Community interventions for pandemic preparedness: A scoping review of pandemic preparedness lessons from HIV, COVID-19, and other public health emergencies of international concern.

Community action is broadly recognised as central to comprehensive and effective system responses to pandemics. However, there is uncertainty about how and where communities can be best supported to bolster long-term resilience and preparedness. We applied a typology of community interventions (Community Informing, Consulting, Involving, Collaborating or Empowering-or CICICE) to cover the diverse range of interventions identified across the literature and used this to structure a scoping review addressing three linked topics: (i) how CICICE interventions have been understood and applied in the literature on epidemic and pandemic preparedness; (ii) the spectrum of interventions that have been implemented to strengthen CICICE and (iii) what evidence is available on their effectiveness in influencing preparedness for current and future emergencies. We drew on peer-reviewed and grey literature from the HIV (from 2000) and COVID-19 pandemics and recent public health emergencies of international concern (from 2008), identified through systematic searches in MEDLINE, Scopus, the Cochrane Collaboration database, supplemented by keyword-structured searches in GoogleScholar and websites of relevant global health organisations. Following screening and extraction, key themes were identified using a combined inductive/deductive approach. 130 papers met the criteria for inclusion. Interventions for preparedness were identified across the spectrum of CICICE. Most work on COVID-19 focused on informing and consulting rather than capacity building and empowerment. The literature on HIV was more likely to report interventions emphasising human rights perspectives and empowerment. There was little robust evidence on the role of CICICE interventions in building preparedness. Evidence of effect was most robust for multi-component interventions for HIV prevention and control. Much of the reporting focused on intermediate outcomes, including measures of health service utilisation. We put forward a series of recommendations to help address evidence shortfalls, including clarifying definitions, organising and stratifying interventions by several parameters and strengthening evaluation methods for CICICE.

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.

COVID-19 Preparedness and Response Plans from 106 countries: a review from a health systems resilience perspective.

Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) has exposed long-standing fragmentation in health systems strengthening efforts for health security and universal health coverage while these objectives are largely interdependent and complementary. In this prevailing background, we reviewed countries' COVID-19 Preparedness and Response Plans (CPRPs) to assess the extent of integration of non-COVID-19 essential health service continuity considerations alongside emergency response activities. We searched for COVID-19 planning documents from governments and ministries of health, World Health Organization (WHO) country offices and United Nations (UN) country teams. We developed document review protocols using global guidance from the WHO and UN and the health systems resilience literature. After screening, we analysed 154 CPRPs from 106 countries. The majority of plans had a high degree of alignment with pillars of emergency response such as surveillance (99%), laboratory systems (96%) and COVID-19-specific case management (97%). Less than half considered maintaining essential health services (47%); 41% designated a mechanism for health system-wide participation in emergency planning; 34% considered subnational service delivery; 95% contained infection prevention and control (IPC) activities and 29% considered quality of care; and 24% were budgeted for and 7% contained monitoring and evaluation of essential health services. To improve, ongoing and future emergency planning should proactively include proportionate activities, resources and monitoring for essential health services to reduce excess mortality and morbidity. Specifically, this entails strengthening subnational health services with local stakeholder engagement in planning; ensuring a dedicated focus in emergency operations structures to maintain health systems resilience for non-emergency health services; considering all domains of quality in health services along with IPC; and building resilient monitoring capacity for timely and reliable tracking of health systems functionality including service utilization and health outcomes. An integrated approach to planning should be pursued as health systems recover from COVID-19 disruptions and take actions to build back better.

The global pool of simulation exercise materials in health emergency preparedness and response: a scoping review with a health system perspective.

Simulation Exercises (SimEx) are an established tool in defence and allied security sectors, applied extensively in health security initiatives under national or international legislative requirements, particularly the International Health Regulations (2005). There is, however, a paucity of information on SimEx application to test the functionality of health systems alongside emergency preparedness, response and recovery. Given the important implications health services resilience has for the protection and improvement of human life, this scoping review was undertaken to determine how the publicly available body of existing global SimEx materials considers health systems, together with health security functions in the event of disruptive emergencies. The global review identified 668 articles from literature and 73 products from institutional sources. Relevant screening identified 51 materials suitable to examine from a health system lens using the six health system building blocks as per the WHO Health System Framework. Eight materials were identified for further examination of their ability to test health system functionality from a resilience perspective. SimEx are an effective approach used extensively within health security and emergency response sectors but is not yet adequately used to test health system resilience. Currently available SimEx materials lack an integrated health system perspective and have a limited focus on the quality of services delivered within the context of response to a public health emergency. The materials do not focus on the ability of systems to effectively maintain core services during response. Without adjustment of the scope and focus, currently available SimEx materials do not have the capacity to test health systems to support the development of resilient health systems. Dedicated SimEx materials are urgently needed to fill this gap and harness their potential as an operational tool to contribute to improvements in health systems. They can act as effective global goods to allow testing of different functional aspects of health systems and service delivery alongside emergency preparedness and response. The work was conducted within the scope of the Tackling Deadly Diseases in Africa Programme, funded by the UK Department for International Development, which seeks to strengthen collaboration between the health system and health security clusters to promote health security and build resilient health systems.