Exploring food system resilience to the global polycrisis in six Asian countries.

The world is currently in the midst of a global food crisis brought about and exacerbated by a series of mutually reinforcing shocks to food systems This study investigated the resilience of food systems in six Asian countries (Bangladesh, Kyrgyz Republic, Lao PDR, Pakistan, Philippines, and Sri Lanka) amidst the global 'polycrisis' caused by COVID-19, geopolitical conflicts, and climate change. Trend analyses were performed for 19 indicators sourced from global databases and World Food Programme national data, representing the four domains of food system resilience: exposure to shocks; resilience capacities and agro- and food diversity, resilience responses and strategies; and long-term resilience outcomes. The analysis revealed that all six countries experienced the effects of the 'polycrisis', leading to diverse impacts on exchange rates, with Sri Lanka, Pakistan, and Lao PDR facing significant currency depreciation. While most countries increased crop production and decreased food imports during the crisis, government economic support during the pandemic varied widely. Resilience outcomes, including national food price inflation and the proportion of populations facing food insecurity, witnessed upward variations. Overall, countries with higher resilience capacities at the start of the 'polycrisis' showed less severe long-term resilience outcomes. Our findings highlight the varied challenges and resilience capacities across each country, influenced by a complex interplay of economic, political, agricultural, and food affordability factors crucial for determining long-term resilience in their food systems. Recommendations for future research include focusing on resilience assessment in food systems, integrating climate change adaptation measures, and developing early intervention strategies.

Factors Influencing the Implementation of Remote Delivery Strategies for Non-Communicable Disease Care in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Narrative Review.

Objectives: The COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted health care for non-communicable diseases (NCDs) and necessitated strategies to minimize contact with facilities. We aimed to examine factors influencing implementation of remote (non-facility-based) delivery approaches for people with hypertension and/or diabetes in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), to inform NCD care delivery during health service disruption, including humanitarian crises. Methods: Our narrative review used a hermeneutic and purposive approach, including primary studies conducted in LMICs, which assessed implementation factors influencing remote NCD care delivery. Results were analyzed using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. Results: Twenty-eight included studies revealed the strong influence of both internal organizational and broader contextual factors, such as community health worker policies or technological environment. Addressing patients' specific characteristics, needs and resources was important for implementation success. Conclusion: This review highlighted the multiple, complex, interdependent factors influencing implementation of remote NCD care in LMICs. Our findings may inform actors designing NCD care delivery in contexts where facility-based access is challenging. Implementation research is needed to evaluate context-adapted e-Health, community-based, and simplified clinical management strategies to facilitate remote NCD care.

Country differences in transmissibility, age distribution and case-fatality of SARS-CoV-2: a global ecological analysis.

Objectives The first COVID-19 pandemic waves in many low-income countries appeared milder than initially forecasted. We conducted a country-level ecological study to describe patterns in key SARS-CoV-2 outcomes by country and region and explore associations with potential explanatory factors, including population age structure and prior exposure to endemic parasitic infections. Methods We collected publicly available data and compared them using standardisation techniques. We then explored the association between exposures and outcomes using random forest and linear regression. We adjusted for potential confounders and plausible effect modifications. Results While mean time-varying reproduction number was highest in the European and Americas regions, median age of death was lower in the Africa region, with a broadly similar case-fatality ratio. Population age was strongly associated with mean (ß=0.01, 95% CI, 0.005, 0.011) and median age of cases (ß=-0.40, 95% CI, -0.53, -0.26) and deaths (ß= 0.40, 95% CI, 0.17, 0.62). Conclusions Population age seems an important country-level factor explaining both transmissibility and age distribution of observed cases and deaths. Endemic infections seem unlikely, from this analysis, to be key drivers of the variation in observed epidemic trends. Our study was limited by the availability of outcome data and its causally uncertain ecological design.

COVID-19 in humanitarian settings: documenting and sharing context-specific programmatic experiences.

Humanitarian organizations have developed innovative and context specific interventions in response to the COVID-19 pandemic as guidance has been normative in nature and most are not humanitarian specific. In April 2020, three universities developed a COVID-19 humanitarian-specific website ( www.covid19humanitarian.com ) to allow humanitarians from the field to upload their experiences or be interviewed by academics to share their creative responses adapted to their specific country challenges in a standardised manner. These field experiences are reviewed by the three universities together with various guidance documents and uploaded to the website using an operational framework. The website currently hosts 135 guidance documents developed by 65 different organizations, and 65 field experiences shared by 29 organizations from 27 countries covering 38 thematic areas. Examples of challenges and innovative solutions from humanitarian settings are provided for triage and sexual and gender-based violence. Offering open access resources on a neutral platform by academics can provide a space for constructive dialogue among humanitarians at the country, regional and global levels, allowing humanitarian actors at the country level to have a strong and central voice. We believe that this neutral and openly accessible platform can serve as an example for future large-scale emergencies and epidemics.

Considerations for planning COVID-19 treatment services in humanitarian responses.

The COVID-19 pandemic has the potential to cause high morbidity and mortality in crisis-affected populations. Delivering COVID-19 treatment services in crisis settings will likely entail complex trade-offs between offering services of clinical benefit and minimising risks of nosocomial infection, while allocating resources appropriately and safeguarding other essential services. This paper outlines considerations for humanitarian actors planning COVID-19 treatment services where vaccination is not yet widely available. We suggest key decision-making considerations: allocation of resources to COVID-19 treatment services and the design of clinical services should be based on community preferences, likely opportunity costs, and a clearly articulated package of care across different health system levels. Moreover, appropriate service planning requires information on the expected COVID-19 burden and the resilience of the health system. We explore COVID-19 treatment service options at the patient level (diagnosis, management, location and level of treatment) and measures to reduce nosocomial transmission (cohorting patients, protecting healthcare workers). Lastly, we propose key indicators for monitoring COVID-19 health services.

COVID-19 control in low-income settings and displaced populations: what can realistically be done?

COVID-19 prevention strategies in resource limited settings, modelled on the earlier response in high income countries, have thus far focused on draconian containment strategies, which impose movement restrictions on a wide scale. These restrictions are unlikely to prevent cases from surging well beyond existing hospitalisation capacity; not withstanding their likely severe social and economic costs in the long term. We suggest that in low-income countries, time limited movement restrictions should be considered primarily as an opportunity to develop sustainable and resource appropriate mitigation strategies. These mitigation strategies, if focused on reducing COVID-19 transmission through a triad of prevention activities, have the potential to mitigate bed demand and mortality by a considerable extent. This triade is based on a combination of high-uptake of community led shielding of high-risk individuals, self-isolation of mild to moderately symptomatic cases, and moderate physical distancing in the community. We outline a set of principles for communities to consider how to support the protection of the most vulnerable, by shielding them from infection within and outside their homes. We further suggest three potential shielding options, with their likely applicability to different settings, for communities to consider and that would enable them to provide access to transmission-shielded arrangements for the highest risk community members. Importantly, any shielding strategy would need to be predicated on sound, locally informed behavioural science and monitored for effectiveness and evaluating its potential under realistic modelling assumptions. Perhaps, most importantly, it is essential that these strategies not be perceived as oppressive measures and be community led in their design and implementation. This is in order that they can be sustained for an extended period of time, until COVID-19 can be controlled or vaccine and treatment options become available.