How prepared is the world? Identifying weaknesses in existing assessment frameworks for global health security through a One Health approach

A Delphi study to assess the effect of changes in language between the first and second editions of the WHO's Joint External Evaluation

INTRODUCTION

Countries use the WHO Joint External Evaluation (JEE) tool-part of the WHO International Health Regulations (2005) Monitoring and Evaluation Framework-for voluntary evaluation of global health security (GHS) capacities. After releasing the JEE first edition (E1) in 2016, WHO released the JEE second edition (E2) in 2018 with language changes to multiple indicators and associated capacity levels. To understand the effect of language changes on countries' ability to meet requirements in each edition, we conducted a Delphi study-a method where a panel of experts reach consensus on a topic through iterative, anonymous surveys-to solicit feedback from 40+ GHS experts with expertise in one or more of the 19 JEE technical areas.

METHODS

We asked experts first to compare the language changes for each capacity level within each indicator and identify how these changes affected the indicator overall; then to assess the ability of a country to achieve the same capacity level using E2 as compared with E1 using a Likert-style score (1-5), where '1' was 'significantly easier' and '5' was 'significantly harder'; and last to provide a qualitative justification for score selections. We analysed the medians and IQR of responses to determine where experts reached consensus.

RESULTS

Results demonstrate that 14 indicators and 49 capacity levels would be harder to achieve in E2.

CONCLUSION

Findings underscore the importance of considering how language alterations impact how the JEE measures GHS capacity and the feasibility of using the JEE to monitor changes in capacity over time.

A Century of Change: Unraveling the Impact of Socioeconomic/Historical Milestones on Age at Menarche and Other Female Reproductive Factors in Japan

BACKGROUND

Reproductive factors such as age at menarche are known to be associated with disease risk, but data on trends in these factors in Japan are limited. In this study, we investigated secular trends in reproductive factors and explored their potential association with socioeconomic and historical events.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective analysis of 62,005 Japanese women born between 1890 and 1991 using a survey conducted over 25 years. Trends in reproductive factors were analyzed using linear and joinpoint regression models, and their associations with major historical events involving Japan were evaluated.

RESULTS

We found that the age at menarche showed a significant downward trend (P-value<0.001) over the century. Three joinpoints were identified, in 1932 (15.23 years old), 1946 (13.48 years old), and 1959 (12.71 years old), which indicated that average age at menarche decreased by approximately 0.8% per year between 1932 and 1946, and then by 0.4% per year between 1946 and 1959, both of which were statistically significant. However, after 1959, age of menarche remained stable. Analyses of other reproductive factors found significant changes, including a decrease in parity and the number of babies breastfed, and an increase in age at first birth.

CONCLUSION

Age at menarche showed a long-term downward trend in Japan, with significant change points in annual percent change. Other factors showed secular changes in trends as well. These change points were observed at the same time as historical events, namely wars and economic development, suggesting that socioeconomic and environmental changes at the population level affect reproductive factors in females.

Approaches, challenges, and opportunities to strengthen the epidemic intelligence workforce: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Weak surveillance systems have limited countries' ability to adequately respond to public health emergencies. Strengthening the human workforce in this field is considered an important opportunity to ensure the future response to infectious diseases outbreaks globally. A scoping review of the academic literature and relevant documents was conducted to identify approaches, challenges, and opportunities to strengthen the epidemic intelligence (EI) workforce.

METHODS

Five peer-reviewed databases were systematically searched, as well as Google as a grey literature source. English language articles and documents published between 2014 and 2022 were included. No geographical restrictions were set.

RESULTS

37 articles and 20 documents were included in the review. Professional training, the acknowledgement of including a broad variety of disciplines into the workforce, the inclusion of communities, the pursuit of a One Health approach and the use of digital tools were identified as impeding and/or facilitating the EI workforce. The review shows that the field epidemiology training programme is a prominent approach for strengthening the EI workforce and that little evidence exists on how non-traditional disciplines (e.g., disciplines besides medicine, laboratory science, or epidemiology) contributing to surveillance may support the future EI workforce.

CONCLUSION

The identification of approaches, challenges, and opportunities of EI can inform future policy and practice on strengthening the EI workforce. The conduct of more high-quality studies is needed to guide this process. The potential benefits of integrating a wider range of disciplines than currently found in the surveillance workforce and of involving communities in disease surveillance needs to be further researched.

One health adoption within prevention, preparedness and response to health threats: Highlights from a scoping review

Introduction

As the COVID-19 pandemic has demonstrated, the complexity of factors involved in the emergence of health threats requires a holistic One Health (OH) approach to enhance the effectiveness of prevention, preparedness, and response (PPR) strategies. Therefore, we conducted a scoping review to explore how the OH approach has been adopted in the context of PPR strategies to health threats, and the challenges and benefits deriving from its integration.

Methods

We defined the research questions and a strategy to guide the peer-reviewed and grey literature search to identify relevant articles and documents (identification). We assessed them for eligibility according to predefined criteria (screening) and finally included the ones that answered the research questions (inclusion). We performed a descriptive and thematic analysis of the results.

Results

A total of 138 records were included in the review (57 from the peer-reviewed literature and 81 from the grey literature). The OH approach was mainly adopted in prevention strategies, particularly within the governance area. Human and animal health were the most integrated disciplines in the OH approach, while environmental and social sciences were the less integrated. The most targeted threats were antimicrobial resistance and zoonoses, with the African region being the most represented. Conducive factors for the adoption of OH PPR strategies were identified in resolutions and guidance emanating from international organisations.

Discussion

The global governance of OH should utilise conducive factors, such as international resolutions and guidance, to enhance the adoption of multisectoral and multi-actor PPR strategies, that focus on national and international priorities and neglected threats, such as environmental hazards and pandemic risk. Integrated frameworks and metrics for the implementation and evaluation of OH PPR strategies need to be consolidated to contribute to the growing body of evidence supporting the adoption of the OH approach.

Assessing pandemic preparedness, response, and lessons learned from the COVID-19 pandemic in four south American countries: agenda for the future

Introduction

The COVID-19 pandemic emerged in a context that lacked adequate prevention, preparedness, and response (PPR) activities, and global, regional, and national leadership. South American countries were among world's hardest hit by the pandemic, accounting for 10.1% of total cases and 20.1% of global deaths.

Methods

This study explores how pandemic PPR were affected by political, socioeconomic, and health system contexts as well as how PPR may have shaped pandemic outcomes in Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, and Peru. We then identify lessons learned and advance an agenda for improving PPR capacity at regional and national levels. We do this through a mixed-methods sequential explanatory study in four South American countries based on structured interviews and focus groups with elite policy makers.

Results

The results of our study demonstrate that structural and contextual barriers limited PPR activities at political, social, and economic levels in each country, as well as through the structure of the health care system. Respondents believe that top-level government officials had insufficient political will for prioritizing pandemic PPR and post-COVID-19 recovery programs within their countries' health agendas.

Discussion

We recommend a regional COVID-19 task force, post-pandemic recovery, social and economic protection for vulnerable groups, improved primary health care and surveillance systems, risk communication strategies, and community engagement to place pandemic PPR on Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, and Peru and other South American countries' national public health agendas.

Justice implications of health and food security policies for Indigenous peoples facing COVID-19: a qualitative study and policy analysis in Peru

The spread of COVID-19 in Peru resulted in the declaration of a national health emergency, in which Indigenous peoples were identified as being particularly vulnerable due to their pre-existing poor health indicators and disadvantaged social conditions. The aim of this paper is to examine how the Peruvian government responded to the health and food needs of the Shawi and Ashaninka Indigenous peoples of Peru during the first 18 months of the pandemic (March 2020-August 2021). This study uses both official policy documents and real-world experiences to evaluate policy responses in terms of their immediate impact and their longer-term sustainability and contribution to the improvement of health, well-being and justice for Indigenous communities. Four health and food security responses were evaluated: the Amazon Health Plan and Indigenous Command; food aid; cash aid; and COVID-19 vaccination. We employed the Multidimensional Injustice Framework to analyse the justice implications of the design and implementation of responses. Data collection included 71 interviews with government officials (n = 7), Indigenous leaders (n = 31) and community members (n = 33). The results show how national and regional governments released policies to address the health and food needs of Indigenous peoples directly or indirectly, as part of a broader focus on vulnerable people. However, justice implications were not sufficiently addressed in the design or implementation of the responses. On the distributive dimension, Indigenous communities were prioritized to receive health goods and services, nevertheless, the distribution had shortcomings that impeded their collection and Indigenous food systems and livelihoods were largely overlooked. On the procedural dimension, Indigenous representatives were included to provide culturally sensitive feedback on health interventions, but without funding, and furthermore, the community members had only passive participation. This paper points out the importance of considering and addressing justice implications for more effective and fairer health and food policy responses to current and future health crises.

International stakeholder perspectives on One Health training and empowerment: a needs assessment for a One Health Workforce Academy

BACKGROUND

One Health is defined as an integrated, unifying approach that aims to sustainably balance and optimize the health of people, animals and ecosystems; this approach attracts stakeholders from multiple sectors, academic disciplines, and professional practices. The diversity of expertise and interest groups is frequently and simultaneously framed as (1) a strength of the One Health approach in the process of understanding and solving complex problems associated with health challenges such as pathogen spillovers and pandemics and (2) a challenge regarding consensus on essential functions of One Health and the sets of knowledge, skills, and perspectives unique to a workforce adopting this approach. Progress in developing competency-based training in One Health has revealed coverage of various topics across fundamental, technical, functional, and integrative domains. Ensuring that employers value the unique characteristics of personnel trained in One Health will likely require demonstration of its usefulness, accreditation, and continuing professional development. These needs led to the conceptual framework of a One Health Workforce Academy (OHWA) for use as a platform to deliver competency-based training and assessment for an accreditable credential in One Health and opportunities for continuing professional development.

METHODS

To gather information about the desirability of an OHWA, we conducted a survey of One Health stakeholders. The IRB-approved research protocol used an online tool to collect individual responses to the survey questions. Potential respondents were recruited from partners of One Health University Networks in Africa and Southeast Asia and international respondents outside of these networks. Survey questions collected demographic information, measured existing or projected demand and the relative importance of One Health competencies, and determined the potential benefits and barriers of earning a credential. Respondents were not compensated for participation.

RESULTS

Respondents (N = 231) from 24 countries reported differences in their perspectives on the relative importance of competency domains of the One Health approach. More than 90% of the respondents would seek to acquire a competency-based certificate in One Health, and 60% of respondents expected that earning such a credential would be rewarded by employers. Among potential barriers, time and funding were the most cited.

CONCLUSION

This study showed strong support from potential stakeholders for a OHWA that hosts competency-based training with opportunities for certification and continuing professional development.

Addressing the challenges of implementing evidence-based prioritisation in global health

Global health requires evidence-based approaches to improve health and decrease inequalities. In a roundtable discussion between health practitioners, funders, academics and policy-makers, we recognised key areas for improvement to deliver better-informed, sustainable and equitable global health practices. These focus on considering information-sharing mechanisms and developing evidence-based frameworks that take an adaptive function-based approach, grounded in the ability to perform and respond to prioritised needs. Increasing social engagement as well as sector and participant diversity in whole-of-society decision-making, and collaborating with and optimising on hyperlocal and global regional entities, will improve prioritisation of global health capabilities. Since the skills required to navigate drivers of pandemics, and the challenges in prioritising, capacity building and response do not sit squarely in the health sector, it is essential to integrate expertise from a broad range of fields to maximise on available knowledge during decision-making and system development. Here, we review the current assessment tools and provide seven discussion points for how improvements to implementation of evidence-based prioritisation can improve global health.

Global and regional governance of One Health and implications for global health security

The apparent failure of global health security to prevent or prepare for the COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the need for closer cooperation between human, animal (domestic and wildlife), and environmental health sectors. However, the many institutions, processes, regulatory frameworks, and legal instruments with direct and indirect roles in the global governance of One Health have led to a fragmented, global, multilateral health security architecture. We explore four challenges: first, the sectoral, professional, and institutional silos and tensions existing between human, animal, and environmental health; second, the challenge that the international legal system, state sovereignty, and existing legal instruments pose for the governance of One Health; third, the power dynamics and asymmetry in power between countries represented in multilateral institutions and their impact on priority setting; and finally, the current financing mechanisms that predominantly focus on response to crises, and the chronic underinvestment for epidemic and emergency prevention, mitigation, and preparedness activities. We illustrate the global and regional dimensions to these four challenges and how they relate to national needs and priorities through three case studies on compulsory licensing, the governance of water resources in the Lake Chad Basin, and the desert locust infestation in east Africa. Finally, we propose 12 recommendations for the global community to address these challenges. Despite its broad and holistic agenda, One Health continues to be dominated by human and domestic animal health experts. Substantial efforts should be made to address the social-ecological drivers of health emergencies including outbreaks of emerging, re-emerging, and endemic infectious diseases. These drivers include climate change, biodiversity loss, and land-use change, and therefore require effective and enforceable legislation, investment, capacity building, and integration of other sectors and professionals beyond health.

Advancing One human-animal-environment Health for global health security: what does the evidence say?

In this Series paper, we review the contributions of One Health approaches (ie, at the human-animal-environment interface) to improve global health security across a range of health hazards and we summarise contemporary evidence of incremental benefits of a One Health approach. We assessed how One Health approaches were reported to the Food and Agricultural Organization of the UN, the World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH, formerly OIE), and WHO, within the monitoring and assessment frameworks, including WHO International Health Regulations (2005) and WOAH Performance of Veterinary Services. We reviewed One Health theoretical foundations, methods, and case studies. Examples from joint health services and infrastructure, surveillance-response systems, surveillance of antimicrobial resistance, food safety and security, environmental hazards, water and sanitation, and zoonoses control clearly show incremental benefits of One Health approaches. One Health approaches appear to be most effective and sustainable in the prevention, preparedness, and early detection and investigation of evolving risks and hazards; the evidence base for their application is strongest in the control of endemic and neglected tropical diseases. For benefits to be maximised and extended, improved One Health operationalisation is needed by strengthening multisectoral coordination mechanisms at national, regional, and global levels.