Search

Wenhui Mao and coauthors discuss possible implications of the COVID-19 pandemic for health aspirations in low- and middle-income countries.

Background: Preterm birth, defined as infants born before 37 weeks of gestation, is the largest contributor to child mortality. Despite new evidence highlighting the global burden of prematurity, policymakers have failed to adequately prioritize preterm birth despite the magnitude of its health impacts. Given current levels of political attention and investment, it is unlikely that the global community will be adequately mobilized to meet the 2012 Born Too Soon report goal of reducing the preterm birth rate by 50% by 2025. Methods: This study adapts the Shiffman and Smith framework for political priority to examine four components contributing to policy action in global health: actor power, ideas, political context, and issue characteristics. We conducted key informant interviews with 18 experts in prematurity and reproductive, maternal, newborn, and child health (RMNCH) and reviewed key literature on preterm birth. We aimed to identify the factors that shape the global political priority of preterm birth and to describe policy opportunities to increase its priority moving forward. Results: The global preterm birth community (academic researchers, multilateral organizations, government agencies, and civil society organizations) lacks evidence about the causes of and solutions to preterm birth; and country-level data quality is poor with gaps in the understanding required for implementing effective interventions. Limited funding compounds these challenges, creating divisions among experts on what policy actions to recommend. These factors contribute to the lack of priority and underrepresentation of preterm birth within the larger RMNCH agenda. Conclusion: Increasing the political priority of prematurity is essential to reduce preventable newborn and child mortality, a key target of the 2030 Sustainable Development Goal for health (target 3.2). This study identifies three policy recommendations for the preterm birth community: address data and evidence gaps, clarify and invest in viable solutions, and bring visibility to prematurity within the larger RMNCH agendas.

Background: Covid-19 has reinforced health and economic cases for investing in pandemic preparedness and response (PPR). The World Bank and World Health Organization (WHO) propose that low- and middle-income governments and donor countries should invest $31.1 billion each year for PPR. We analyse, based on the projected economic growth of countries between 2022 and 2027, how likely it is that low- and middle-income country governments and donors can mobilize the estimated funding. Methods: We modelled trends in economic growth to project domestic health spending by low- and middle-income governments and official development assistance (ODA) by donors for years 2022 to 2027. We modelled two scenarios for countries and donors – a constant and an optimistic scenario. Under the constant scenario we assume that countries and donors continue to dedicate the same proportion of their health spending and ODA as a share of gross domestic product (GDP) and gross national income (GNI), respectively, as they did during baseline (the latest year for which data are available). In the optimistic scenario, we assume a yearly increase of 2.5% in health spending as a share of GDP for countries and ODA as a share of GNI for donors. Findings: Our analysis shows that low-income countries would need to invest on average 37%, lower-middle income countries 9%, and upper-middle income countries 1%, of their total health spending on PPR each year under the constant scenario to meet the World Bank WHO targets. Donors would need to allocate on average 8% of their total ODA across all sectors to PPR each year to meet their target. Conclusions: The World Bank WHO targets for PPR will not be met unless low- and middle-income governments and donors spend a much higher share of their funding on PPR. Even under optimistic growth scenarios, low-income and lower-middle income countries will require increased support from global health donors. The donor target cannot be met using the yearly increase in ODA under any scenario. If the country and donor targets are not met, the highest-impact health security measures need to be prioritized for funding. Alternative sources of PPR financing could include global taxation (e.g., on financial transactions, carbon, or airline flights), cancelling debt, and addressing illicit financial flows. There is also a need for continued work on estimating current PPR costs and funding requirements in order to arrive at more enduring and reliable estimates. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Commission on Investing in Health (CIH), an international group of 25 economists and global health experts, published its Global Health 2035 report in The Lancet in December 2013. The report laid out an ambitious investment framework for achieving a "grand convergence" in health-a universal reduction in deaths from infectious diseases and maternal and child health conditions-within a generation. This article captures ten key elements that the CIH found important to its process and successful outcomes. The elements are presented in chronological order, from inception to post-publication activities. The starting point is to identify the gap that a new commission could help to narrow. A critical early step is to choose a chair who can help to set the agenda, motivate the commissioners, frame the commission's analytic work, and run the commission meetings in an effective way. In selecting commissioners, important considerations are their technical expertise, ensuring diversity of people and viewpoints, and the connections that commissioners have with the intended policy audience. Financial and human resources need to be secured, typically from universities, foundations, and development agencies. It is important to set a clear end date, so that the commission's work program, the timing of its meetings and its interim deadlines can be established. In-person meetings are usually a more effective mechanism than conference calls for gaining commissioners' inputs, surfacing important debates, and 'reality testing' the commission's key findings and messages. To have policy impact, the commission report should ideally say something new and unexpected and should have simple messages. Generating new empirical data and including forward-looking recommendations can also help galvanize policy action. Finally, the lifespan of a commission can be extended if it lays the foundation for a research agenda that is then taken up after the commission report is published.

BackgroundPreterm birth (PTB) is the leading cause of death in children under age five. Healthcare policy and other decision-making relevant to PTB may rely on obsolete, incomplete or inapplicable research evidence, leading to worsened outcomes. Appropriate knowledge transfer and exchange (KTE) strategies are an important component of efforts to reduce the global PTB burden. We sought to develop a 'landscape' analysis of KTE strategies currently used in PTB and related contexts, and to make recommendations for optimising programmatic implementation and for future research.MethodsIn the University of California, San Francisco's Preterm Birth Initiative, we convened a multidisciplinary working group and examined KTE frameworks. After selecting a widely-used, adaptable, theoretically-strong framework we reviewed the literature to identify evidence-based KTE strategies. We analysed KTE approaches focusing on key PTB stakeholders (individuals, families and communities, healthcare providers and policymakers). Guided by the framework, we articulated KTE approaches that would likely improve PTB outcomes. We further applied the KTE framework in developing recommendations.ResultsWe selected the Linking Research to Action framework. Searches identified 19 systematic reviews, including two 'reviews of reviews'. Twelve reviews provided evidence for KTE strategies in the context of maternal, neonatal and child health, though not PTB specifically; seven reviews provided 'cross-cutting' evidence that could likely be generalised to PTB contexts. For individuals, families and communities, potentially effective KTE strategies include community-based approaches, 'decision aids', regular discussions with providers and other strategies. For providers, KTE outcomes may be improved through local opinion leaders, electronic reminders, multifaceted strategies and other approaches. Policy decisions relevant to PTB may best be informed through the use of evidence briefs, deliberative dialogues, the SUPPORT tools for evidence-informed policymaking and other strategies. Our recommendations for research addressed knowledge gaps in regard to partner engagement, applicability and context, implementation strategy research, monitoring and evaluation, and infrastructure for sustainable KTE efforts.ConclusionsEvidence-based KTE, using strategies appropriate to each stakeholder group, is essential to any effort to improve health at the population level. PTB stakeholders should be fully engaged in KTE and programme planning from its earliest stages, and ideally before planning begins.

BackgroundThe United Nations Sustainable Development Goal for health (SDG3) poses complex challenges for signatory countries that will require clear roadmaps to set priorities over the next 15 years. Building upon the work of the Commission on Investing in Health and published estimates of feasible global mortality SDG3 targets, we analysed Mexico's mortality to assess the feasibility of reducing premature (0-69 years) mortality and propose a path to meet SDG3.MethodsWe developed a baseline scenario applying 2010 age-specific and cause-specific mortality rates from the Mexican National Institute of Statistics and Geography (INEGI) to the 2030 UN Population Division (UNPD) population projections. In a second scenario, INEGI age-specific and cause-specific trends in death rates from 2000 to 2014 were projected to 2030 and adjusted to match the UNPD 2030 mortality projections. A third scenario assumed a 40% reduction in premature deaths across all ages and causes. By comparing these scenarios we quantified shortfalls in mortality reductions by age group and cause, and forecasted life expectancy pathways for Mexico to converge to better performing countries.FindingsUNPD-projected death rates yield a 25·9% reduction of premature mortality for Mexico. Accelerated reductions in adult mortality are necessary to reach a 40% reduction by 2030. Mortality declines aggregated across all age groups mask uneven gains across health disorders. Injuries, particularly road traffic accidents and homicides, are the main health challenge for young adults (aged 20-49 years) whereas unabated diabetes mortality is the single most important health concern for older adults (aged 50-69 years).InterpretationUrgent action is now required to control non-communicable diseases and reduce fatal injuries in Mexico, making a 40% reduction in premature mortality by 2030 feasible and putting Mexico back on a track of substantial life expectancy convergence with better performing countries. Our study provides a roadmap for setting national health priorities. Further analysis of the equity implications of following the suggested pathway remains a subject of future research.FundingMexico's Ministry of Health, University of California, San Francisco, and Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

The Millennium Development Goals have ended and the Sustainable Development Goals have begun, marking a shift in the global health landscape. The frame of reference has changed from a focus on 8 development priorities to an expansive set of 17 interrelated goals intended to improve the well-being of all people. In this time of change, several groups, including the Lancet Commission on Global Surgery, have brought a critical problem to the fore: 5 billion people lack access to safe, affordable surgical and anaesthesia care when needed. The magnitude of this problem and the world's new focus on strengthening health systems mandate reimagined roles for and renewed commitments from high income country actors in global surgery. To discuss the way forward, on 6 May 2015, the Commission held its North American launch event in Boston, Massachusetts. Panels of experts outlined the current state of knowledge and agreed on the roles of surgical colleges and academic medical centres; trainees and training programmes; academia; global health funders; the biomedical devices industry, and news media and advocacy organisations in building sustainable, resilient surgical systems. This paper summarises these discussions and serves as a consensus statement providing practical advice to these groups. It traces a common policy agenda between major actors and provides a roadmap for maximising benefit to surgical patients worldwide. To close the access gap by 2030, individuals and organisations must work collectively, interprofessionally and globally. High income country actors must abandon colonial narratives and work alongside low and middle income country partners to build the surgical systems of the future.

En noviembre de 2014, la Secretaría de Salud de México fue sede de una mesa redonda con miembros de la Comisión de The Lancet para la Inversión en Salud (CIS) para analizar el informe de esta misma comisión titulado Salud global 2035 y sus posibles implicaciones para el mejoramiento de la salud pública...

En noviembre de 2014, la Secretaría de Salud de México fue sede de una mesa redonda con miembros de la Comisión de The Lancet para la Inversión en Salud (CIS) para analizar el informe de esta misma comisión titulado Salud global 2035 y sus posibles implicaciones para el mejoramiento de la salud pública...

BackgroundThe UN will formulate ambitious Sustainable Development Goals for 2030, including one for health. Feasible goals with some quantifiable, measurable targets can influence governments. We propose, as a quatitative health target, "Avoid in each country 40% of premature deaths (under-70 deaths that would be seen in the 2030 population at 2010 death rates), and improve health care at all ages". Targeting overall mortality and improved health care ignores no modifiable cause of death, nor any cause of disability that is treatable (or also causes many deaths). 40% fewer premature deaths would be important in all countries, but implies very different priorities in different populations. Reinforcing this target for overall mortality in each country are four global subtargets for 2030: avoid two-thirds of child and maternal deaths; two-thirds of tuberculosis, HIV, and malaria deaths; a third of premature deaths from non-communicable diseases (NCDs); and a third of those from other causes (other communicable diseases, undernutrition, and injuries). These challenging subtargets would halve under-50 deaths, avoid a third of the (mainly NCD) deaths at ages 50-69 years, and so avoid 40% of under-70 deaths. To help assess feasibility, we review mortality rates and trends in the 25 most populous countries, in four country income groupings, and worldwide.MethodsUN sources yielded overall 1970-2010 mortality trends. WHO sources yielded cause-specific 2000-10 trends, standardised to country-specific 2030 populations; decreases per decade of 42% or 18% would yield 20-year reductions of two-thirds or a third.ResultsThroughout the world, except in countries where the effects of HIV or political disturbances predominated, mortality decreased substantially from 1970-2010, particularly in childhood. From 2000-10, under-70 age-standardised mortality rates decreased 19% (with the low-income and lower-middle-income countries having the greatest absolute gains). The proportional decreases per decade (2000-10) were: 34% at ages 0-4 years; 17% at ages 5-49 years; 15% at ages 50-69 years; 30% for communicable, perinatal, maternal, or nutritional causes; 14% for NCDs; and 13% for injuries (accident, suicide, or homicide).InterpretationModerate acceleration of the 2000-10 proportional decreases in mortality could be feasible, achieving the targeted 2030 disease-specific reductions of two-thirds or a third. If achieved, these reductions avoid about 10 million of the 20 million deaths at ages 0-49 years that would be seen in 2030 at 2010 death rates, and about 17 million of the 41 million such deaths at ages 0-69 years. Such changes could be achievable by 2030, or soon afterwards, at least in areas free of war, other major effects of political disruption, or a major new epidemic.FundingUK Medical Research Council, Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation, Centre for Global Health Research, and Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

The Affordable Medicines Facility-malaria is an innovative financing mechanism, managed by the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. This initiative aims to increase the use of artemisinin-based combination therapies for treating malaria. A pilot is underway in eight countries to determine whether the mechanism reduces the consumer price of these drugs and increases their availability in public and private outlets, their market share and their use. To evaluate the pilot, an analysis was done to estimate predetermined benchmarks of success at 1 and 2 years. The analysis used a mixed-methods approach, triangulating data from a literature review with information from 33 interviews with experts. A sensitivity analysis and other methods were used to verify the results. Benchmarks used to determine success include an increase in availability of artemisinin-based combination therapies of 40 percentage points from baseline, and an increase in their use of 10-15 percentage points from baseline at year 2. These benchmarks were based on evidence that national public health programmes aimed at increasing the use of a specific health commodity in developing countries have generally achieved only modest changes in use within a 2-year time frame. Evaluation should also take individual country contexts into account.

Abstract Background Most low and middle income countries (LMICs) are currently not on track to reach the health-related Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). One way to accelerate progress would be through the large-scale implementation of evidence-based health tools and interventions. This study aimed to: (a) explore the barriers that have impeded such scale-up in LMICs, and (b) lay out an “implementation research agenda”—a series of key research questions that need to be addressed in order to help overcome such barriers. Methods Interviews were conducted with fourteen key informants, all of whom are academic leaders in the field of implementation science, who were purposively selected for their expertise in scaling up in LMICs. Interviews were transcribed by hand and manually coded to look for emerging themes related to the two study aims. Barriers to scaling up, and unanswered research questions, were organized into six categories, representing different components of the scaling up process: attributes of the intervention; attributes of the implementers; scale-up approach; attributes of the adopting community; socio-political, fiscal, and cultural context; and research context. Results Factors impeding the success of scale-up that emerged from the key informant interviews, and which are areas for future investigation, include: complexity of the intervention and lack of technical consensus; limited human resource, leadership, management, and health systems capacity; poor application of proven diffusion techniques; lack of engagement of local implementers and of the adopting community; and inadequate integration of research into scale-up efforts. Conclusions Key steps in expanding the evidence base on implementation in LMICs include studying how to: simplify interventions; train “scale-up leaders” and health workers dedicated to scale-up; reach and engage communities; match the best delivery strategy to the specific health problem and context; and raise the low profile of implementation science.

AbstractBackgroundConsiderable declines in malaria have accompanied increased funding for control since the year 2000, but historical failures to maintain gains against the disease underscore the fragility of these successes. Although malaria transmission can be suppressed by effective control measures, in the absence of active intervention malaria will return to an intrinsic equilibrium determined by factors related to ecology, efficiency of mosquito vectors, and socioeconomic characteristics. Understanding where and why resurgence has occurred historically can help current and future malaria control programmes avoid the mistakes of the past.MethodsA systematic review of the literature was conducted to identify historical malaria resurgence events. All suggested causes of these events were categorized according to whether they were related to weakened malaria control programmes, increased potential for malaria transmission, or technical obstacles like resistance.ResultsThe review identified 75 resurgence events in 61 countries, occurring from the 1930s through the 2000s. Almost all resurgence events (68/75 = 91%) were attributed at least in part to the weakening of malaria control programmes for a variety of reasons, of which resource constraints were the most common (39/68 = 57%). Over half of the events (44/75 = 59%) were attributed in part to increases in the intrinsic potential for malaria transmission, while only 24/75 (32%) were attributed to vector or drug resistance.ConclusionsGiven that most malaria resurgences have been linked to weakening of control programmes, there is an urgent need to develop practical solutions to the financial and operational threats to effectively sustaining today’s successful malaria control programmes.

Only 23 countries are on course to reach Millennium Development Goal (MDG) 5: to reduce the maternal mortality ratio by 75% by 2015 [1]. One reason for this slow progress is that, in many low-income and middle-income countries, most poor women deliver at home without skilled attendance, and thus face a high rate of obstetric complications. Our recent analysis, for example, found that in sub-Saharan Africa, from 2003 to the present, 78% of births among the poorest women occurred at home, of which 56% were unattended [2]. Reasons for this high rate of unattended home births include poor availability of health facilities, and social and cultural preferences for home delivery [2,3]. Increasing the proportion of poor women receiving skilled obstetric care is a complex public health challenge that defies easy solutions. Innovative approaches are desperately needed. References 1. Hogan MC, Foreman KJ, Naghavi M, et al. Maternal mortality for 181 countries, 1980–2008: a systematic analysis of progress towards Millennium Development Goal 5. Lancet 2010; 375: 1609–23. 2. Montagu D, Yamey G, Visconti A, Harding A, Yoong J. Where do poor women in developing countries give birth? A multi-country analysis of demographic and health survey data. PLoS One 2011; 6: e17155. 3. Koblinsky M, Matthews Z, Hussein J, et al, on behalf of The Lancet Maternal Survival Series steering group. Going to scale with professional skilled care. Lancet 2006; 368: 1377–86.