An exploratory review of investments by development actors in health workforce programmes and job creation.

The World Health Organization's Global Strategy on Human Resources for Health: Workforce 2030 identified a projected shortfall of 18 million health workers by 2030, primarily in low- and middle-income countries. The need for investment was re-enforced by the 2016 report and recommendations of the United Nations High-Level Commission on Health Employment and Economic Growth. This exploratory policy tracing study has as objective to map and analyse investments by bilateral, multilateral and other development actors in human resources for health actions, programmes and health jobs more broadly since 2016. This analysis will contribute to the accountability of global human resources for health actions and its commitment by the international community. It provides insights in gaps, priorities and future policies' needs. The study follows an exploratory rapid review methodology, mapping and analysing the actions of four categories of development actors in implementing the ten recommendations of the United Nations High-Level Commission on Health Employment and Economic Growth. These four categories of actors include (A) bilateral agencies, (B) multilateral initiatives, (C) international financial institutions and (D) non-state actors. Analysing the data generated via this review, three trends can be observed. Firstly, while a broad range of human resources for health actions and outputs have been identified, data on programme outcomes and especially on their impacts are limited. Secondly, many of the programmatic human resources for health actions, often funded via bilateral or philanthropic grants and implemented by non-governmental organisations, seemed to be rather short-term in nature, focusing on in-service training, health security, technical and service delivery needs. Despite the strategic guidance and norms developed by multilateral initiatives, such as the International Labour Organization-Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development-World Health Organization Working for Health programme, has it been for several development projects difficult to assess how their activities actually contributed to national human resources for health strategic development and health system reforms. Lastly, governance, monitoring and accountability between development actors and across the policy recommendations from the United Nations High-Level Commission on Health Employment and Economic Growth could be improved. There has been limited actionable progress made for the enablers required to transform the workforce, including in the domain of generating fiscal space for health that would strengthen jobs in the health sector, the development of health workforce partnerships and its global agenda, and the governance of international health workforce migration. In conclusion, one can observe that global health workforce needs are much recognised, especially given the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic. However, 20 years after the Joint Learning Initiative on Human Resources for Health, there is still an urgent need to take shared responsibility for international cooperative action for overcoming and addressing persistent underinvestment in the health workforce. Specific policy recommendations are provided to this end.

The Code of Practice and its enduring relevance in Europe and Eastern and Southern Africa.

BACKGROUND: The relevance and effectiveness of the WHO Global Code of Practice on the International Recruitment of Personnel will be reviewed by the World Health Assembly in 2015. The origins of the Code of Practice and the global health diplomacy process before and after its adoption are analyzed herein. METHODS AND RESULTS: Case studies from the European and eastern and southern African regions describe in detail successes and failures of the policy implementation of the Code. In Europe, the Code is effective and even more relevant than before, but might require some tweaking. In Eastern and Southern Africa, the code is relevant but far from efficient in mitigating the negative effects of health workforce migration. CONCLUSIONS: Solutions to strengthen the Code include clarification of some of its definitions and articles, inclusion of a governance structure and asustainable and binding financing system to reimburse countries for health workforce losses due to migration, and featuring of health worker migration on global policy agendas across a range of institutional policy domains.

Addressing Inequalities Toward Inclusive Governance for Achieving One Health: A Rapid Review.

Sustainable development goals (SDGs) adopted in 2015 are geared toward sustainable development through various pathways, one being reducing inequality as covered in SDG 10. Inequalities are a threat to health and wellbeing of populations and a planet Earth in which we live. This rapid review aims to identify key issues that are likely to exacerbate inequalities around the six SDGs directly related to One Health, which are SDG 3, 6, 11, 13, 14 and 15, and suggest some actions that may help to address them using inclusive governance taking into account the coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Informed by the literature on SDGs and using the "inclusive development concept" by Gupta and Vegelin, literature search was done in Google Scholar, PubMed Central, as well as, searching of references in the relevant articles identified using search terms from the six SDGs that are directly related to One Health. In the context of the SDGs, in order to achieve One Health through inclusive governance, and tackle inequalities, the following needs to be considered and addressed: increasing number of armed conflicts; ongoing COVID-19 pandemic; ensuring availability of water and sanitation facilities; improving city and urban areas planning to cope with climate change; improving governance arrangements for addressing climate change factoring gender and human rights; multisectoral planning for conservation of oceans, seas, and marine resources; balancing trade regulation of wildlife trade with conservation efforts; need for a research collaborative involving experts from environmental sciences, wildlife, agriculture and human health to study and develop scientific evidence on contribution of changes in land use practices to occurrence of zoonotic diseases; and need of a legislation for promoting animal welfare to protect public health. Also, inclusion of people with disabilities in the use of digital technologies is critical.

Framing the Health Workforce Agenda Beyond Economic Growth.

The fourth Global Forum on Human Resources (HRH) for Health was held in Ireland November 2017. Its Dublin declaration mentions that strategic investments in the health workforce could contribute to sustainable and inclusive growth and are an imperative to shared prosperity. What is remarkable about the investment frame for health workforce development is that there is little debate about the type of economic development to be pursued. This article provides three cautionary considerations and argues that, in the longer term, a perspective beyond the dominant economic frame is required to further equitable development of the global health workforce. The first argument includes the notion that the growth that is triggered may not be as inclusive as proponents say it is. Secondly, there are considerable questions on the possibility of expanding fiscal space in low-income countries for public goods such as health services and the sustainability of the resulting economic growth. Thirdly, there is a growing consideration that economic growth solely expressed as increasing gross domestic product (GDP) might have intrinsic problems in advancing sustainable development outcomes. Economic development goals are a useful approach to guiding health workforce policies and health employment but this depends very much on the context. Alternative development models and policy options, such as a Job Guarantee scheme, need to be assessed, deliberated and tested. This would meet considerable political challenges but a narrow single story and frame of economic development is to be rejected.