemented on 26 May 2020 (during the IP) but this was deferred for one year, until 26 May 2021 (after the IP had concluded), as a result of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Consequently, the EU MDR was removed from the UK statute book by a further amendment to the UK MDR 2002, the Medical Devices (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020. Since 1 January 2021, CMDs manufactured in Great Britain can conform to either the UK MDR 2002 (as amended) or the EU MDR (until 30 June 2023) while devices manufactured in Northern Ireland are subject to the EU MDR alone. CMDs must be supplied with a statement, a label and, depending on the risk class, instructions for use; this paper answers ten questions regarding this documentation following these legislative changes.

Construction of public health core competence and the improvement of its legal guarantee in China.

Public health core capacity, first established by the 58th United Nations General Assembly in 2003 and recognized by the World Health Organization when "the International Health Regulations" were revised, refers to the basic and necessary capacity to allocate human, financial, and material resources for the prevention and control of public health events that a country or region should have. It includes national and regional levels, and its constituent elements and their basic requirements differ, but public health core capacity building at both national and regional levels requires certain legal safeguards. At present, there are still some problems, including the imperfect legal system, conflicting legal norms, the non-sufficient supply of local legislation, and the weak operability of legislation in the legal guarantee of public health core capacity building in China. China should make improvements in terms of comprehensive cleaning of existing public health laws, strengthening their post-legislative evaluation, adopting parcel legislation, strengthening legislation in key areas of public health, and promoting the supply of local legislation. The goal is to provide a perfect and comprehensive legal system to guarantee the construction of China's core capacity in public health.

Communicating risk during early phases of COVID-19: Comparing governing structures for emergency risk communication across four contexts.

Background: Emergency risk communication (ERC) is key to achieving compliance with public health measures during pandemics. Yet, the factors that facilitated ERC during COVID-19 have not been analyzed. We compare ERC in the early stages of the pandemic across four socio-economic settings to identify how risk communication can be improved in public health emergencies (PHE). Methods: To map and assess the content, process, actors, and context of ERC in Germany, Guinea, Nigeria, and Singapore, we performed a qualitative document review, and thematically analyzed semi-structured key informant interviews with 155 stakeholders involved in ERC at national and sub-national levels. We applied Walt and Gilson's health policy triangle as a framework to structure the results. Results: We identified distinct ERC strategies in each of the four countries. Various actors, including governmental leads, experts, and organizations with close contact to the public, collaborated closely to implement ERC strategies. Early integration of ERC into preparedness and response plans, lessons from previous experiences, existing structures and networks, and clear leadership were identified as crucial for ensuring message clarity, consistency, relevance, and an efficient use of resources. Areas of improvement primarily included two-way communication, community engagement, and monitoring and evaluation. Countries with recurrent experiences of pandemics appeared to be more prepared and equipped to implement ERC strategies. Conclusion: We found that considerable potential exists for countries to improve communication during public health emergencies, particularly in the areas of bilateral communication and community engagement as well as monitoring and evaluation. Building adaptive structures and maintaining long-term relationships with at-risk communities reportedly facilitated suitable communication. The findings suggest considerable potential and transferable learning opportunities exist between countries in the global north and countries in the global south with experience of managing outbreaks.

A Pandemic Treaty: Learning From the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control.

The World Health Organization recently began developing a "pandemic treaty" in response to the perceived failures of the global COVID-19 response. The Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, which obligates members to certain global standards in tobacco control, is an example of a global public health agreement that may be used as a model for the pandemic treaty. Several challenges related to the convention, many from the tobacco industry itself, must be addressed if it is to be used as a prototype for a pandemic agreement. These include harm reduction policies, private-sector involvement, and its impact in low- and middle-income countries. A pandemic treaty may encounter similar challenges faced by the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, particularly from industry groups with financial interests related to infectious disease control and prevention. Addressing challenges at the outset may facilitate the development and implementation of a more robust international instrument.

[The World Health Organization: Project of novels in the field of controlling international medical sanitary regulations].

The article considers draft of new edition of the International Health Regulations. The possible risks associated with changing of the document are evaluated from perspective of member countries, in whose territories occur or supposedly occur emergency situations in field of public health having international importance.