Integrating maternal, newborn, child health and non-communicable disease care in the sustainable development goal era.

Noncommunicable diseases (NCDs) and maternal newborn and child health (MNCH) are two deeply intertwined health areas that have been artificially separated by global health policies, resource allocations and programming. Optimal MNCH care can provide a unique opportunity to screen for, prevent and manage early signs of NCDs developing in both the woman and the neonate. This paper considers how NCDs, NCD modifiable risk factors, and NCD metabolic risk factors impact MNCH. We argue that integrated management is essential, but this faces challenges that manifest across all levels of domestic health systems. Progress toward Sustainable Development targets requires joined-up action.

Universal health coverage evolution, ongoing trend, and future challenge: A conceptual and historical policy review.

The goal of universal health coverage (UHC) from the United Nations (UN) has metamorphized from its early phase of primary health care (PHC) to the recent sustainable development goal (SDG). In this context, we aimed to document theoretical and philosophical efforts, historical analysis, financial and political aspects in various eras, and an assessment of coverage during those eras in relation to UHC in a global scenario. Searching with broad keywords circumadjacent to UHC with scope and inter-disciplinary linkages in conceptual analysis, we further narrated the review with the historical development of UHC in different time periods. We proposed, chronologically, these frames as eras of PHC, the millennium development goal (MDG), and the ongoing sustainable development goal (SDG). Literature showed that modern healthcare access and coverage were in extension stages during the PHC era flagshipped with "health for all (HFA)", prolifically achieving vaccination, communicable disease control, and the use of modern contraceptive methods. Following the PHC era, the MDG era markedly reduced maternal, neonatal, and child mortalities mainly in developing countries. Importantly, UHC has shifted its philosophic stand of HFA to a strategic health insurance and its extension. After 2015, the concept of SDG has evolved. The strategy was further reframed as service and financial assurance. Strategies for further resource allocation, integration of health service with social health protection, human resources for health, strategic community participation, and the challenges of financial securities in some global public health concerns like the public health emergency and travelers' and migrants' health are further discussed. Some policy departures such as global partnership, research collaboration, and experience sharing are broadly discussed for recommendation.

The World Health Organization's Frontline Support to Countries During the COVID-19 Pandemic in 2020.

The World Health Organization (WHO) declared the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC) on January 30, 2020. WHO rapidly scaled up its response including through its 149 country offices to support Member States prepare for and respond to the COVID-19 pandemic. This article describes the frontline role of the WHO Country Offices (WCOs) and demonstrates that WHO utilized its existing country presence to deliver its global program of work during this unprecedented emergency. Using data collected from the 2020 WHO COVID-19 Strategic Preparedness and Response Plan monitoring and evaluation framework assessments, plus data collected in a quantitative survey completed by 149 WCOs during 2020, this article describes how WHO supported national authorities and partners through leadership, policy dialogue, strategic support, technical assistance, and service delivery, in line with WHO's current 5-year strategic plan, the WHO 13th General Programme of Work 2019-2023. Country level case studies were used to further illustrate actions taken by WCOs. WHO's achievements notwithstanding, the Organization faced several key challenges in the first year of the response. Recommendations to enhance WHO presence in countries for future emergency prevention, preparedness and response, from several independent reviews, were presented to the World Health Assembly in May 2021 and relevant recommendations are presented in this article.

Serving the Vulnerable: The World Health Organization's Scaled Support to Countries During the First Year of the COVID-19 Pandemic.

The Inter-Agency Standing Committee (IASC), created by the United Nations (UN) General Assembly in 1991, serves as the global humanitarian coordination forum of the UN s system. The IASC brings 18 agencies together, including the World Health Organization (WHO), for humanitarian preparedness and response policies and action. Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, the IASC recognized the importance of providing intensified support to countries with conflict, humanitarian, or complex emergencies due to their weak health systems and fragile contexts. A Global Humanitarian Response Plan (GHRP) was rapidly developed in March 2020, which reflected the international support needed for 63 target countries deemed to have humanitarian vulnerability. This paper assessed whether WHO provided intensified technical, financial, and commodity inputs to GHRP countries (n = 63) compared to non-GHRP countries (n = 131) in the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic. The analysis showed that WHO supported all 194 countries regardless of humanitarian vulnerability. Health commodities were supplied to most countries globally (86%), and WHO implemented most (67%) of the $1.268 billion spent in 2020 at country level. However, proportionally more GHRP countries received health commodities and nearly four times as much was spent in GHRP countries per capita compared to non-GHRP countries ($232 vs. $60 per 1,000 capita). In countries with WHO country offices (n = 149), proportionally more GHRP countries received WHO support for developing national response plans and monitoring frameworks, training of technical staff, facilitating logistics, publication of situation updates, and participation in research activities prior to the characterization of the pandemic or first in-country COVID-19 case. This affirms WHO's capacity to scale country support according to its humanitarian mandate. Further work is needed to assess the impact of WHO's inputs on health outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic, which will strengthen WHO's scaled support to countries during future health emergencies.

The World Health Organization's Actions Within the United Nations System to Facilitate a Whole-of-Society Response to COVID-19 at Country Level.

The coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic highlighted that managing health emergencies requires more than an effective health response, but that operationalizing a whole-of-society approach is challenging. The World Health Organization (WHO), as the lead agency for health within the United Nations (UN), led the UN response at the global level through the Crisis Management Team, and at the country level through the UN Country Teams (UNCTs) in accordance with its mandate. Three case studies-Mali, Cox's Bazar in Bangladesh, and Uzbekistan-provide examples of how WHO contributed to the whole-of-society response for COVID-19 at the country level. Interviews with WHO staff, supplemented by internal and external published reports, highlighted that the action of WHO comprised technical expertise to ensure an effective whole-of-society response and to minimize social disruption, including those affecting peacekeeping in Mali, livelihood sectors in Cox's Bazar, and the education sector in Uzbekistan. Leveraging local level volunteers from various sectors led to both a stronger public health response and the continuation of other sectoral work. Risk communication and community engagement (RCCE) emerged as a key theme for UN engagement at country level. These collective efforts of operationalizing whole-of-society response at the country level need to continue for the COVID-19 response, but also in preparedness for other health and non-health emergencies. Building resilience for future emergencies requires developing and exercising multi-sectoral preparedness plans and benefits from collective UN support to countries. Coronavirus disease had many impacts outside of health, and therefore emergency preparedness needs to occur outside of health too.

Development assistance for health given to Nepal by China and India: a comparative study.

BACKGROUND: Development assistance for health (DAH) promotes health development in low and middle income countries. China and India, as emerging donors, have scaled-up their DAH programs during the recent years. Nepal, as a neighboring country to China and India, has witnessed the history and development of China's and India's DAH. METHODS: This research uses a literature review and in-depth individual interviewing to compare the history and forms of DAH given from China and India to Nepal. RESULTS: During 60-years of DAH to Nepal, China and India have gradually increased the scale and forms of DAH, and both focus on dispatching medical teams or faculty, building health facilities and gifting medicines and equipment. However, the inclusiveness of Nepalese culture, diplomatic interests, and Nepal's cultural, linguistic and geographical closeness to India make the DAH of India different from that of China. India's DAH also includes support to grass roots NGOs and public health interventions. CONCLUSION: China's and India's insistence on a recipient-driven mechanism keeps the aid programs aligned with Nepal's health development plan and respects Nepal's "ownership". China can learn from India to start the development assistance for health related NGOs and public health intervention.