Search

The World Health Organization's (WHO) reputation became irrefutably damaged during the Ebola outbreak, with a general consensus in the global health community that it fell short of its leadership responsibilities. This commentary offers a brief synopsis of the WHO's role during the outbreak and suggests that the disease outbreak demonstrates the tension that exists between the organization's normative and operational roles in health crises. While the WHO did offer some normative leadership during the Ebola outbreak, as per its constitution, it did not provide an effective operational response, yet nor did it have a mandate to do so. This division between the normative and operational was further highlighted by the discrepancy between what the global community expects the WHO to do in a health emergency, and what it is able to do with its financial and organizational constraints. Finally, the commentary considers the introduction of the WHO Health Emergency Programme, but suggests that this too may suffer from the same structural concerns that need to be addressed if the WHO is to continue in the role the global health community expects it to play, as both a normative and operational leader in global disease control.This article is part of the themed issue 'The 2013-2016 West African Ebola epidemic: data, decision-making and disease control'., (© 2017 The Author(s).)

Background: In recent years there have been calls to strengthen health sciences research capacity in African countries. This capacity can contribute to improvements in health, social welfare and poverty reduction through domestic application of research findings; it is increasingly seen as critical to pandemic preparedness and response. Developing research infrastructure and performance may reduce national economies' reliance on primary commodity and agricultural production, as countries strive to develop knowledge-based economies to help drive macroeconomic growth. Yet efforts to date to understand health sciences research capacity are limited to output metrics of journal citations and publications, failing to reflect the complexity of the health sciences research landscape in many settings.Methods: We map and assess current capacity for health sciences research across all 54 countries of Africa by collecting a range of available data. This included structural indicators (research institutions and research funding), process indicators (clinical trial infrastructures, intellectual property rights and regulatory capacities) and output indicators (publications and citations).Results: While there are some countries which perform well across the range of indicators used, for most countries the results are varied-suggesting high relative performance in some indicators, but lower in others. Missing data for key measures of capacity or performance is also a key concern. Taken as a whole, existing data suggest a nuanced view of the current health sciences research landscape on the African continent.Conclusion: Mapping existing data may enable governments and international organizations to identify where gaps in health sciences research capacity lie, particularly in comparison to other countries in the region. It also highlights gaps where more data are needed. These data can help to inform investment priorities and future system needs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Policies and public health efforts have not addressed the gendered impacts of disease outbreaks.[1] The response to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) appears no different. Although sex-disaggregated data for COVID-19 show equal numbers of cases between men and women so far, there seem to be sex differences in mortality and vulnerability to the disease.[2] Emerging evidence suggests that more men than women are dying, potentially due to sex-based immunological[3] or gendered differences, such as patterns and prevalence of smoking.[4] However, current sex-disaggregated data are incomplete, cautioning against early assumptions. Experience from past outbreaks shows the importance of incorporating a gender analysis into preparedness and response efforts to improve the effectiveness of health interventions and promote gender and health equity goals. [Extracted from the article]

Sexual and reproductive health needs and access are often neglected during health emergencies. The 2015/2016 Zika epidemic is an example of priorities shifting to the detriment of women's health needs. The internet is a key tool for abortion knowledge sharing and seeking in countries where abortion is not legally available and it is also a key resource for tele-health. Yet, we know very little about how people use the internet, and the type of information searched for, to access abortion information and services. The aim of this study is to analyse to what extent and how the internet was used as a resource for abortion information during the Zika outbreak and its aftermath in Brazil in 2015/2016. Using Google Trends and Analytics data, we analyse contextually-specific abortion searches using standardised terms that reflect the overall representation of searches at that time alongside weekly levels of Zika incidence. The results show a heightened use of combined search terms for abortion and Zika, as well as abortion and microcephaly, suggesting a rise in abortion information searching linked to the epidemic. These searches were highly correlated with the level of Zika incidence. This study confirms the use of the internet for information seeking during a public health emergency. It demonstrates the need for appropriate internet resources to improve access to abortion information, especially in countries where abortion is highly restricted and stigmatised. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The authors comment on their study on the effect of civil-military cooperation during the Ebola outbreak in West Africa by conducting interviews with various people including health care workers, between February and September 2015. Topics cited include programs that worked and failed in Liberia and Sierra Leone, the role of the military during global health crises and the controversy of incorporating civil-military cooperation in health as a regular activity.