Placing Trust at the Heart of Health Policy and Systems.

Trusted interactions are crucial in health systems. Trust facilitates effective healthcare by encouraging patients to seek and adhere to treatment, enabling teamwork among health professionals, reducing miscommunication and medical errors, and fostering innovation and resilience. The COVID-19 pandemic underscored the importance of trust, highlighting the challenges in establishing and maintaining it, especially during crises when trust in authorities and health systems is vital for compliance and safety. However, trust is complex, varying with context and experiences, and is dynamic, easily lost but hard to regain. Despite its importance, trust is often overlooked in health policy and difficult to measure. Health systems and policy-makers must recognize the importance of trust, measure it effectively, understand how it is built or eroded, and act to maintain and restore it. This involves acknowledging the past experiences of marginalized groups, involving communities in decision-making, and ensuring transparency and integrity in health practices and policies.

Drawing light from the pandemic: Rethinking strategies for health policy and beyond.

The COVID-19 pandemic is a catastrophe. It was also preventable. The potential impacts of a novel pathogen were foreseen and for decades scientists and commentators around the world warned of the threat. Most governments and global institutions failed to heed the warnings or to pay enough attention to risks emerging at the interface of human, animal, and environmental health. We were not ready for COVID-19, and people, economies, and governments around the world have suffered as a result. We must learn from these experiences now and implement transformational changes so that we can prevent future crises, and if and when emergencies do emerge, we can respond in more timely, robust and equitable ways, and minimize immediate and longer-term impacts. In 2020-21 the Pan-European Commission on Health and Sustainable Development assessed the challenges posed by COVID-19 in the WHO European region and the lessons from the response. The Commissioners have addressed health in its entirety, analyzing the interactions between health and sustainable development and considering how other policy priorities can contribute to achieving both. The Commission's final report makes a series of policy recommendations that are evidence-informed and above all actionable. Adopting them would achieve seven key objectives and help build truly sustainable health systems and fairer societies.

Transformations in the landscape of primary health care during COVID-19: Themes from the European region.

The COVID-19 pandemic has dramatically impacted primary health care (PHC) across Europe. Since March 2020, the COVID-19 Health System Response Monitor (HSRM) has documented country-level responses using a structured template distributed to country experts. We extracted all PHC-relevant data from the HSRM and iteratively developed an analysis framework examining the models of PHC delivery employed by PHC providers in response to the pandemic, as well as the government enablers supporting these models. Despite the heterogenous PHC structures and capacities across European countries, we identified three prevalent models of PHC delivery employed: (1) multi-disciplinary primary care teams coordinating with public health to deliver the emergency response and essential services; (2) PHC providers defining and identifying vulnerable populations for medical and social outreach; and (3) PHC providers employing digital solutions for remote triage, consultation, monitoring and prescriptions to avoid unnecessary contact. These were supported by government enablers such as increasing workforce numbers, managing demand through public-facing risk communications, and prioritising pandemic response efforts linked to vulnerable populations and digital solutions. We discuss the importance of PHC systems maintaining and building on these models of PHC delivery to strengthen preparedness for future outbreaks and better respond to the contemporary health challenges.

Validity and usability testing of a health systems guidance appraisal tool, the AGREE-HS.

BACKGROUND: Health systems guidance (HSG) provides recommendations to address health systems challenges. No tools exist to inform HSG developers and users about the components of high quality HSG and to differentiate between HSG of varying quality. In response, we developed a tool to assist with the development, reporting and appraisal of HSG - the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation-Health Systems (AGREE-HS). This paper reports on the validity, usability and initial measurement properties of the AGREE-HS. METHODS: To establish face validity (Study 1), stakeholders completed a survey about the AGREE-HS and provided feedback on its content and structure. Revisions to the tool were made in response. To establish usability (Study 2), the revised tool was applied to 85 HSG documents and the appraisers provided feedback about their experiences via an online survey. An initial test of the revised tool's measurement properties, including internal consistency, inter-rater reliability and criterion validity, was conducted. Additional revisions to the tool were made in response. RESULTS: In Study 1, the AGREE-HS Overview, User Manual, quality item content and structure, and overall assessment questions were rated favourably. Participants indicated that the AGREE-HS would be useful, feasible to use, and that they would apply it in their context. In Study 2, participants indicated that the quality items were easy to understand and apply, and the User Manual, usefulness and usability of the tool were rated favourably. Study 2 participants also indicated intentions to use the AGREE-HS. CONCLUSIONS: The AGREE-HS comprises a User Manual, five quality items and two overall assessment questions. It is available at agreetrust.org.

Strengthening global health security by embedding the International Health Regulations requirements into national health systems.

The International Health Regulations (IHR) 2005, as the overarching instrument for global health security, are designed to prevent and cope with major international public health threats. But poor implementation in countries hampers their effectiveness. In the wake of a number of major international health crises, such as the 2014 Ebola and 2016 Zika outbreaks, and the findings of a number of high-level assessments of the global response to these crises, it has become clear that there is a need for more joined-up thinking between health system strengthening activities and health security efforts for prevention, alert and response. WHO is working directly with its Member States to promote this approach, more specifically around how to better embed the IHR (2005) core capacities into the main health system functions. This paper looks at how and where the intersections between the IHR and the health system can be best leveraged towards developing greater health system resilience. This merging of approaches is a key component in pursuit of Universal Health Coverage and strengthened global health security as two mutually reinforcing agendas.

Exploring the evidence base for national and regional policy interventions to combat resistance.

The effectiveness of existing policies to control antimicrobial resistance is not yet fully understood. A strengthened evidence base is needed to inform effective policy interventions across countries with different income levels and the human health and animal sectors. We examine three policy domains-responsible use, surveillance, and infection prevention and control-and consider which will be the most effective at national and regional levels. Many complexities exist in the implementation of such policies across sectors and in varying political and regulatory environments. Therefore, we make recommendations for policy action, calling for comprehensive policy assessments, using standardised frameworks, of cost-effectiveness and generalisability. Such assessments are especially important in low-income and middle-income countries, and in the animal and environmental sectors. We also advocate a One Health approach that will enable the development of sensitive policies, accommodating the needs of each sector involved, and addressing concerns of specific countries and regions.

Health system stewardship of National Health Ministries in the WHO European region: concepts, functions and assessment framework.

OBJECTIVES: To propose an operational framework for assessing the completeness and consistency of the stewardship function of national health ministries. METHODS: The authors carried out a purposive and multidisciplinary review of the literature and derived an operational framework through iterative discussions and participatory methods. The results of the literature review were compared to the authors' observations of stewardship in action and key functions were matched with case examples from Europe and North America. RESULTS: The operational framework relates six functions of stewardship with national contexts, values and ultimate goals pursued by health systems: to define the vision for health and strategy to achieve better health; to exert influence across all sectors for better health; to govern the health system in a way that is consistent with prevailing values; to ensure that system design is aligned with health system goals; to better leverage available legal and regulatory instruments; and to compile, disseminate and apply intelligence. CONCLUSIONS: Challenges in the implementation of stewardship relate to: limitations to the role of health ministries; and to governance, operational and change implementation issues. The framework proposed seems flexible enough to help assess the health system stewardship function; however it should be further tested in practice.

SUPPORT Tools for evidence-informed health Policymaking (STP) 13: Preparing and using policy briefs to support evidence-informed policymaking.

This article is part of a series written for people responsible for making decisions about health policies and programmes and for those who support these decision makers. Policy briefs are a relatively new approach to packaging research evidence for policymakers. The first step in a policy brief is to prioritise a policy issue. Once an issue is prioritised, the focus then turns to mobilising the full range of research evidence relevant to the various features of the issue. Drawing on available systematic reviews makes the process of mobilising evidence feasible in a way that would not otherwise be possible if individual relevant studies had to be identified and synthesised for every feature of the issue under consideration. In this article, we suggest questions that can be used to guide those preparing and using policy briefs to support evidence-informed policymaking. These are: 1. Does the policy brief address a high-priority issue and describe the relevant context of the issue being addressed? 2. Does the policy brief describe the problem, costs and consequences of options to address the problem, and the key implementation considerations? 3. Does the policy brief employ systematic and transparent methods to identify, select, and assess synthesised research evidence? 4. Does the policy brief take quality, local applicability, and equity considerations into account when discussing the synthesised research evidence? 5. Does the policy brief employ a graded-entry format? 6. Was the policy brief reviewed for both scientific quality and system relevance?

The EU's new paediatric medicines legislation: serving children's needs?

In new legislation for paediatric medicines which came into effect on 26 January 2007, the European Union (EU) has attempted to address several unresolved issues relating to children's needs for medicines in Europe. This article reviews the legislation's main proposals and makes some comparisons with equivalent legislation in the USA. We argue that the legislation suffers from several gaps and uncertainties in relation to the specific proposals and their intended aims. As the establishment of new legislation in this area offered the EU an opportunity to set some clear guidelines and objectives, and had the potential to go beyond the equivalent American rules, we thus see the proposals as something of a disappointment.

Regulating medicines in Europe: the European Medicines Agency, marketing authorisation, transparency and pharmacovigilance.

Following a review process lasting almost four years, and culminating in several pieces of new European legislation, adjustments have been made to the European Union's (EU) regulatory framework for pharmaceuticals. The European Commission laid out its priorities for the review as: simplifying the authorisation system, ensuring a high quality of public health, completing the internal market in medicines, and preparing for the enlargement of the Union. Amongst the most important changes brought about by the new rules are those relating to the European drug approval procedures, the functions and operational transparency of the European Medicines Agency (EMEA), and the EU's pharmacovigilance system. This article provides a brief examination of key elements of these changes, and considers the extent to which they serve the goal of improved public health protection within the EU.