Cross country lessons sharing on practices, challenges and innovation in primary health care revitalization and universal health coverage implementation among 18 countries in the WHO African Region

Preparedness, impacts, and responses of public health emergencies towards health security: qualitative synthesis of evidence

BACKGROUND

Natural and human-made public health emergencies (PHEs), such as armed conflicts, floods, and disease outbreaks, influence health systems including interruption of delivery and utilization of health services, and increased health service needs. However, the intensity and types of impacts of these PHEs vary across countries due to several associated factors. This scoping review aimed to synthesise available evidence on PHEs, their preparedness, impacts, and responses.

METHODS

We conducted a scoping review of published evidence. Studies were identified using search terms related to two concepts: health security and primary health care. We used Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines to select studies. We adapted the review framework of Arksey and O'Malley. Data were analyzed using a thematic analysis approach and explained under three stages of PHEs: preparedness, impacts, and responses.

RESULTS

A total of 64 studies were included in this review. Health systems of many low- and middle-income countries had inadequate preparedness to absorb the shocks of PHEs, limited surveillance, and monitoring of risks. Health systems have been overburdened with interrupted health services, increased need for health services, poor health resilience, and health inequities. Strategies of response to the impact of PHEs included integrated services such as public health and primary care, communication and partnership across sectors, use of digital tools, multisectoral coordination and actions, system approach to responses, multidisciplinary providers, and planning for resilient health systems.

CONCLUSIONS

Public health emergencies have high impacts in countries with weak health systems, inadequate preparedness, and inadequate surveillance mechanisms. Better health system preparedness is required to absorb the impact, respond to the consequences, and adapt for future PHEs. Some potential response strategies could be ensuring need-based health services, monitoring and surveillance of post-emergency outbreaks, and multisectoral actions to engage sectors to address the collateral impacts of PHEs. Mitigation strategies for future PHEs could include risk assessment, disaster preparedness, and setting digital alarm systems for monitoring and surveillance.

Assessing the governance environment for private sector engagement in health in Africa: Results from a multi-country survey

Background

The role of the private sector in health is clear in many countries but engagement can be improved. The World Health Organization (WHO) developed a global strategy in 2020 focused on engaging the private sector in health service delivery through governance in mixed health systems and detailed six governance behaviours to guide its Member States. To operationalise these global ideas into practice, the Regional Office for Africa conducted a multi-country study to understand perceptions around the six governance behaviours. This article examines the perceptions of respondents from 13 African countries on the governance environment for private sector engagement in health.

Methods

Data were collected through an online survey that was distributed to individuals from ministries of health and their partner organisations, private sector institutions and initiatives in countries and development organisations (n = 81) across 13 countries. The survey was based on the following six governance behaviours: build understanding, enable stakeholders, nurture trust, foster relations, align structures and deliver strategy.

Results

Results showed that respondents had mixed perceptions of the governance environment for private sector engagement in health in their respective countries. Although 88% of respondents (n = 63/72) were familiar with the general inclusion of the private sector in national health sector plans, 63% of respondents (n = 45/71) noted there was limited or no integration of the private sector in the health system, and further, 28% of respondents noted there was no private sector reporting in health information systems (n = 19/69). Key opportunities presented in more than one governance behaviour include: (i) increasing private sector engagement in public sector activities, (ii) establishing clear roles and responsibilities through formal partnership agreements, (iii) improving data sharing through shared health information systems, (iv) incentives and subsidies, (v) capacity building, (vi) creating norms, guidelines, and regulations and (vii) conducting joint monitoring and evaluation. Many of these outlined overlapping concepts are not exclusive to one behaviour, thus, it is evident that when targeted, there is the potential to improve numerous governance behaviours. This further reiterates the view that the governance behaviours should be understood as connected and not unrelated areas.

Conclusions

The study provides insight into the perceptions of respondents from select African countries on the governance environment for private sector engagement in health. These findings can inform the development of strategies and interventions to support and enhance private sector engagement in health in the region.

Where Is Equity in HiAP? Comment on "A Realist Explanatory Case Study Investigating How Common Goals, Leadership, and Committed Staff Facilitate Health in All Policies Implementation in the Municipality of Kuopio, Finland"

Health equity is no longer a central feature of Health in All Policies (HiAP) approaches despite its presence in select definitions of HiAP. In other words, HiAP is not just about considering health, but also health equity. But as HiAP has become more mainstream, its success around health equity has been muted and largely non-existent. Given the normative underpinning and centrality of equity in HiAP, equity should be better considered in HiAP and particularly when considering what 'successful' implementation may look like. Raising health on the radar of policy-makers is not mutually exclusive from considering equity. Taking an incremental approach to considering equity in HiAP can yield positive results. This article discusses these ideas and presents potential actions to restore HiAP's once central equity objectives, which include: seeking synergies focused on health equity with those who hold different convictions, both in terms of goals and measures of success; considering the conditions that allow HiAP to be fostered, such as good governance; and drawing on research on HiAP and other multisectoral approaches.

Achieving Universal Health Coverage in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: Challenges for Policy Post-Pandemic and Beyond

Background

Achieving universal health coverage (UHC) is critical for ensuring equity, improving health, and protecting households from financial catastrophe. The COVID-19 pandemic derailed the progress made across primary health targets. This article aims to review the policy challenges to achieve UHC in a post-pandemic world.

Methods

A narrative review of 118 peer reviewed and grey literature was conducted. A total of 77 published articles were identified using an electronic search in PubMed and Scopus and a bibliographic search of relevant literature. Another 41 Reports, websites, blogs, news articles, and data were manually sourced from international agencies (WHO, World Bank, IMF, FAO, etc.), government agencies, and non-government organizations.

Findings

The challenges were identified and discussed under five broad findings: i) weak public health care systems ii) challenges to building resilient health systems, iii) health care financing and financial risk protection, iv) epidemiological and demographic challenges, and v) governance and leadership.

Conclusion

LMICs in Africa and South Asia face significant challenges to achieving UHC by 2030. As countries recover from the pandemic's aftermath, significant investments and innovations are needed to ensure progress toward UHC. Efficient resource mobilization through internal accruals, international cooperation, and resource sharing is needed.

An umbrella review of intersectoral and multisectoral approaches to health policy

Despite the widespread acceptance of the need for intersectoral and multisectoral approaches, knowledge around how to support, achieve, and sustain multisectoral action is limited. While there have been studies that seek to collate evidence on multisectoral action with a specific focus (e.g., Health in All Policies [HiAP]), we postulated that successes of working cross-sectorally to achieve health goals with one approach can glean insights and perhaps translate to other approaches which work across sectors (i.e., shared insights across HiAP, Healthy Cities, One Health, and other approaches). Thus, the goal of this study is to assemble evidence from systematic approaches to reviewing the literature (e.g., scoping review, systematic review) that collate findings on facilitators/enablers of and barriers to implementing various intersectoral and multisectoral approaches to health, to strengthen understanding of how to best implement health policies that work across sectors, whichever they may be. This umbrella review (i.e., review of reviews) was informed by the PRISMA guidelines for scoping reviews, yielding 10 studies included in this review. Enablers detailed are: (1) systems for liaising and engaged communication; (2) political leadership; (3) shared vision or common goals (win-win strategies); (4) education and access to information; and (5) funding. Barriers detailed were: (1) lack of shared vision across sectors; (2) lack of funding; (3) lack of political leadership; (4) lack of ownership and accountability; and (5) insufficient and unavailable indicators and data. These findings provide a rigorous evidence base for policymakers to inform intersectoral and multisectoral approaches to not only aid in the achievement of goals, such as the Sustainable Development Goals, but to work towards health equity.