Study on major legal issues and solutions in pandemic treaty negotiations.

In December 2021, WHO's 194 member states began reaching a consensus to start the process of drafting and negotiating a pandemic treaty under the WHO Act. Although there is already a PHEIC system to deal with sudden public health events such as pandemics, the system is not sufficient to deal with global pandemic events. The draft WHO Pandemic Agreement reflects the negotiating process until 24 May 2024. The negotiating team is faced with legal issues such as the treatment of the relationship between the pandemic treaty and the International Health Regulations, the determination of the contracting model, the attribution of the pandemic definition power and the construction of the dispute settlement mechanism. Through a study of the articles of the current draft and a comparative analysis with other treaties, this paper discusses the need to distinguish the functions of the pandemic treaty and the International Health Regulations (IHR), adopt a soft and hard contracting model, establish an open and transparent pandemic determination mechanism, reform the institutional functions of WHO, and establish an effective dispute settlement mechanism in order to solve the above problems. Ultimately, fairness and justice in international public health governance will be achieved.

Can global health security frameworks measure One Health implementation in West Africa?A mixed-methods study.

BACKGROUND: The 2014 outbreak of the Ebola virus disease highlighted the importance of overhauling and transforming healthcare systems in West Africa to improve the ability of individual countries to deal with infectious diseases. As part of this effort, in November 2016 the West African Health Organization (WAHO) began the process of institutionalizing the One Health (OH) approach to health security across the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS). The lack of clear metrics and evaluation frameworks to measure the progress of OH implementation in West Africa has been reported as a challenge. Therefore, this study sought to assess and explore whether the existing metrics of global health security frameworks can measure the successful implementation of OH activities, evaluate the progress made since 2016, and identify key areas for improvement in the region. METHOD: The study employed predetermined keywords to select indicators from the International Health Regulations (IHR) Monitoring Frameworks, specifically the State Party Self-Assessment Annual Report (SPAR) and Joint External Evaluation (JEE), deemed relevant to the OH approach. In addition, the COVID-19 performance index scores (severity and recovery) for June 2022 were extracted from the Global COVID-19 Index (GCI). The GCI Recovery Index evaluated the major recovery parameters reported daily to indicate how a country performed on the path to recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic compared to other countries. National documents were also analyzed using categorical variables to assess the performance status of OH platforms across implementing countries. A quantitative analysis of these indicators was conducted and supplemented with qualitative data gathered through interviews with key stakeholders. Between March and April 2022, we conducted 18 key informant interviews with purposively selected representatives from regional governmental agencies and international multilateral agencies, including ECOWAS member states. Interviews were conducted online, transcribed, and analysed following the tenets of thematic analysis. RESULTS: Our quantitative analysis revealed no significant association between the implementation status of OH activities and any of the selected indicators from SPAR and JEE. The descriptive analysis of the JEE scores at the country level revealed that countries with existing OH platforms scored relatively higher on the selected JEE indicators than other countries in the pre-implementation stage. OH implementation status did not significantly affect COVID-19 recovery and severity indices. The qualitative findings with relevant stakeholders revealed noteworthy challenges related to insufficient human capacity, inadequate coordination, and a lack of government funding for the sustainability of OH initiatives. Nonetheless, countries in the ECOWAS region are making progress toward the integration of OH into their health security systems. CONCLUSION: Standardized metrics were used to assess the implementation and efficacy of OH systems in the ECOWAS region. Current indicators for monitoring global health security frameworks lack specificity and fail to comprehensively capture essential OH components, particularly at the sub-national level. To ensure consistency and effectiveness across countries, OH implementation metrics that align with global frameworks such as IHR should be developed.

Mapping the international health regulations monitoring and evaluation framework: an expert consultation, triangulation crosswalk and quantitative analysis.

The International Health Regulations Monitoring and Evaluation Framework (IHRMEF) includes four components regularly conducted by States Parties to measure the current status of International Health Regulations (IHR) 2005 core capacities and provide recommendations for strengthening these capacities. However, the four components are conducted independently of one another and have no systematic referral to each other before, during or after each process, despite being largely conducted by the same team, country and support organisations. This analysis sets out to identify ways in which IHRMEF components could work more synergistically to effectively measure the status of IHR core capacities, taking into account the country's priority risks. We developed a methodology to allow these independent components to communicate with each other, including expert consultation, a qualitative crosswalk analysis and a country-level quantitative analysis. The demonstrated results act as a proof of concept and illustrate a methodology to provide benefits across all four components before, during and after implementation.

A closer look at the international health regulations capacities in Lebanon: a mixed method study.

BACKGROUND: Lebanon ratified the International Health Regulations (IHR) (2005) in 2007, and since then, it has been facing complex political deadlocks, financial deterioration, and infectious disease emergencies. We aimed to understand the IHR capacities' scores of Lebanon in comparison to other countries, the IHR milestones and activities in Lebanon, the challenges of maintaining the IHR capacities, the refugee crisis's impact on the development of these capacities; and the possible recommendations to support the IHR performance in Lebanon. METHODS: We used a mixed-method design. The study combined the use of secondary data analysis of the 2020 State Party Self-Assessment Annual Report (SPAR) submissions and qualitative design using semi-structured interviews with key informants. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with nine key informants. The analysis of the data generated was based on inductive thematic analysis. RESULTS: According to SPAR, Lebanon had levels of 4 out of 5 (≤ 80%) in 2020 in the prevention, detection, response, enabling functions, and operational readiness capacities, pertaining that the country was functionally capable of dealing with various events at the national and subnational levels. Lebanon scored more than its neighboring countries, Syria, and Jordan, which have similar contexts of economic crises, emergencies, and refugee waves. Despite this high level of commitment to meeting IHR capacities, the qualitative findings demonstrated several gaps in IHR performance as resource shortage, governance, and political challenges. The study also showed contradictory results regarding the impact of refugees on IHR capacities. Some key informants agreed that the Syrian crisis had a positive impact, while others suggested the opposite. Whether refugees interfere with IHR development is still an area that needs further investigation. CONCLUSION: The study shows that urgent interventions are needed to strengthen the implementation of the IHR capacities in Lebanon. The study recommends 1) reconsidering the weight given to IHR capacities; 2) promoting governance to strengthen IHR compliance; 3) strengthening the multisectoral coordination mechanisms; 4) reinforcing risk communication strategies constantly; 5) mobilizing and advancing human resources at the central and sub-national levels; 6) ensuring sustainable financing; 7) integrating refugees and displaced persons in IHR framework and its assessment tools; 8) acknowledging risk mapping as a pre-requisite to a successful response; and 9) strengthening research on IHR capacities in Lebanon.

Independent monitoring and the new pandemic agreement.

Negotiations are underway at the WHO for a legally binding instrument for pandemic prevention, preparedness and response. As seen in the International Health Regulations, however, countries signing up to an agreement is no guarantee of its effective implementation. We, therefore, investigated the potential design features of an accountability framework for the proposed pandemic agreement that could promote countries' compliance with it. We reviewed the governance of a number of international institutions and conducted over 40 interviews with stakeholders and experts to investigate how the pandemic agreement could be governed.We found that enforcement mechanisms are a key feature for promoting the compliance of countries with the obligations they sign up for under international agreements but that they are inconsistently applied. It is difficult to design enforcement mechanisms that successfully avoid inflicting unintended harm and, so, we found that enforcement mechanisms generally rely on soft political levers rather than hard legal ones to promote compliance. Identifying reliable information on states' behaviour with regard to their legal obligations requires using a diverse range of information, including civil society and intergovernmental organisations, and maintaining legal, financial, and political independence.We, therefore, propose that there should be an independent mechanism to monitor states' compliance with and reporting on the pandemic agreement. It would mainly triangulate a diverse range of pre-existing information and have the authority to receive confidential reports and seek further information from states. It would report to a high-level political body to promote compliance with the pandemic agreement.

Initial response to SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) outbreak in Sri Lanka; views of public health specialists through an International Health Regulations lens.

The COVID-19 pandemic affected Sri Lanka despite having developed an International Health Regulations (IHR) steering committee in 2016 and a national action plan for health security following the Joint External Evaluation in 2018. Many steps were taken to improve the disaster management skills of healthcare workers even before the COVID-19 outbreak. We interviewed seven public health specialists to obtain their views on the country's response to the pandemic. A thematic analysis was conducted, leading to the emergence of three major themes and seven subthemes. The major themes included health security preparedness; COVID-19 management; and effects of COVID-19. The subthemes were; preparedness prior to pandemic and gaps in the preparedness (under health security preparedness); dual burden for the curative sector, strategies to reduce transmission and barriers to managing COVID-19 (under COVID-19 management) and negative and positive effects of COVID-19 (under effects of COVID-19). When COVID-19 reached Sri Lanka, healthcare workers, border control authorities and those involved with infectious disease control were overwhelmed by the magnitude of the pandemic. Healthcare workers' hesitation to work amidst the pandemic due to fear of infection and possible transmission of infection to their families was a major issue; the demand for personal protective equipment by health workers when stocks were low was also a contributory factor. Lockdowns with curfew and quarantine at government regulated centers were implemented as necessary. Perceptions of the public including permitting healthcare workers to perform field public health services, logistical barriers and lack of human resources were a few of the barriers that were expressed. Some persons did not declare their symptoms, fearing that they would have to be quarantined. The pandemic severely affected the economy and Sri Lanka relied on donations and loans to overcome the situation. Pandemic also brought about innovative methods to maintain and upgrade health service provision. Individuals with non-communicable diseases received their regular medications through the post which reduced their risk of being infected by visiting hospitals. Improvement of laboratory services and quarantine services, a reduction of acute respiratory infections and diarrhoeal diseases, improved intersectoral coordination and public philanthropic response were other positive effects.

Assessment of the Implementation of the International Health Regulations during the COVID-19 Pandemic: Portugal as a Case Study.

INTRODUCTION: The International Health Regulations (IHR) were developed to prepare countries to deal with public health emergencies. The spread of SARS-CoV-2 underlined the need for international coordination, although few attempts were made to evaluate the integrated implementation of the IHR's core capacities in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether IHR shortcomings stem from non-compliance or regulatory issues, using Portugal as a European case study due to its size, organization, and previous discrepancies between self-reporting and peer assessment of the IHR's core capacities. METHODS: Fifteen public health medical residents involved in contact tracing in mainland Portugal interpreted the effectiveness of the IHR's core capabilities by reviewing the publicly available evidence and reflecting on their own field experience, then grading each core capability according to the IHR Monitoring Framework. The assessment of IHR enforcement considered efforts made before and after the onset of the pandemic, covering the period up to July 2021. RESULTS: Four out of nine core IHR capacities (surveillance; response; risk communication; and human resource capacity) were classified as level 1, the lowest. Only two were graded level 3 (preparedness; and laboratory), the highest. The remaining three) (national legislation, policy & financing; coordination and national focal point communication; and points of entry) were classified as level 2. CONCLUSION: Portugal exemplifies the extent to which implementation of the IHR was not fully achieved, which has resulted in the underperformance of several core capacities. There is a need to improve preparedness and international cooperation in order to harmonize and strengthen the global response to public health emergencies, with better political, institutional, and financial support.

Implementing Joint External Evaluations of the International Health Regulations (2005) capacities in all countries in the WHO African region: process challenges, lessons learnt and perspectives for the future.

Following the West Africa Ebola virus disease outbreak (2013-2016), the Joint External Evaluation (JEE) is one of the three voluntary components recommended by the WHO for evaluating the International Health Regulations (2005) capacities in countries. Here, we share experience implementing JEEs in all 47 countries in the WHO African region. In February 2016, the United Republic of Tanzania (Mainland) was the first country globally to conduct a JEE. By April 2022, JEEs had been conducted in all 47 countries plus in the island of Zanzibar. A total of 360 subject matter experts (SMEs) from 88 organisations were deployed 607 times. Despite availability of guidelines, the process had to be contextualised while avoiding jeopardising the quality and integrity of the findings. Key challenges were: inadequate understanding of the process by in-country counterparts; competing country priorities; limited time for validating subnational capacities; insufficient availability of SMEs for biosafety and biosecurity, antimicrobial resistance, points of entry, chemical events and radio-nuclear emergencies; and inadequate financing to fill gaps identified. Key points learnt were: importance of country leadership and ownership; conducting orientation workshops before the self-assessment; availability of an external JEE expert to support the self-assessment; the skills, attitudes and leadership competencies of the team lead; identifying national experts as SMEs for future JEEs to promote capacity building and experience sharing; the centrality of involving One Health stakeholders from the beginning to the end of the process; and the need for dedicated staff for planning, coordination, implementation and timely report writing. Moving forward, it is essential to draw from this learning to plan future JEEs. Finally, predictable financing is needed immediately to fill gaps identified.

Saturated fat and human health: a protocol for a methodologically innovative systematic review and meta-analysis to inform public health nutrition guidelines.

BACKGROUND: The health effects of dietary fats are a controversial issue on which experts and authoritative organizations have often disagreed. Care providers, guideline developers, policy-makers, and researchers use systematic reviews to advise patients and members of the public on optimal dietary habits, and to formulate public health recommendations and policies. Existing reviews, however, have serious limitations that impede optimal dietary fat recommendations, such as a lack of focus on outcomes important to people, substantial risk of bias (RoB) issues, ignoring absolute estimates of effects together with comprehensive assessments of the certainty of the estimates for all outcomes. OBJECTIVE: We therefore propose a methodologically innovative systematic review using direct and indirect evidence on diet and food-based fats (i.e., reduction or replacement of saturated fat with monounsaturated or polyunsaturated fat, or carbohydrates or protein) and the risk of important health outcomes. METHODS: We will collaborate with an experienced research librarian to search MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) addressing saturated fat and our health outcomes of interest. In duplicate, we will screen, extract results from primary studies, assess their RoB, conduct de novo meta-analyses and/or network meta-analysis, assess the impact of missing outcome data on meta-analyses, present absolute effect estimates, and assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome using the GRADE contextualized approach. Our work will inform recommendations on saturated fat based on international standards for reporting systematic reviews and guidelines. CONCLUSION: Our systematic review and meta-analysis will provide the most comprehensive and rigorous summary of the evidence addressing the relationship between saturated fat modification for people-important health outcomes. The evidence from this review will be used to inform public health nutrition guidelines. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO Registration: CRD42023387377 .

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.

One health systems strengthening in countries: Tripartite tools and approaches at the human-animal-environment interface.

Unexpected pathogen transmission between animals, humans and their shared environments can impact all aspects of society. The Tripartite organisations-the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), the World Health Organization (WHO), and the World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH)-have been collaborating for over two decades. The inclusion of the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) with the Tripartite, forming the 'Quadripartite' in 2021, creates a new and important avenue to engage environment sectors in the development of additional tools and resources for One Health coordination and improved health security globally. Beginning formally in 2010, the Tripartite set out strategic directions for the coordination of global activities to address health risks at the human-animal-environment interface. This paper highlights the historical background of this collaboration in the specific area of health security, using country examples to demonstrate lessons learnt and the evolution and pairing of Tripartite programmes and processes to jointly develop and deliver capacity strengthening tools to countries and strengthen performance for iterative evaluations. Evaluation frameworks, such as the International Health Regulations (IHR) Monitoring and Evaluation Framework, the WOAH Performance of Veterinary Services (PVS) Pathway and the FAO multisectoral evaluation tools for epidemiology and surveillance, support a shared global vision for health security, ultimately serving to inform decision making and provide a systematic approach for improved One Health capacity strengthening in countries. Supported by the IHR-PVS National Bridging Workshops and the development of the Tripartite Zoonoses Guide and related operational tools, the Tripartite and now Quadripartite, are working alongside countries to address critical gaps at the human-animal-environment interface.

Joint external evaluation of the international health regulations (2005) capacity in South Sudan: assessing the country´s capacity for health security.

Introduction: joint external evaluation is a voluntary and collaborative process to assess a country´s capacity under International Health Regulations (2005) to prevent, detect, and respond to public health threats. The main objective is to measure a country´s status in building the necessary capacities to prevent, detect, and respond to infectious disease threats and establish a baseline measurement of capacities and capabilities. The Republic of South Sudan conducted the Joint External Evaluation from 16-20 October 2017, where its capacities were assessed to public health threats per the International Health Regulation (2005). Methods: cross-sectional descriptive study of the Joint External Evaluation process and the findings are described along with major findings and recommendations for the country. Results: South Sudan's overall mean score across 48 indicators was 1.5 (min= 1, max= 4) and 42/48 indicators (87.5%) scored < 2 on a 1 to 5 scale. Technical areas in the prevent category with the lowest score were antimicrobial resistance, biosafety and biosecurity, and National legislation, policy, and financing. In the detect category, the mean score was 2. Technical areas with the lowest mean scores were workforce development and the National Laboratory System. Preparedness, medical countermeasures, personnel deployment, linking public health, and security authorities had the lowest scores in the respond category. Chemical events, radiation emergencies, and points of entry had a score of 1 in the other IHR-related hazards and points of entry category. Conclusion: South Sudan's mean score of 1.5 can be attributed to several civil conflicts experienced, which have impacted negatively on the health system. Recommendations from the Joint External Evaluation need to be implemented and these must be aligned with the costed National Action Plan for Health Security.

Analyzing self-evaluation capacity scores related to infectious disease control in International Health Regulations during the first year of COVID-19 pandemic.

This study aimed to identify changes in the average score of countries' International Health Regulation (IHR) self-evaluation capacity (e-SPAR) in 2020 compared to 2019, and the factors associated with these changes. We collected the data from the World Health Organization (WHO) website in May 2021, then calculated the significant differences between the e-SPAR score in both years. Next, we conducted a test to identify the association between changes in member states' e-SPAR capacity scores and their COVID-19 case fatality rate (CFR), Human Development Index, Civil Liberties, and Government Effectiveness. The results showed that the average e-SPAR scores in 2020 were significantly higher than in 2019. Among the 154 countries, we included in this study, the scores of 98 countries increased in 2020, of which 37.75% were lower-middle-income countries. Meanwhile, among the 56 countries whose scores did not increase, 26 (46.42%) were high-income countries. The COVID-19 CFR was significantly associated with the changes in e-SPAR scores of 154 countries (p < 0.01), as well as the countries whose scores increased (p < 0.05). In conclusion, we consider e-SPAR to still be a useful tool to facilitate countries in monitoring their International Health Regulation (IHR) core capacity progress, especially in infectious disease control to prepare for future pandemics.

Malaria Control, Elimination, and Prevention as Components of Health Security: A Review.

International travel, a major risk factor for imported malaria, has emerged as an important challenge in sustaining malaria elimination and prevention of its reestablishment. To make travel and trade safe, the WHO adopted the International Health Regulations (IHR) which provides a legal framework for the prevention, detection, and containment of public health risks at source. We conducted a systematic review to assess the relevance and the extent of implementation of IHR practices that can play a role in reducing malaria transmission. Selected studies addressed control, elimination, and prevention of reestablishment of malaria. Study themes focused on appraisal of surveillance and response, updating national policies to facilitate malaria control and elimination, travel as a risk factor for malaria and risk mitigation methods, vector control, transfusion malaria, competing interests, malaria in border areas, and other challenges posed by emerging communicable diseases on malaria control and elimination efforts. Review results indicate that malaria has not been prioritized as part of the IHR nor has the IHR focused on vector-borne diseases such as malaria. The IHR framework in its current format can be applied to malaria and other vector-borne diseases to strengthen surveillance and response, overcome challenges at borders, and improve data sharing-especially among countries moving toward elimination-but additional guidelines are required. Application of the IHR in countries in the malaria control phase may not be effective until the disease burden is brought down to elimination levels. Considering existing global elimination goals, the application of IHR for malaria should be urgently reviewed and included as part of the IHR.