A multinational Delphi consensus to end the COVID-19 public health threat.

Despite notable scientific and medical advances, broader political, socioeconomic and behavioural factors continue to undercut the response to the COVID-19 pandemic1,2. Here we convened, as part of this Delphi study, a diverse, multidisciplinary panel of 386 academic, health, non-governmental organization, government and other experts in COVID-19 response from 112 countries and territories to recommend specific actions to end this persistent global threat to public health. The panel developed a set of 41 consensus statements and 57 recommendations to governments, health systems, industry and other key stakeholders across six domains: communication; health systems; vaccination; prevention; treatment and care; and inequities. In the wake of nearly three years of fragmented global and national responses, it is instructive to note that three of the highest-ranked recommendations call for the adoption of whole-of-society and whole-of-government approaches1, while maintaining proven prevention measures using a vaccines-plus approach2 that employs a range of public health and financial support measures to complement vaccination. Other recommendations with at least 99% combined agreement advise governments and other stakeholders to improve communication, rebuild public trust and engage communities3 in the management of pandemic responses. The findings of the study, which have been further endorsed by 184 organizations globally, include points of unanimous agreement, as well as six recommendations with >5% disagreement, that provide health and social policy actions to address inadequacies in the pandemic response and help to bring this public health threat to an end.

Commercial determinants of health: future directions.

This paper is about the future role of the commercial sector in global health and health equity. The discussion is not about the overthrow of capitalism nor a full-throated embrace of corporate partnerships. No single solution can eradicate the harms from the commercial determinants of health-the business models, practices, and products of market actors that damage health equity and human and planetary health and wellbeing. But evidence shows that progressive economic models, international frameworks, government regulation, compliance mechanisms for commercial entities, regenerative business types and models that incorporate health, social, and environmental goals, and strategic civil society mobilisation together offer possibilities of systemic, transformative change, reduce those harms arising from commercial forces, and foster human and planetary wellbeing. In our view, the most basic public health question is not whether the world has the resources or will to take such actions, but whether humanity can survive if society fails to make this effort.

Defining and conceptualising the commercial determinants of health.

Although commercial entities can contribute positively to health and society there is growing evidence that the products and practices of some commercial actors-notably the largest transnational corporations-are responsible for escalating rates of avoidable ill health, planetary damage, and social and health inequity; these problems are increasingly referred to as the commercial determinants of health. The climate emergency, the non-communicable disease epidemic, and that just four industry sectors (ie, tobacco, ultra-processed food, fossil fuel, and alcohol) already account for at least a third of global deaths illustrate the scale and huge economic cost of the problem. This paper, the first in a Series on the commercial determinants of health, explains how the shift towards market fundamentalism and increasingly powerful transnational corporations has created a pathological system in which commercial actors are increasingly enabled to cause harm and externalise the costs of doing so. Consequently, as harms to human and planetary health increase, commercial sector wealth and power increase, whereas the countervailing forces having to meet these costs (notably individuals, governments, and civil society organisations) become correspondingly impoverished and disempowered or captured by commercial interests. This power imbalance leads to policy inertia; although many policy solutions are available, they are not being implemented. Health harms are escalating, leaving health-care systems increasingly unable to cope. Governments can and must act to improve, rather than continue to threaten, the wellbeing of future generations, development, and economic growth.

Influenza: cause or excuse? An analysis of flu's influence on worsening mortality trends in England and Wales, 2010-19.

BACKGROUND: England and Wales experienced a stagnation of previously improving life expectancy during the 2010s. Public bodies cited influenza as an important cause. SOURCES OF DATA: We used data from the Office for National Statistics to examine mortality attributed directly to influenza and to all influenza-like diseases for the total population of England and Wales 2010-19. Several combinations of ICD-10 codes were used to address the possibility of under-counting influenza deaths. AREAS OF AGREEMENT: Deaths from influenza and influenza-like diseases declined between 2010 and 2019, while earlier improvements in mortality from all causes of death were stalling and, with some causes, worsening. Our findings support existing research showing that influenza is not an important cause of the stalling of mortality rates 2010-19. AREAS OF CONTROVERSY: Influenza was accepted by many as an important cause of stalling life expectancy for much of the 2010s, while few in public office have accepted austerity as a key factor in the changes seen during that time. GROWING POINTS: This adds to the mounting evidence that austerity damaged health prior to COVID-19 and left the population more vulnerable when it arrived. AREAS FOR DEVELOPING TIMELY RESEARCH: Future research should explore why so many in public office were quick to attribute the change in trends in overall mortality in the UK in this period to influenza, and why many continue to do so through to 2023 and to deny the key role of austerity in harming population health.

Mind the implementation gap: a systems analysis of the NHS Long Term Workforce Plan to increase the number of doctors trained in the UK raises many questions.

BACKGROUND: The National Health Service (NHS) in England is facing a workforce crisis. A new Long Term Workforce Plan (LTWP) seeks to address this, setting out ambitious proposals to expand and reform domestic medical education and training in England. However, there are concerns about their feasibility. SOURCES OF DATA: In September 2023, over 60 individuals representing medical education and training in the UK participated in an exercise run by UK Medical Schools Council by using systems theory to identify risks. AREAS OF AGREEMENT: The UK does need more 'home grown' doctors, but the LTWP has important gaps, including lack of attention to postgraduate training, absence of reference to the need for more educators and capital investment and risk of inadequate clinical placement capacity, particularly in primary care settings. AREAS OF CONTROVERSY: There are unresolved differences in the understanding of a proposed medical apprenticeship model and no scheme has, as yet, been approved by the General Medical Council. Participants were unable to determine who the beneficiaries of this scheme will be (apart from the apprentices themselves). GROWING POINTS: While the LTWP represents a welcome, although overdue, commitment to address the NHS workforce crisis, we identified significant gaps that must be resolved. AREAS TIMELY FOR DEVELOPING RESEARCH: First, the development of the LTWP provides a case study that adds to literature on policymaking in the UK. Second, while we only examined the expansion of medical training, the method could be applied to other parts of the LTWP. Third, a prospective evaluation of its implementation is necessary.

AI and XAI second opinion: the danger of false confirmation in human-AI collaboration.

Can AI substitute a human physician's second opinion? Recently the Journal of Medical Ethics published two contrasting views: Kempt and Nagel advocate for using artificial intelligence (AI) for a second opinion except when its conclusions significantly diverge from the initial physician's while Jongsma and Sand argue for a second human opinion irrespective of AI's concurrence or dissent. The crux of this debate hinges on the prevalence and impact of 'false confirmation'-a scenario where AI erroneously validates an incorrect human decision. These errors seem exceedingly difficult to detect, reminiscent of heuristics akin to confirmation bias. However, this debate has yet to engage with the emergence of explainable AI (XAI), which elaborates on why the AI tool reaches its diagnosis. To progress this debate, we outline a framework for conceptualising decision-making errors in physician-AI collaborations. We then review emerging evidence on the magnitude of false confirmation errors. Our simulations show that they are likely to be pervasive in clinical practice, decreasing diagnostic accuracy to between 5% and 30%. We conclude with a pragmatic approach to employing AI as a second opinion, emphasising the need for physicians to make clinical decisions before consulting AI; employing nudges to increase awareness of false confirmations and critically engaging with XAI explanations. This approach underscores the necessity for a cautious, evidence-based methodology when integrating AI into clinical decision-making.

Agnogenic practices and corporate political strategy: the legitimation of UK gambling industry-funded youth education programmes.

Agnogenic practices-designed to create ignorance or doubt-are well-established strategies employed by health-harming industries (HHI). However, little is known about their use by industry-funded organizations delivering youth education programmes. We applied a previously published framework of corporate agnogenic practices to analyse how these organizations used them in three UK gambling industry-funded youth education programmes. Evidential strategies adopted previously by other HHI are prominent in the programmes' practitioner-facing materials, evaluation design and reporting and in public statements about the programmes. We show how agnogenic practices are employed to portray these youth education programmes as 'evidence-based' and 'evaluation-led'. These practices distort the already limited evidence on these educational initiatives while legitimizing industry-favourable policies, which prioritize commercial interests over public health. Given the similarities in political strategies adopted by different industries, these findings are relevant to research and policy on other HHI.

Preparing for the 'next pandemic': Why we need to escape from our silos.

The COVID-19 pandemic revealed major failings in many countries. We argue that one of the reasons, at global, national, and local levels, was that those involved were working in silos, unable to bring together the many diverse perspectives needed to respond to this complex problem. This is despite a growing recognition of the importance of adopting a Health For All Policies approach. Silo working, and the problems it creates, are not unique to health policy so there are opportunities to learn from those organisations that have tackled this issue.

Targeting systems not individuals: Institutional and structural drivers of absenteeism among primary healthcare workers in Nigeria.

Universal Health Coverage (UHC) can only be achieved if people receive good quality care from health workers, yet in Nigeria, as in many other low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), many health workers are absent from work. Absenteeism is a well-known phenomenon but is often considered as the self-serving behaviour of individuals, independent from the characteristics of health systems structures and processes and the broader contexts that enable it. We undertook a qualitative inquiry among 40 key informants, comprising health facility heads and workers, community leaders and state-level health policymakers in Nigeria. We employed a phenomenology approach to examine their lived experiences and grouped findings into thematic clusters. Absenteeism by health workers was found to be a response to structural problems at two levels -midstream (facility-level) and upstream (government level) - rather than being a result of moral failure of individuals. The problems at midstream level pointed to an inconsistent and unfair application of rules and regulations in facilities and ineffective management, while the upstream drivers relate mainly to political interference and suboptimal health system leadership. Reducing absenteeism requires two-pronged interventions that tackle defects in the upstream and midstream rather than just focusing on sanctioning deviant staff (downstream).

The paradoxical surplus of health workers in Africa: The need for research and policy engagement.

In many countries in Africa, there is a 'paradoxical surplus' of under and unemployed nurses, midwives, doctors and pharmacists which exists amidst a shortage of staff within the formal health system. By 2030, the World Health Organisation Africa Region may find itself with a shortage of 6.1 million health workers alongside 700,000 un- or underemployed health staff. The emphasis in policy debates about human resources for health at most national and global levels is on staff shortage and the need to train more health workers. In contrast, these 'surplus' health workers are both understudied and underacknowledged. Little time is given over to understand the economic, political and social factors that have driven their emergence; the ways in which they seek to make a living; the governance challenges that they raise; nor potential interventions that could be implemented to improve employment rates and leverage their expertise. This short communication reflects on current research findings and calls for improved quantitative and qualitative research to support policy engagement at national, regional and global levels.

'Government don't know me and if I stop, they won't know': A qualitative study on the lived experiences of volunteer health workers in the Nigerian health system and their implications for the sustainable development goals.

BACKGROUND: Volunteer health workers play an important, but poorly understood role in the Nigerian health system. We report a study of their lived experiences, enabling us to understand their motivations, the nature of their work, and their relationships with formally employed health workers in Primary Healthcare Centres (PHCs) in Nigeria, the role of institutional incentives, and the implications for attaining the health-related sustainable development goals (SDGs) targets. METHODS: The study used ethnographic observation of PHCs in Enugu State, supplemented with in-depth interviews with volunteers, formally employed health workers and health managers. The analysis employed a combination of narrative and reflexive thematic approaches. FINDINGS: The lived experiences of most volunteers unfold in four stages as they move into and out of their volunteering status. The first stage signifies hope, arising from the ease with which they are accepted and integrated into the PHC space. The anger stage emerges when volunteers confront the marked disparity in their treatment compared to formal staff, despite their substantial contributions to healthcare. Then, the bargaining stage sets in, where they strive for recognition and respect by pursuing formal employment and advocating for fair treatment and improved stipends. A positive response, such as improved stipends, can reignite hope among volunteers. If not, most volunteers transition to the acceptance stage - the acknowledgement that their status may never be formalised, prompting many to lose hope and disengage. CONCLUSION: There should be a clear policy on recruitment, compensation, and protection of volunteers in the health systems, to enhance the contribution they can make to the achievement of the health-related SDG targets.

Racism, xenophobia, discrimination, and the determination of health.

This Series shows how racism, xenophobia, discrimination, and the structures that support them are detrimental to health. In this first Series paper, we describe the conceptual model used throughout the Series and the underlying principles and definitions. We explore concepts of epistemic injustice, biological experimentation, and misconceptions about race using a historical lens. We focus on the core structural factors of separation and hierarchical power that permeate society and result in the negative health consequences we see. We are at a crucial moment in history, as populist leaders pushing the politics of hate have become more powerful in several countries. These leaders exploit racism, xenophobia, and other forms of discrimination to divide and control populations, with immediate and long-term consequences for both individual and population health. The COVID-19 pandemic and transnational racial justice movements have brought renewed attention to persisting structural racial injustice.

Confronting the consequences of racism, xenophobia, and discrimination on health and health-care systems.

Racism, xenophobia, and discrimination are key determinants of health and equity and must be addressed for improved health outcomes. We conclude that far broader, deeper, transformative action is needed compared with current measures to tackle adverse effects of racism on health. To challenge the structural drivers of racism and xenophobia, anti-racist action and other wider measures that target determinants should implement an intersectional approach to effectively address the causes and consequences of racism within a population. Structurally, legal instruments and human rights law provide a robust framework to challenge the pervasive drivers of disadvantage linked to caste, ethnicity, Indigeneity, migratory status, race, religion, and skin colour. Actions need to consider the historical, economic, and political contexts in which the effects of racism, xenophobia, and discrimination affect health. We propose several specific actions: a commission that explores how we action the approaches laid out in this paper; building a conversation and a series of events with international multilateral agency stakeholders to raise the issue and profile of racism, xenophobia, and discrimination within health; and using our multiple platforms to build coalitions, expand knowledge, highlight inequities, and advocate for change across the world.

E-cigarette manufacturers' compliance with clinical trial reporting expectations: a case series of registered trials by Juul Labs.

BACKGROUND: Electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) are a frequently debated topic in public health. It is essential that clinical trials examining e-cigarettes are fully and accurately reported, especially given long-standing concerns about tobacco industry research. We assess the reporting of clinical trials sponsored by Juul Labs, the largest e-cigarette company in the USA, against accepted reporting standards. METHODS: We searched ClinicalTrials.gov for all trials sponsored by Juul Labs and determined those with registry data consistent with coverage by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Amendments Act 2007 (FDAAA). For trials with a primary completion date more than 1 year earlier, we searched ClinicalTrials.gov, the academic literature and a Juul-funded research database (JLI Science) for results. For located results, we compared reported outcomes with registered outcomes in line with Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) reporting guidelines. RESULTS: We located five registered trials sponsored by Juul Labs that appeared covered by the FDAAA 2007 in the public data. All five trials did not have results available on ClinicalTrials.gov. We found one publication and four poster presentations reporting results for four of the five covered trials outside of ClinicalTrials.gov. Of 61 specified outcomes, 28 were CONSORT compliant. Specific outcome reporting issues are detailed. DISCUSSION: Our findings raise substantial concerns regarding these trials. Clinicians, public health professionals, and the public cannot make informed choices about the benefits or hazards of e-cigarettes if the results of clinical trials are not completely and transparently reported. Clarification and potential enforcement of reporting laws may be required.

Consumption and tax gains attributable to Covid-19 vaccinations in 12 EU countries with low vaccination rates.

BACKGROUND: The Covid-19 pandemic is an economic and a health crisis. Households reduced consumption expenditures as large-scale physical distancing measures, lower disposable incomes and fear of infection when engaging in many types of economic activity took hold. This, in turn, reduced domestic tax revenues at a time when governments were facing increased financial pressures to strengthen and sustain welfare states. METHODS: We developed a simulation model, the Covid-19 Taxination Simulator, to estimate potential economic gains and tax revenues attributable to vaccine rollouts. We apply the model to 12 European Union countries which had low vaccination rates at the beginning of 2022. RESULTS: The highest growth in aggregate personal consumption expenditure attributable to Covid-19 vaccines administered as of January 2022 is in Greece (10.8%), Slovenia (8.6%) and Czechia (8.6%), while the lowest is in Bulgaria (2.2%) and Slovakia (2.1%). If countries had vaccinated 85% of their adult population, the largest gains in consumption tax revenues would be expected in Romania (830 million Euros) and Poland (738 million Euros). Consumption tax revenues generated by meeting the 85% of the adult population target would, on their own, be large enough to fully cover the costs of expanding the vaccine rollout itself in Estonia, Latvia, Slovenia, Croatia, Czechia, Hungary and Greece. CONCLUSION: Covid-19 vaccination rollouts not only save lives and relieve pressures on health systems, they also support economic growth and generate additional tax revenues. These revenues can partially offset the costs of vaccines programmes themselves.

The far-right and anti-vaccine attitudes: lessons from Spain's mass COVID-19 vaccine roll-out.

BACKGROUND: Far-right politicians in several countries have been vocal opponents of COVID-19 vaccination. But can this threaten vaccine roll-out? METHODS: We take advantage of repeated cross-sectional surveys with samples of around 3800 individuals across Spain conducted monthly from December 2020 to January 2022 (n = 51 294) to examine any association between far-right politics and vaccine hesitancy through the whole vaccine roll-out. RESULTS: Consistent with prior data, we found that far-right supporters were almost twice as likely to be vaccine-hesitant than the overall population in December 2020, before vaccines became available. However, with a successful vaccine roll out, this difference shrank, reaching non-significance by September 2021. From October 2021, however, vaccine hesitancy rebounded among this group at a time when the leadership of the far-right promoted a 'freedom of choice' discourse common among anti-vax supporters. By the latest month analysed (January 2022), far-right voters had returned to being twice as likely to be vaccine-hesitant and 7 percentage points less likely to be vaccinated than the general population. CONCLUSIONS: Our results are consistent with evidence that far-right politicians can encourage vaccine hesitancy. Nonetheless, we show that public attitudes towards vaccination are not immutable. Whereas a rapid and effective vaccine rollout can help to overcome the resistance of far-right voters to get vaccinated, they also seem to be susceptible to their party leader's discourse on vaccines.

Protecting children and young people from contemporary marketing for gambling.

Around the world, children are being exposed to intensive marketing for gambling products. This normalizes perceptions that gambling is essentially a harmless form of entertainment, despite mounting evidence of the harms it causes. Young people and their parents are supportive of strategies to protect children from being exposed to gambling marketing. Yet existing regulatory efforts are inconsistent and inadequate, and have not protected children from exposure to the many forms of marketing now being developed and exploited by the gambling industry. We outline existing knowledge about strategies used by the gambling industry to market its products, with a specific focus on the potential impact of gambling marketing on young people. We provide a definition of gambling marketing and outline the different forms of promotion that are currently used to market gambling, current regulatory responses, and the impact of marketing on children and young people. We then argue that a comprehensive public health approach to gambling is urgently required, which must include effective action to limit the influence of marketing for gambling products, while recognizing that it is never possible to insulate children entirely from their reach.

• Gambling marketing has become particularly pervasive and aligned with major cultural activities such as sport. • Evidence clearly shows the normalizing impact of marketing on children and young people's gambling attitudes and consumption intentions. • Current regulatory efforts are inadequate and have not protected children and young people from exposure to a range of different forms of marketing. • Young people and their parents support the implementation of significant restrictions on gambling marketing. • The array of marketing mechanisms used by the gambling industry should be addressed as part of a comprehensive public health policy approach to protect children from gambling harms.

When experts disagree: interviews with public health experts on health outcomes in the UK 2010-2020.

OBJECTIVES: To ascertain the views of public health experts on adverse trends in life expectancy across England and Wales over the past decade, causal factors, possible solutions, and their opinions about how the prepandemic situation influenced the UK's COVID-19 response. STUDY DESIGN: Semistructured, in-depth interviews. METHODS: Nineteen public health experts were identified by purposeful sampling and invited to take part via e-mail. Sixty-three percent responded and participated (n = 12), six females and six males. Interviews took place via Microsoft Teams between November 2021 and January 2022. Interviews were transcribed and analysed using thematic content analysis. RESULTS: There was no consensus on the significance of the stalling and, at some ages, reversal of previous improvements in life expectancy between 2010 and 2020. Explanations offered included data misinterpretation, widening health inequalities, and disinvestment in public services, as well as some disease-specific causes. Those accepting that the decline was concerning linked it to social factors and suggested solutions based on increased investment and implementing existing evidence on how to reduce health inequalities. These interviewees also pointed to the same factors playing a role in the UK's poor COVID-19 response, highlighting the need to understand and address these underlying issues as part of pandemic preparedness. CONCLUSIONS: There was no consensus among a group of influential public health experts in the UK on the scale, nature, and explanations of recent trends in life expectancy. A majority called for implementation of existing evidence on reducing inequalities, especially in the wake of COVID-19. However, without agreement on what the problem is, action is likely to remain elusive.

Exploring the link between cancer policies and cancer survival: a comparison of International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership countries.

Cancer policy differences might help to explain international variation in cancer survival, but empirical evidence is scarce. We reviewed cancer policies in 20 International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership jurisdictions in seven countries and did exploratory analyses linking an index of cancer policy consistency over time, with monitoring and implementation mechanisms, to survival from seven cancers in a subset of ten jurisdictions from 1995 to 2014. All ten jurisdictions had structures in place to oversee or deliver cancer control policies and had published at least one major cancer plan. Few cancer plans had explicit budgets for implementation or mandated external evaluation. Cancer policy consistency was positively correlated with improvements in survival over time for six of the seven cancer sites. Jurisdictions that scored the highest on policy consistency had large improvements in survival for most sites. Our analysis provides an important first step to systematically capture and evaluate what are inherently complex policy processes. The findings can help guide policy makers seeking approaches and frameworks to improve cancer services and, ultimately, cancer outcomes.

What is the right level of spending needed for health and care in the UK?

The health and care sector plays a valuable role in improving population health and societal wellbeing, protecting people from the financial consequences of illness, reducing health and income inequalities, and supporting economic growth. However, there is much debate regarding the appropriate level of funding for health and care in the UK. In this Health Policy paper, we look at the economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and historical spending in the UK and comparable countries, assess the role of private spending, and review spending projections to estimate future needs. Public spending on health has increased by 3·7% a year on average since the National Health Service (NHS) was founded in 1948 and, since then, has continued to assume a larger share of both the economy and government expenditure. In the decade before the ongoing pandemic started, the rate of growth of government spending for the health and care sector slowed. We argue that without average growth in public spending on health of at least 4% per year in real terms, there is a real risk of degradation of the NHS, reductions in coverage of benefits, increased inequalities, and increased reliance on private financing. A similar, if not higher, level of growth in public spending on social care is needed to provide high standards of care and decent terms and conditions for social care staff, alongside an immediate uplift in public spending to implement long-overdue reforms recommended by the Dilnot Commission to improve financial protection. COVID-19 has highlighted major issues in the capacity and resilience of the health and care system. We recommend an independent review to examine the precise amount of additional funds that are required to better equip the UK to withstand further acute shocks and major threats to health.