Search

Background The COVID-19 pandemic demanded quick exchanges between experts and institutions supporting governments to provide evidence-based information in response to the crisis. Initially, there was no regular cross-country forum in the field of population health. This paper describes the set-up and benefits of implementing such a forum. Methods A group of public health practitioners from academia, national public health institutes and ministries of health decided in April 2020 to meet bi-monthly to discuss a vast array of population health topics in a structured format called a Rapid Exchange Forum (REF). An ad-hoc mailing group was established to collect responses to questions brought forward in the forum from at least five countries within 24 h. This endeavour, which evolved as network of networks was awarded an EU grant in autumn 2020 and was called PHIRI (Population Health Information Research Infrastructure). Results Responses from up to 31 countries were compiled and shared immediately via the European Health Information Portal. This exchange was complemented by special REFs that focused on the advantages and disadvantages of vaccination, for example. By July 2023, 54 REFs had taken place with topics going beyond COVID-19. Conclusion The REF demonstrated its value for quick yet evidence-based cross-country exchange in times of crisis and was highly appreciated by countries and European Commission. It demonstrated its sustainability even after the acute crisis by expanding the topics covered and managing to continue exchange with the aim of capacity building and mutual learning, making it a true EU response and coordination mechanism. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: We examine how health policy and systems research (HPSR) is produced and funded in 14 post-Soviet states to inform possible strategies to improve the supply and quality of research and advance evidence-based health policy making in these states. Study type: Mixed methods. Methods: Using mixed methods - secondary data analysis, desk review and in-depth interviews - this qualitative study is exploratory and explanatory. The secondary data analysis involved a comparative analysis of available data from: a) the 'fiscal space' (national economic resources) - using gross domestic expenditure on research and development for the years 2013-2018; and b) capacity for HPSR - using the number of published papers and average citation per paper (as a quality proxy) in the years 2015-2019. To explain the secondary data analysis findings, we used the approach proposed by Hallerberg et al., highlighting the importance of institutional context, actors, and their incentives and influence in budget allocation decisions. The desk review of available documents and 32 in-depth interviews were conducted remotely to obtain insights on the context and actors. The interview transcripts were analysed using Nvivo 12 software with an inductive approach. Results: In all studied countries, except the Baltic states, funding levels for HPSR remain inadequate. Most research and development funding is allocated to fundamental sciences and biomedical research - fields with more influential long-standing institutional legacies. The low volume and poor quality of published HPSR research appears to be adversely affecting the credibility of researchers in this field in the eyes of critical beneficiaries - policy makers, who do not prioritise and advocate for funding of HPSR. Conclusions: HPSR funding in most post-Soviet countries is caught in a vicious cycle of inadequate funding and poor quality. International collaborative projects focused on post-Soviet states and involving science funders, academic institutions and researchers from those countries may help strengthen HPSR capacity, improve research quality and help boost priority funding and the credibility of researchers in this field. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Covid-19 pandemic has had an irreversible impact on the global economy and industries, particularly in the healthcare sector. The rush to respond to the pandemic, particularly in terms of getting treatment and vaccines and technology to market, has created a huge opportunity for undisclosed corruption and misconduct in the research and development and procurement processes. Effectively responding to current and future global health corruption threats is critical if the world is to provide health care to all. Due to a lack of research in preventive corruption measures in the healthcare industry, this paper aims to provide an overview of anti-corruption efforts among healthcare companies listed on the main board of Bursa Malaysia. The disclosure index is made up of 47 items derived from a review of previous literature and the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Act. The content analysis research method is used to analyze information from 13 companies listed in 2020's anti-corruption policies and procedures published on their website, board charter, whistleblowing policy, code of ethics and conduct, annual report, sustainability report, and corporate governance report. According to the findings, Malaysia's healthcare industry has demonstrated a strong commitment to fighting corruption, with 76.9% of companies scoring higher than average on the disclosure index. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Responses to the COVID‐19 pandemic have been widely criticized for being too delayed and indecisive. As a result, the precautionary principle has been endorsed, applauded, and proposed to guide future responses to global public health emergencies. Drawing from controversial issues in response to COVID‐19, especially in Vietnam, this paper critically discusses some key ethical and legal issues of employing the precautionary principle in public health emergencies. Engaging with discussions concerning this principle, especially in environmental law where the precautionary principle first appeared as a guiding principle with objective content(s), this paper formulates the precautionary principle as 'in dubio pro salus', which is about advising, justifying and demanding states to proactively prepare for scenarios arising out of any public health emergency. It distinguishes the precautionary principle into moderate and hard versions. A moderate version largely takes a holistic approach and fulfils a series of criteria specified in this paper, while a hard version either permits restrictive measures to be deployed primarily on a hypothetic basis or expresses an instrumental mentality. The hard version should be rejected because of the ethical and legal problems it raises, including risk‐risk tradeoffs, internal paradoxes, unjustified causing of fear and unreasonable presupposition. Ultimately, this paper defends the moderate version. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

"Building back better" post-pandemic, as advocated by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, could advance the realization of health as a human right. However, the COVID-19 pandemic is more likely to represent a tipping point into a new and even more unequal normal, nationally and internationally, that represents a hostile environment for building back better. This paper begins with a brief explanation of the tipping point concept. It goes on to describe the mechanisms by which the pandemic and many responses to it have increased inequality, and then identifies three political dynamics that are inimical to realizing health as a human right even in formal democracies, two of them material (related to the unequal distribution of resources within societies and in the global economy) and one ideational (the continued hegemony of neoliberal ideas about the proper limits of public policy). Observations about the unequal future and what it means for health conclude the paper. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The intersection between health and homelessness is well documented and has been made more explicit since the onset of the coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19). In the Global North, COVID-19 related public health responses targeting homeless populations have varied across countries, including greater national-level financial investment, temporarily housing those in congregate facilities in ‘self-contained’ accommodation, time-limited eviction moratoriums and dedicated health system interventions across homelessness and addiction services to enable social distancing and self-isolation. Yet questions remain about the immediate and longer-term outcomes of these newly implemented responses and whether they will be sustained. Such considerations are critical and timely in countries such as Ireland, where significant health reform is underway. In this paper, we use Ireland as a case study to explore whether and how public health responses to homelessness during COVID-19 hold important insights for the development of more effective health policy. Drawing on publicly available Irish data, we present a secondary analysis of COVID-19 infection rates amongst homelessness service users as well as trends in emergency accommodation usage between 2020 and 2021. Focusing specifically on public health measures implemented during the pandemic via the health and housing systems, respectively, we discuss how such interventions may have impacted on these homelessness figures in both intended and unexpected ways. We conclude by teasing out and unpacking relevant lessons for health reform. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Serbia's regional influence in the western Balkans enhanced strategic geopolitical partnership with Russia and China during COVID-19 pandemic. This paper critically analyzes Serbia COVID-19 vaccine strategy to the public health in the western Balkans. Importantly, this paper proposes strategic policy by enhancing 'joint coordinated EU–US-western Balkans COVID-19 vaccine manufacturing production' to accelerate inoculation, address gaps on vaccine hesitancy and promote long-term post-pandemic recovery plan to build back together and achieve herd immunity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

After three years of global rampage, the COVID-19 epidemic, the most serious infectious disease to occur worldwide since the 1918 influenza pandemic, is nearing its end. From the global experience, medical control and social control are the two main dimensions in the prevention and control of COVID-19. From the perspective of "two types of control", namely medical control and social control, this paper finds that the political system, economic structure, and cultural values of the United States greatly limit the government's ability to impose social control, forcing it to adopt medical control to fight the virus in a single dimension. In contrast, China's political system, economic structure, and cultural values allow its government to adopt stringent, extensive, and frequent social control, as well as medical control to fight the virus. This approach departs from the traditional pathway of fighting the epidemic, i.e., "infection–treatment–immunization", thereby outpacing the evolution of the virus and controlling its spread more rapidly. This finding helps explain why the Chinese government adopted a strict "zeroing" and "dynamic zeroing" policy during the first three years, at the cost of enormous economic, social, and even political legitimacy. It was not until late 2022, when the Omicron variant with the waning virulence became prevalent, that China chose to "coexist" with the virus, thus avoiding a massive epidemic-related death. While the United States adopted a pulsed-style strategy at the beginning of the epidemic, i.e., "relaxation–suppression–relaxation–suppression", and began to "coexist" with the virus in just one year, resulting in a large number of excess deaths associated with the epidemic. The study contributes to explaining the difference in the interplay between public health priorities and COVID-19 response strategies in China and the United States, based on the specific public health context and the perspective of "medical control" and "social control". [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

For many in the West, paternalism manifest as state interference carries a pejorative connotation, as it is often taken to entail unjustified restrictions on autonomy and self-determination and frequently believed to precipitate bureaucracy, corruption, and inefficiency. Meanwhile, uncritical deference to policies in which individual liberties remain essentially unchecked by state oversight has faced renewed scrutiny since the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, as many across the globe are now coming to believe that we must accept greater governmental intervention in our lives, particularly during times of widespread health crises. This paper explores normative considerations justifying state intervention with respect to public health policies in response to the COVID-19 pandemic through the lens of Confucian paternalism, which is distinguished from a more general concept of paternalism widely used in contemporary philosophical discourse. It argues that the "soft" paternalism apropos to Confucianism has pragmatic benefits for the development of healthcare policies due to which it is not only morally warranted but even preferable to alternatives in terms of safeguarding population health. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: A range of nonpharmaceutical public health interventions has been introduced in many countries following the rapid spread of Covid‐19 since 2020, including recommendations or mandates for the use of face masks or coverings in the community. While the effectiveness of face masks in reducing Covid‐19 transmission has been extensively discussed, scant attention has been paid to the lived experience of those wearing face masks. Method: Drawing on 40 narrative interviews with a purposive sample of people in the United Kingdom, with a particular focus on marginalised and minoritized groups, our paper explores experiences of face mask use during the pandemic. Results: We find that face masks have a range of societal, health and safety impacts, and prompted positive and negative emotional responses for users. We map our findings onto Lorenc and Oliver's framework for intervention risks. We suggest that qualitative data offer particular insights into the experiences of public health interventions, allowing the potential downsides and risks of interventions to be more fully considered and informing public health policies that might avoid inadvertent harm, particularly towards marginalised groups. Patient or Public Contribution: The study primarily involved members of the public in the conduct of the research, namely through participation in interviews (email and telephone). The conception for the study involved extensive discussions on social media with a range of people, and we received input and ideas from presentations we delivered on the preliminary analysis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives and importance of study: The importance of health policy and systems research (HPSR) has been acknowledged since 2004 and was recognised by the United Nations World Health Assembly in 2005. However, many factors influence its development. This paper aims to analyse the impact of politics and political determinants on HPSR funding in selected countries of Latin America and the Caribbean. Methods: Using a standardised protocol, we performed an analysis of available data and financing structures for health research and HPSR based on research in eight countries, including interviews with key stakeholders (n = 42). Results: Dollar depreciation and gross national product growth in the region may play a role in how governments fund research. There have been shifts in the political spectrum in governments, which have affected research coordination and funding in positive and negative ways. HPSR funding in some countries was dependent on budget decisions and although some have improved funding, others have regressed by decreasing funding or have completely cancelled financing mechanisms. Caribbean countries rely mainly on institutional funding. HPSR is recognised as important but remains underfunded; stakeholders believed it should be used more in decision making. Conclusion: Although HPSR is recognised as valuable for decision making and policy development, it does not have the financial support required to flourish in Latin America and the Carribean. Data on health research financing were not easy to access. There was little or no evidence of published reports or papers about research financing, health research funding, and HPSR funding in particular in the studied countries. Because of the fragility of health systems highlighted by the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, HPSR should be of great relevance and value to both policy makers and funders. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper aims to illustrate the tension between public health and civil liberties through the case study of the UK government's emergency response to the Covid-19 pandemic. In the area of public health, this tension is predominantly approached by reference to two theories: liberalism and communitarianism. This paper studies these positions and how they are manifested in evidence-based policymaking by combining a study of public health policy with a study of public health ethics. The studies help demonstrate the UK government's framing of health policy relating to Covid-19 in terms of liberalism and communitarianism. The paper concludes that in the initial UK government response to Covid-19, the government discourse evoked communitarian values and framed its policies as being evidence-led and as prioritising public health. However, the policy measures themselves manifested liberal values: they had the underlying concern of not infringing excessively on civil liberties, and individuals were given autonomy of decision making within the measures that were taken. The article concluded that emergency times require a communitarian response based on preventative action. This article is the first to combine public health policy with public health ethics to demonstrate how values form a key part of decision making. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper evaluates global health responses to the COVID-19 pandemic through the 'two regimes of global health' framework. This framework juxtaposes global health security, which contains the threat of emerging diseases to wealthy states, with humanitarian biomedicine, which emphasises neglected diseases and equitable access to treatments. To what extent did the security/access divide characterise the response to COVID-19? Did global health frames evolve during the pandemic? Analysis focused on public statements from the World Health Organization (WHO), the humanitarian nonprofit Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF), and the American Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Following a content analysis of 486 documents released in the first two years of the pandemic, the research yielded three findings. First, the CDC and MSF affirmed the framework; they exemplified the security/access divide, with the CDC containing threats to Americans and MSF addressing the plight of vulnerable populations. Second, surprisingly, despite its reputation as a central actor in global health security, the WHO articulated both regime priorities and, third, after the initial outbreak, it began to favour humanitarianism. For the WHO, security remained, but was reconfigured: instead of traditional security, global human health security was emphasised – collective wellbeing was rooted in access and equity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Decades of wars, sanctions, and internal conflicts have compromised Iraq's health system, which once was the best system in the region. National and international efforts to revitalize the system have been successful to some extent; however, significant challenges still exist. The COVID-19 pandemic has exposed new vulnerabilities and exacerbated the existing ones, affecting the quality and the quantity of the health services delivered. This case study explored the baseline function of Iraq's health system within the context of theWorld Health Organization (WHO) health system framework. The paper also examined the country's response to the COVID-19 pandemic and some of its impacts. Results show that the system was not functioning optimally nor was it prepared to address the immediate impact of the current pandemic and other emerging public health issues. While mitigating the pandemic's short-term and long-term impacts are essential, it should not divert the focus from restructuring and strengthening the health system. Iraq may need to prioritize the health information system and leadership/governance as they provide the basis for health policies and regulations for all other health system building blocks. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper addresses the legal aspects and unprecedented consequences of the Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic on the manufacturing and fair access to vaccines. A research literature review allowed us to identify and evaluate the weaknesses of international health law to combat global health crises such as the COVID-19 pandemic. A new paradigm must encourage World Health Organization (WHO) and World Trade Organization (WTO) members to explicitly consider vaccines as global public goods and adopt a new set of legally binding rules for a fair and unrestricted access in times of pandemic. Initiatives and mechanisms such as COVID-19 Vaccine Global Access Facility (COVAX) have been developed to tackle the pandemic and allow developing countries to access vaccines but most were limited and never reached the expected results. The key role played by the WHO in global health policy needs to be strengthened throughout the revision of the International Health Regulations (IHR). Globalization and health are interconnected: WTO members shall revise the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement) and grant permanent intellectual property (IP) waivers on vaccines in times of pandemic. Our postulation is that vaccines constitute global public goods; their manufacturing and access must be facilitated and guaranteed by specific rules and mechanisms under the supervision of both the WHO and the WTO. It is, therefore, essential to provide the WHO with new powers and attributions to impose coordinated health policies to combat diseases and global crises such as the COVID-19 pandemic. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the past decade, numerous ethical frameworks have been developed to support public health decision‐making in challenging areas. Before the COVID‐19 pandemic began, members of the authorship team were involved in research programmes, in which the development of ethical frameworks was planned, to guide (a) the use of new technologies for emerging infectious disease surveillance; and (b) the allocation of scarce supplies of pandemic influenza vaccine. However, as the pandemic evolved, significant practical challenges emerged that led to our questioning the value of these frameworks. We now believe that a normative instrument, such as a framework, cannot adequately or reliably provide the ethical guidance that needs to be incorporated into public health decision‐making during natural disasters or infectious disease emergencies. Recently it has been suggested that there are potentially more dynamic, flexible, and effective ways to navigate decisions involving complex considerations entailed in policies and practices during a public health emergency. In this paper, we first outline the key functions of a public health ethics framework, before describing why we believe it would not be fit for purpose during a crisis. We end by considering whether proposed alternative methods to promote ethical public health decision‐making goals have the potential to meet these objectives. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Acta Médica Peruana is the property of Colegio Medico del Peru and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The authors introduce the issue, themed From Data to Public Health Actions, which features work conducted by the Population Health Information Research Infrastructure (PHIRI). Topics discussed include an overview of PHIRI, essential pillars covered by PHIRI to support strong and resilient HIS and research for evidence-based policy making across Europe, and role of PHIRI in the implementation of the European Health Data Space (EHDS).

Scholars and experts argue that future pandemics and/or epidemics are inevitable events, and the problem is not whether they will occur, but when a new health emergency will emerge. In this uncertain scenario, one of the most important questions is an accurate prevention, preparedness and prediction for the next pandemic. The main goal of this study is twofold: first, the clarification of sources and factors that may trigger pandemic threats; second, the examination of prediction models of on-going pandemics, showing pros and cons. Results, based on in-depth systematic review, show the vital role of environmental factors in the spread of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), and many limitations of the epidemiologic models of prediction because of the complex interactions between the new viral agent SARS-CoV-2, environment and society that have generated variants and sub-variants with rapid transmission. The insights here are, whenever possible, to clarify these aspects associated with public health in order to provide lessons learned of health policy that may reduce risks of emergence and diffusion of new pandemics having negative societal impact. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Before the COVID-19 pandemic, a need for a uniform approach to health information (HI) knowledge in population health analysis across Europe was evident. The Population Health Information Research Infrastructure (PHIRI) emerged as a proactive initiative to strengthen European HI capacities. This article describes the achievements of PHIRI, highlighting its capacity-building activities and their contribution towards a sustainable strategy for the implementation of the European Health Data Space (EHDS). Methods PHIRI collaboration established a work package for skill-building activities in population health in partnership with other organizations. Activities included webinars, workshops, sessions, training schools and courses for researchers and public administration workers from Europe and beyond. The primary goal of the activities was to examine the impact of COVID-19 on European health systems at both local and national levels, including healthcare facilities and policymaking entities. Results Twelve activities were organized between October 2020 and the summer of 2023. In March 2023, the Spring School on Health Information was organized to share the knowledge achieved from PHIRI and other European Union-related projects. This event also validated the European Health Information Training Programme. Conclusions PHIRI's findings emphasized the importance of equipping the workforce with core HI skills to improve health systems' preparedness and resilience. Through this research, it is possible to propose a strategy for building capacity that emphasizes the importance of providing training in human-machine dynamics. This approach will contribute to the sustainable implementation of the EHDS. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The disproportionate effect of COVID-19 on long term care facility (LTCF) residents has highlighted the need for clear, consistent guidance on the management of pandemics in such settings. As research exploring the experiences of LTCFs during the pandemic and the implications of mass hospital discharge, restricting staff movement, and limiting visitation from relatives are emerging, an in-depth review of policies, guidance and recommendations issued during this time could facilitate wider understanding in this area. Aims: To identify policies, guidance, and recommendations related to LTCF staff and residents, in England issued by the government during the COVID-19 pandemic, developing a timeline of key events and synthesizing the policy aims, recommendations, implementation and intended outcomes. Method: A scoping review of publicly available policy documents, guidance, and recommendations related to COVID-19 in LTCFs in England, identified using systematic searches of UK government websites. The main aims, recommendations, implementation and intended outcomes reported in included documents were extracted. Data was analysed using thematic synthesis following a three-stage approach: coding the text, grouping codes into descriptive themes, and development of analytical themes. Results: Thirty-three key policy documents were included in the review. Six areas of recommendations were identified: infection prevention and control, hospital discharge, testing and vaccination, staffing, visitation and continuing routine care. Seven areas of implementation were identified: funding, collaborative working, monitoring and data collection, reducing workload, decision making and leadership, training and technology, and communication. Discussion: LTCFs remain complex settings, and it is imperative that lessons are learned from the experiences during COVID-19 to ensure that future pandemics are managed appropriately. This review has synthesized the policies issued during this time, however, the extent to which such guidance was communicated to LTCFs, and subsequently implemented, in addition to being effective, requires further research. In particular, understanding the secondary effects of such policies and how they can be introduced within the existing challenges inherent to adult social care, need addressing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, governments around the world have implemented public health policies that limit individual freedoms in order to control disease transmission. While such limitations on liberties are sometimes necessary for pandemic control, many of these policies have been overly broad or have neglected to consider the costs for populations already susceptible to human rights violations. Furthermore, the pandemic has exacerbated preexisting inequities based on health care access, poverty, racial injustice, refugee crises, and lack of education. The worsening of such human rights violations increases the need to utilize a human rights approach in the response to COVID-19. This paper provides a global overview of COVID-19 public health policy interventions implemented from January 1 to June 30, 2020, and identifies their impacts on the human rights of marginalized populations. We find that over 70% of these public health policies negatively affect human rights in at least one way or for at least one population. We recommend that policy makers take a human rights approach to COVID-19 pandemic control by designing public health policies focused on the most marginalized groups in society. Doing so would allow for a more equitable, realistic, and sustainable pandemic response that is centered on the needs of those at highest risk of COVID-19 and human rights violations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Public concern regarding safety policies serious consequences is anticipated to persist over an extended duration. A study examining a case of rapid public health policy adaptation in China during the COVID-19 epidemic was conducted by gathering public opinion data from major social media platforms. A systematic approach to comprehend public opinion was developed. Five fundamental elements and four dimensions were delineated. An indicator system was established utilizing the K-means text clustering model. Public prediction, expectation, and their evolution underlying public concern were elucidated employing TF–IDF text mining models. The HMM elucidated the way public opinion influences policy adjustments. The findings underscore that public concern regarding enduring events undergoes temporal shifts, mirroring the evolution of public opinion towards policy. Public opinion aroused by both the original event and derived events collaboratively influence policy adjustments. In China, public opinion serves as a mechanism for policy feedback and oversight; notably, negative public sentiment plays a pivotal role in expediting policy transitions. These findings aid in refining policies to mitigate emergencies through a feedback loop, thereby averting the emergence of safety risks such as social unrest prompted by public opinion. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

COVID-19 pandemic has emerged as prime health challenge of 21st century forcing policy makers, health experts and governance institutions world over to revisit and reinvigorate public health policies through inter-institutional collaborations. Subsequent global lockdowns caused unprecedented shock to world economies, downslide of socio-economic development, concern for public safely, emphasis on augmentation of health infrastructure, capacity building of health care providers and development of effective Corona Virus containment strategies. Health institutions world over are grappling to control spread of the infection through Symptomatic Target Testing, Cluster Testing and Phased Vaccination. Multiple vaccines have been developed with varied efficacy, cost concerns and involvement of logistic issues; leading to vaccine-multilateralism and re-emphasis on universalization of public health policies under Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) mechanism. This paper aims to assess impact of this grievous pandemic on public health sector of Jammu & Kashmir, explore challenges faced by public health institutions, analyze effectiveness of government interventions and suggest measures for revival of public health care services in the region. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) pandemic has had a substantial effect on frontline health care workers and caused public health nurses (PHNs) to come under various forms of pressure. PHNs face high‐risk challenges in their work environment, and their professional commitment and adaptability are key concerns. The aim of this qualitative study was to describe the experiences of PHNs during the COVID‐19 outbreak. Methods/Design: Twenty PHNs who worked during the COVID‐19 outbreak were recruited from seven public health centres through posters. Data were collected through in‐depth interviews that comprised semi‐structured and open‐ended questions; subsequently, the data were analysed through content analysis. Results: Three themes emerged from the study findings, namely (1) the disorderliness of COVID‐19 pandemic prevention work, (2) managing stress and fear, and (3) the establishment of a new normal. Because of the severity of the pandemic, the workload and stress associated with epidemic prevention policies continue to increase. PHNs may infect their family members and experience a sense of alienation and distance. They must also deal with irrationality and reactions in the people within their community. Conclusion: Health department directors and policymakers should provide the necessary support and assistance to frontline pandemic prevention workers to increase the efficiency of pandemic prevention efforts. Patient or Public Contribution: The participants agreed to participate in the qualitative study during the study period. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Beginning January of 2020, COVID-19 cases detected in Arctic countries triggered government policy responses to stop transmission and limit caseloads beneath levels that would overwhelm existing healthcare systems. This review details the various restrictions, health mandates, and transmission mitigation strategies imposed by governments in eight Arctic countries (the United States, Canada, Greenland, Norway, Finland, Sweden, Iceland, and Russia) during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, through 31 January 2021s31 January 2021. We highlight formal protocols and informal initiatives adopted by local communities in each country, beyond what was mandated by regional or national governments. This review documents travel restrictions, communications, testing strategies, and use of health technology to track and monitor COVID-19 cases. We provide geographical and sociocultural background and draw on local media and communications to contextualise the impact of COVID-19 emergence and prevention measures in Indigenous communities in the Arctic. Countries saw varied case rates associated with local protocols, governance, and population. Still, almost all regions maintained low COVID-19 case rates until November of 2020. This review was produced as part of an international collaboration to identify community-driven, evidence-based promising practices and recommendations to inform pan-Arctic collaboration and decision making in public health during global emergencies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and measures to prevent the spread of the virus challenged public health practice at the local level in Sweden. The objective of this study was to explore the impact of the pandemic on the prevention of alcohol, drugs and tobacco (ADT) in Sweden during 2020–21 considering socio-demographic context. Methods Data were collected through the Public Health Agency's survey on ADT prevention in Swedish municipalities (N  = 290). This study used data from 2020 and 2021, with a response rate of 90% and 88%, respectively. Survey data were analyzed in logistic regression models (odds ratios, P  < 0.05, 95% confidence intervals) against variables of education level, income level and population size from national registers. Results A majority (n  = 198, 76%) of the municipalities reported a decrease in ADT prevention during the pandemic. No correlation between the decrease in ADT prevention and socio-demographic conditions was detected. A majority (2020: n  = 165, 63%; 2021: n  = 174, 68%) of the municipalities also reported that ADT prevention was adapted, however less common in smaller municipalities and municipalities where residents had lower levels of education and lower incomes. Conclusion ADT prevention carried out by municipalities in Sweden was initially (2020) deeply affected by the preventive strategies against COVID-19. Adaptation of activities was less common in municipalities with more vulnerable socio-demographic situation. In policy, practice and research, the findings are important not only for continued progress on the national goal of equity in health but also for preparedness for future crises. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: During the COVID-19 pandemic, most countries introduced temporary visiting restrictions on the relatives of acute care hospital patients, whether or not they were infected with SARS-CoV-2. This affected relatives' psychological and emotional states and how closely they could be involved in their loved one's hospitalization. Study aims: Investigate relatives' experiences of visiting restrictions during the COVID-19 pandemic's first wave and the support offered by Valais Hospital's healthcare staff. Methods: Relatives and patients who had been discharged between February 28 and May 13, 2020, were asked to complete a patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) questionnaire, whether or not they had been infected by SARS-CoV-2. Relatives were asked about how visiting restrictions had affected them, their perceptions of the severity of the COVID-19 pandemic, the quality of communication concerning their loved ones' health status during their hospitalization, and the information received from healthcare staff. Descriptive and inferential statistics were computed. Results: Of 866 PREMs questionnaires returned, 818 were analyzable, and 543 relatives had experienced visiting restrictions to their loved ones: 92 relatives (87%) of COVID-19 patients and 451 relatives (66%) of non-infected patients, with heterogenous effects on their psychological and affective status. Overall, whether or not relatives were subjected to visiting restrictions, they perceived themselves to be well treated, well informed, and that communication with hospital healthcare staff was satisfactory. However, relatives subjected to visiting restrictions reported significantly lower scores on the quality of communication than other relatives. The relatives of patients in gynecology/obstetrics and internal medicine wards were significantly more affected by visiting restrictions than were the relatives of patients in other wards. Numerous relatives subjected to visiting restrictions reported regular communication with their loved ones or with healthcare staff, at least once a day (n = 179), either via videoconferences using FaceTime®, WhatsApp®, Zoom®, or Skype® or via mobile phone text messages. Conclusion: Visiting restrictions affected relatives differently depending on the wards their loved ones were hospitalized. Healthcare institutions should investigate the utility of visiting restrictions on patients, how they affect relatives, and how to improve personalized patient–relative communications. Future research should attempt to develop reliable, validated measurement instruments of relatives' experiences of acute-care visiting restrictions during pandemics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Confirmed new cases of Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have accelerated in Sub-Saharan Africa against a backdrop of fragile health systems, a high burden of comorbidities and socioeconomic instability. The context makes the region particularly vulnerable to the virus and its impact. As cases escalate, the need to tailor-make COVID-19-related response strategies to the African context is imperative. This paper aims to discuss key considerations on the public health response to the pandemic and its intersection with ethics and human rights. With this perspective, we bring attention to the conflict between healthcare workers' obligations and patient rights under the unclear policy and regulatory frameworks and the application of restrictive measures in the context of poverty. The indirect effects of the pandemic on already existing health problems are also highlighted. We appeal to the African States to establish appropriate systems which integrate human rights-based approaches to COVID-19 response. These systems should be ethically sound systems and ensure no-one is left behind in terms of testing, access to therapeutics and vaccination, and social protection; based on lessons learned over the past 12 months of the pandemic's presence in SSA, and patterns emerging across the globe. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Populist leaders have consistently rejected evidence-based policies in responding to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. They acted later and with less intensity than non-populists in implementing public health measures such as physical distancing, lockdowns, and developing public health data sets. We describe the responses of ten large countries with populist leadership at the onset of the pandemic (Brazil, Hungary, India, Mexico, the Philippines, Poland, Russia, Turkey, the United Kingdom, and the United States). Together, these countries account for a disproportionately large number of cases and deaths associated with COVID-19 relative to their population. We categorize the policy responses into two types: (1) slow and ineffective, and (2) strict and illiberal. We conclude that while not all countries that responded poorly to the pandemic were led by populists, no countries with populist leadership performed well in either applying public health measures or achieving desirable health outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Concerns about violence against nurses and other medical personnel have increased during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, as of yet, limited systematic knowledge of such violence is available. Addressing this gap, we analyse the geographical distribution of, motivations behind, and contexts of collective attacks against health workers in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. To do so, we systematically recorded and coded attack events worldwide from 1 March 2020 to 31 December 2021. We identify high-risk countries, attack characteristics, and the socio-economic contexts in which attacks tend to occur. Our results show that opposition against public health measures (28.5%), fears of infection (22.3%), and supposed lack of care (20.6%) were the most common reasons for attacks. Most attacks occurred in facilities (often related to a supposed lack of care) or while health workers were on duty in a public place (often due to opposition to public health measures). However, 17.9% of all attacks took place in off-duty settings. Democratic countries with high vaccination rates and strong health systems were relatively safe for nurses and doctors. Distrust in the skills of health workers and the science underlying health interventions is a major driver of collective attack risks and should be addressed before it turns violent. This study was not registered. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Policy PointsThe commercial determinants of health (CDH) framework can inform public health policy, practice, and research in ways that contribute to overcoming the world's most serious public health challenges.By documenting the pathways by which commercial actors shape health, the CDH framework can provide a unifying focus for collective action to prevent and ameliorate global health crises.To realize these opportunities, CDH proponents need to find synergies in the multiple emerging streams of research, practice, and advocacy and create a body of scientific evidence, methodologies, and ideas that can inform a public health practice for the 21st century. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Policy PointsThe critical task of preparedness is inseparable from the regular work of advancing population health and health equity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

During the COVID-19 pandemic, implementing catastrophic healthcare surge capacity required a network of facility infrastructure beyond the immediate hospital to triage the rapidly growing numbers of infected individuals and treat emerging disease cases. Providing regional continuity-of-care requires an assessment of buildings for alternative care sites (ACS) to extend healthcare operations into non-healthcare settings. The American Institute of Architects (AIA) appointed a COVID-19 ACS Task Force involving architects, engineers, public health, and healthcare professionals to conduct a charrette (i.e., intensive workshop) to establish guidance during the alert phase of the pandemic. The task force developed an ACS Preparedness Assessment Tool (PAT) for healthcare teams to assist with their rapid evaluation of building sites for establishing healthcare operations in non-healthcare settings. The tool was quickly updated (V2.0) and then translated into multiple languages. Subsequently, the authors of this manuscript reviewed the efficacy of the PAT V2.0 in the context of reported case studies from healthcare teams who developed a COVID-19 ACS in community settings. In summary, policy makers should re-examine the role of the built environment during emergency pandemic response and its impact on patients and health professionals. An updated ACS PAT tool should be established as part of the public health preparedness for implementing catastrophic healthcare surge capacity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has had broad impacts on individuals, families and communities which will continue to require multidimensional responses from service providers, program developers, and policy makers. Objectives: The purpose of this study was to use Life Course theory to understand and imagine public health and policy responses to the multiple and varied impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on different groups. Methods: "The Cost of COVID-19" was a research study carried out in Kingston, Frontenac, Lennox and Addington counties in South Eastern Ontario, Canada, between June and December 2020. Data included 210 micronarrative stories collected from community members, and 31 in-depth interviews with health and social service providers. Data were analyzed using directed content analysis to explore the fit between data and the constructs of Life Course theory. Results: Social pathways were significantly disrupted by changes to education and employment, as well as changes to roles which further altered anticipated pathways. Transitions were by and large missed, creating a sense of loss. While some respondents articulated positive turning points, most of the turning points reported were negative, including fundamental changes to relationships, family structure, education, and employment with lifelong implications. Participants' trajectories varied based on principles including when they occurred in their lifespan, the amount of agency they felt or did not feel over circumstances, where they lived (rural versus urban), what else was going on in their lives at the time the pandemic struck, how their lives were connected with others, as well as how the pandemic impacted the lives of those dear to them. An additional principle, that of Culture, was felt to be missing from the Life Course theory as currently outlined. Conclusions: A Life Course analysis may improve our understanding of the multidimensional long-term impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic and associated public health countermeasures. This analysis could help us to anticipate services that will require development, training, and funding to support the recovery of those who have been particularly affected. Resources needed will include education, mental health and job creation supports, as well as programs that support the development of individual and community agency. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Improving young people's (YP) mental health and well‐being is a global public health priority. Despite continued commitment within the UK policy agenda to improve the mental health and well‐being of YP, the incidence of mental health issues continues to rise. This has been further compounded by the outbreak of COVID‐19 which has disproportionately affected YP in the most socioeconomically disadvantaged areas. Understanding YP's perspectives on what supports their mental health is important to develop policies that meet their needs. We conducted focus groups (n = 18 with 42 YP aged 13–21) in three geographical areas with high levels of deprivation in England, UK. Recruited through six local youth organisations, each group of YP took part in three interlinked focus groups designed to explore their perceptions of what impacts their health in their local area, and their understandings of health inequalities through participatory methods. Throughout their discussions, YP foregrounded the significance of mental health and mental health support structures. YP perceived challenges to accessing mental health provision and an unmet need for support within their local communities. Alongside this, YP consistently highlighted the importance of youth groups for promoting good mental health and mitigating challenges to poor mental health. However, ongoing cuts to the voluntary sector and universal services continue to impact areas and individuals in the greatest need. In the face of deficits in formal mental health support, our findings highlight the pressing need for increased investment in services focused on prevention (such as youth groups) in areas of high deprivation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, governments around the world have implemented public health policies that limit individual freedoms in order to control disease transmission. While such limitations on liberties are sometimes necessary for pandemic control, many of these policies have been overly broad or have neglected to consider the costs for populations already susceptible to human rights violations. Furthermore, the pandemic has exacerbated preexisting inequities based on health care access, poverty, racial injustice, refugee crises, and lack of education. The worsening of such human rights violations increases the need to utilize a human rights approach in the response to COVID-19. This paper provides a global overview of COVID-19 public health policy interventions implemented from January 1 to June 30, 2020, and identifies their impacts on the human rights of marginalized populations. We find that over 70% of these public health policies negatively affect human rights in at least one way or for at least one population. We recommend that policy makers take a human rights approach to COVID-19 pandemic control by designing public health policies focused on the most marginalized groups in society. Doing so would allow for a more equitable, realistic, and sustainable pandemic response that is centered on the needs of those at highest risk of COVID-19 and human rights violations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Mucormycosis emerged as a major public health challenge during the second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in India in mid-2021. The disease, colloquially known as the Black fungus, was declared epidemic by the government. This review describes the epidemiological pattern and the determinants of mucormycosis. The review also proposes evidence based public health strategies for the prevention and control of mucormycosis. The rationale use of steroids in clinical management, formulation of evidence-based standard treatment guidelines and adherence to those guidelines by physicians, the strengthening of primary healthcare services to facilitate early care; compliance with infection prevention and control measures at all the health facilities; and early diagnosis and case management are the key strategies to prevent future emergence of mucormycosis. The article concludes that it is not enough that we tackle a health challenge at hand, in crisis mode. It is equally important that we derive learnings and take measures prevent any future. Effective control of mucormycosis and prevention of future outbreaks of disease is possible through coordinated actions of health policy makers, public health experts and clinicians. The entire episode is also a reminder for strengthening India's health systems at all levels – primary, secondary and tertiary – as well as in both public and private sector. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Epidemic curves are used by decision makers and the public to infer the trajectory of the COVID-19 pandemic and to understand the appropriateness of response measures. Symptom onset date is commonly used to date incident cases on the epidemic curve in public health reports and dashboards; however, third-party trackers date cases by the date they were publicly reported by the public health authority. These two curves create very different impressions of epidemic progression. On April 1, 2020, the epidemic curve based on public reporting date for Ontario, Canada showed an accelerating epidemic, whereas the curve based on a proxy variable for symptom onset date showed a rapidly declining epidemic. This illusory downward trend is a feature of epidemic curves anchored using date variables earlier in time than the date a case was publicly reported, such as the symptom onset date. Delays between the onset of symptoms and the detection of a case by the public health authority mean that recent days will always have incomplete case data, creating a downward bias. Public reporting date is not subject to this bias and can be used to visualize real-time epidemic curves meant to inform the public and decision makers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Assume a pandemic in which, despite all efforts of vaccine persuasion, too many people are hesitant toward vaccination for a laissez‐faire regime to reach herd immunity on a strictly voluntary basis. Then, basically four policy options are available—(a) moral appeals, (b) legal obligation, (c) monetary fines, and (d) monetary rewards. In this article, we demonstrate that the prevalent vaccination debate chooses the wrong starting point in discussing these options. Rather than asking how vaccine hesitancy can be overcome as a (bothersome) hindrance toward reaching herd immunity, we ask how one can reach herd immunity in due time while minimizing the (subjectively perceived) offense to the dignity of vaccine‐hesitant citizens. This change in perspective favors paying people for getting vaccinated instead of sanctioning them for not doing so. With respect to the COVID‐19 crisis, we show that a payment strategy is both feasible and advisable. This may be an important insight not only in the short term, but also with respect to future pandemics that are likely to come. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the important role of professionals in designing and communicating effective policies. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the level of trust in the COVID-19 national public health policy among public health professionals in Israel and its correlates during the first wave of the pandemic. Methods: A purposive sampling of public health professionals in Israel, through professional and academic public health networks (N = 112). The survey was distributed online during May 2020. Level of trust was measured by the mean of 18 related statements using a 5-point Likert scale, where 1 means not at all and 5 means to a very high extent, and grouped as low and high trust by median (2.75). Results: A moderate level of trust in policy was found among professionals (Mean: 2.84, 95% Cl: [2.70, 2.98]). The level of trust among public health physicians was somewhat lower than among researchers and other health professionals (Mean: 2.66 vs. 2.81 and 2.96, respectively, p = 0.286), with a higher proportion expressing low trust (70% vs. 51% and 38%, respectively, p < 0.05). Participants with a low compared to high level of trust in policy were less supportive of the use of Israel Security Agency tools for contact tracing (Mean = 2.21 vs. 3.17, p < 0.01), and reported lower levels of trust in the Ministry of Health (Mean = 2.52 vs. 3.91, p < 0.01). A strong positive correlation was found between the level of trust in policy and the level of trust in the Ministry of Health (rs = 0.782, p < 0.01). Most professionals (77%) rated their involvement in decision making as low or not at all, and they reported a lower level of trust in policy than those with high involvement (Mean = 2.76 vs. 3.12, p < 0.05). Regarding trust in the ability of agencies to deal with the COVID-19 crisis, respondents reported high levels of trust in the Association of Public Health Physicians (80%) and in hospitals (79%), but very low levels of trust in the Minister of Health (5%). Conclusions: This study shows that Israeli public health professionals exhibited moderate levels of trust in COVID-19 national public health policy and varied levels of trust in government agencies during the first wave of COVID-19. The level of trust in policy was lower among most of the participants who were not involved in decision making. The level of trust found is worrisome and should be monitored, because it may harm cooperation, professional response, and public trust. Professionals' trust in policy-making during early stages of emergencies is important, and preemptive measures should be considered, such as involving professionals in the decision-making process, maintaining transparency of the process, and basing policy on scientific and epidemiological evidence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Puerto Rico is experiencing a public health crisis driven by effects and processes of US colonialism in the archipelago, such as the exclusionary application of federal health policy, an exodus of health care professionals, and the long-term effects of unequal distribution of health care funding in the unincorporated territories. Compound effects of multiple disasters, including Hurricane María, repeated earthquakes, and the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as relentless privatization and fragmentation of the health care system, have led to very poor health outcomes. Puerto Rico's case clearly shows the negative effects of colonialism on public health. This article specifies what decolonization requires from a public health standpoint to promote health equity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Changing collective behaviour and supporting non-pharmaceutical interventions is an important component in mitigating virus transmission during a pandemic. In a large international collaboration (Study 1, N = 49,968 across 67 countries), we investigated self-reported factors associated with public health behaviours (e.g., spatial distancing and stricter hygiene) and endorsed public policy interventions (e.g., closing bars and restaurants) during the early stage of the COVID-19 pandemic (April-May 2020). Respondents who reported identifying more strongly with their nation consistently reported greater engagement in public health behaviours and support for public health policies. Results were similar for representative and non-representative national samples. Study 2 (N = 42 countries) conceptually replicated the central finding using aggregate indices of national identity (obtained using the World Values Survey) and a measure of actual behaviour change during the pandemic (obtained from Google mobility reports). Higher levels of national identification prior to the pandemic predicted lower mobility during the early stage of the pandemic (r = −0.40). We discuss the potential implications of links between national identity, leadership, and public health for managing COVID-19 and future pandemics. Understanding collective behaviour is an important aspect of managing the pandemic response. Here the authors show in a large global study that participants that reported identifying more strongly with their nation reported greater engagement in public health behaviours and support for public health policies in the context of the pandemic. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives and importance of study: The need for sufficient and reliable funding for health policy and systems research (HPSR) has attracted varying responses globally. Countries assisted by the South East Asian Regional Office (SEARO) of the World Health Organization (WHO) together make up one-quarter of the world's population. HPSR is not given a high priority in several SEARO countries, so there is a need to understand the barriers and facilitators that influence national HPSR funding. Our study aimed to fill this gap in the literature by studying the barriers to HPSR in five SEARO countries - Republic of Maldives, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Thailand and India - and the key political factors influencing HPSR funding. Study type: Mixed methods. Methods: We conducted an in-depth desk review to obtain a general overview of HPSR in the five SEARO member countries. The review findings were used to frame a discussion guide for semi-structured interviews with key policy makers, health system experts and academics in the intervention countries. During the interviews, we validated the data from the desk review and explored the following key themes: a) the existing health system landscape of the country; b) organisations involved with HPSR; c) the nature of HPSR funding in the country (demand/supply led); d) budgetary allocations for HPSR; e) barriers to HPSR funding; f) measures to strengthen HPSR funding; and g) suggestions for the right mix for future HPSR funding. The study was conducted from October to December 2020. Results: Thailand is the only country among those studied with a wellestablished institution dedicated to HPSR. India, Sri Lanka, Republic of Maldives and Nepal are still lagging in providing a solid foundation for HPSR. Most of the countries lack a common definition of HPSR and a dedicated stream for HPSR funding. There is also a lack of local capacity to independently lead and conduct HPSR in most of the study countries. Conclusion: We have provided a profile of the existing landscape of health systems in the SEARO member countries and highlighted the determinants of HPSR funding. A common definition and interpretation of HPSR is required, which extends beyond geographical and disciplinary boundaries. There is a need for enhanced core domestic funding along with increased recruitment and availability of HPSR researchers in the study countries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To provide an overview of the current state of funding for health policy and systems research (HPSR) on a national level across the Eastern Mediterranean region (EMR), and to examine the key factors influencing funding for HPSR in the region. Methods: A multistep approach was employed, involving a documentation review, secondary data analysis and key informant interviews with 30 stakeholders from five countries in the EMR. Findings are presented narratively (and where applicable as percentages). Results: National funding for research and development (R&D) in general, and for health research in particular, has been low in comparative terms and lagging behind at the global scale, while funding for HPSR has been lacking on a national level. None of the 22 EMR countries studied had explicit national funding or a budget line for HPSR. Analysis of funding sources of 1821 published HPSR articles in the EMR (2010-2019) showed that the most notable source was external/international grants (45.6%), followed by university/academia (35.1%), and government (9.5%). Although HPSR publications have been increasing over time, this still falls short of the scale needed for strengthening health systems and informing current transformations in the region. Findings from the interviews identified several factors influencing investment in or funding for HPSR in the EMR. Conclusions: Many of the EMR's policy priorities are related to health systems, however our research finds that overall investment in health research and HPSR is still low, with limited recognition of the importance of HPSR in the EMR. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]