Differential impacts of health systems and sociocultural environment on vulnerable populations during the COVID-19 pandemic: lessons from four Asia-Pacific countries.

BACKGROUND: This study aims to evaluate healthcare systems and pandemic responses in relation to marginalized and vulnerable groups, identify populations requiring urgent care, and assess the differential impacts on their health during the pandemic. METHODS: Data were collected by the Asia-Pacific Observatory on Health Systems and Policies (APO)-National University of Singapore and APO-International Health Policy Program consortium members: Korea, Indonesia, Philippines, and Singapore. Data were collected through a combination of semi-structured interviews, policy document reviews, and analysis of secondary data. RESULTS: Our findings reveal that the pandemic exacerbated existing health disparities, particularly affecting older adults, women, and children. Additionally, the study identified LGBTI individuals, healthcare workers, slum dwellers, and migrant workers as groups that faced particularly severe challenges during the pandemic. LGBTI individuals encountered heightened discrimination and limited access to health services tailored to their needs. Healthcare workers suffered from immense stress and risk due to prolonged exposure to the virus and critical working conditions. Slum dwellers struggled with healthcare access and social distancing due to high population density and inadequate sanitation. Migrant workers were particularly hard hit by high risks of virus transmission and stringent, often discriminatory, isolation measures that compounded their vulnerability. The study highlights the variation in the extent and nature of vulnerabilities, which were influenced by each country's specific social environment and healthcare infrastructure. It was observed that public health interventions often lacked the specificity required to effectively address the needs of all vulnerable groups, suggesting a gap in policy and implementation. CONCLUSIONS: The study underscores that vulnerabilities vary greatly depending on the social environment and context of each country, affecting the degree and types of vulnerable groups. It is critical that measures to ensure universal health coverage and equal accessibility to healthcare are specifically designed to address the needs of the most vulnerable. Despite commonalities among groups across different societies, these interventions must be adapted to reflect the unique characteristics of each group within their specific social contexts to effectively mitigate the impact of health disparities.

Newborn care in Indonesia, Lao People's Democratic Republic and the Philippines: a comprehensive needs assessment.

BACKGROUND: Between 1990 and 2011, global neonatal mortality decline was slower than that of under-five mortality. As a result, the proportion of under-five deaths due to neonatal mortality increased. This increase is primarily a consequence of decreasing post-neonatal and child under-five mortality as a result of the typical focus of child survival programmes of the past two decades on diseases affecting children over four weeks of age. Newborns are lagging behind in improved child health outcomes. The aim of this study was to conduct a comprehensive, equity-focussed newborn care assessment and to explore options to improve newborn survival in Indonesia, Lao People's Democratic Republic (PDR) and the Philippines. METHODS: We assessed newborn health policies, services and care in the three countries through document review, interviews and health facility visits. Findings were triangulated to describe newborns' health status, the health policy and the health system context for newborn care and the equity situation regarding newborn survival. MAIN FINDINGS: (1) In the three countries, decline of neonatal mortality is lagging behind compared to that of under-five mortality. (2) Comprehensive newborn policies in line with international standards exist, although implementation remains poor. An important factor hampering implementation is decentralisation of the health sector, which created confusion regarding roles and responsibilities. Management capacity and skills at decentralised level were often found to be limited. (3) Quality of newborn care provided at primary healthcare and referral level is generally substandard. Limited knowledge and skills among providers of newborn care are contributing to poor quality of care. (4) Socio-economic and geographic inequities in newborn care are considerable. CONCLUSIONS: Similar important challenges for newborn care have been identified in Indonesia, Lao PDR and the Philippines. There is an urgent need to address weak leadership and governance regarding newborn care, quality of newborn care provided and inequities in newborn care. Child survival programmes focussed on children over four weeks of age have shown to have positive outcomes. Similar efforts as those used in these programmes should be considered in newborn care.

A Conceptual Framework from the Philippines to Analyse Organisational Capacities for Health Policy and Systems Research.

Organisations that perform Health Policy and Systems Research (HPSR) need robust capacities, but it remains unclear how these organisations should look like in practice. We sought to define 'HPSRIs' (pronounced as 'hip-srees', i.e., 'Health Policy and Systems Research Institutions') as organisational models and developed a conceptual framework for assessing their capacities based on a set of attributes. We implemented a multi-method study in the Philippines that comprised: a qualitative analysis of perspectives from 33 stakeholders in the HPSR ecosystem on the functions, strengths, and challenges of HPSRIs; a workshop with 17 multi-sectoral representatives who collectively developed a conceptual framework for assessing organisational capacities for HPSRIs based on organisational attributes; and a survey instrument development process that determined indicators for assessing these attributes. We defined HPSRIs to be formally constituted organisations (or institutions) with the minimum essential function of research. Beyond the research function, our framework outlined eight organisational attributes of well-performing HPSRIs that were grouped into four domains, namely: research expertise: (1) excellent research, (2) capacity building driven; leadership and management: (3) efficient administration, (4) financially sustainable; policy translation: (5) policy orientation, (6) effective communication; and networking: (7) participatory approach, (8) convening influence. We developed a self-assessment instrument around these attributes that HPSRIs could use to inform their respective organisational development and collectively discuss their shared challenges. In addition to developing the framework, the workshop also analysed the positionality of HPSRIs and their interactions with other institutional actors in the HPSR ecosystem and recommend the importance of enhancing these interactions and assigning responsibility to a national/regional authority that will foster the community of HPSRIs. When tailored to their context, HPSRIs that function at the nexus of research, management, policy, and networks help achieve the main purpose of HPSR, which is to 'achieve collective health goals and contribute to policy outcomes.'

Context and priorities for health systems strengthening for pain and disability in low- and middle-income countries: a secondary qualitative study and content analysis of health policies.

Musculoskeletal (MSK) health impairments contribute substantially to the pain and disability burden in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), yet health systems strengthening (HSS) responses are nascent in these settings. We aimed to explore the contemporary context, framed as challenges and opportunities, for improving population-level prevention and management of MSK health in LMICs using secondary qualitative data from a previous study exploring HSS priorities for MSK health globally and (2) to contextualize these findings through a primary analysis of health policies for integrated management of non-communicable diseases (NCDs) in select LMICs. Part 1: 12 transcripts of interviews with LMIC-based key informants (KIs) were inductively analysed. Part 2: systematic content analysis of health policies for integrated care of NCDs where KIs were resident (Argentina, Bangladesh, Brazil, Ethiopia, India, Kenya, Malaysia, Philippines and South Africa). A thematic framework of LMIC-relevant challenges and opportunities was empirically derived and organized around five meta-themes: (1) MSK health is a low priority; (2) social determinants adversely affect MSK health; (3) healthcare system issues de-prioritize MSK health; (4) economic constraints restrict system capacity to direct and mobilize resources to MSK health; and (5) build research capacity. Twelve policy documents were included, describing explicit foci on cardiovascular disease (100%), diabetes (100%), respiratory conditions (100%) and cancer (89%); none explicitly focused on MSK health. Policy strategies were coded into three categories: (1) general principles for people-centred NCD care, (2) service delivery and (3) system strengthening. Four policies described strategies to address MSK health in some way, mostly related to injury care. Priorities and opportunities for HSS for MSK health identified by KIs aligned with broader strategies targeting NCDs identified in the policies. MSK health is not currently prioritized in NCD health policies among selected LMICs. However, opportunities to address the MSK-attributed disability burden exist through integrating MSK-specific HSS initiatives with initiatives targeting NCDs generally and injury and trauma care.

A Qualitative Study on the Design and Implementation of the National Action Plan on Antimicrobial Resistance in the Philippines.

Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is a global public health threat that warrants urgent attention. Countries developed their national action plans (NAPs) following the launch of the Global Action Plan on AMR in 2015. The development and implementation of NAPs are often complicated due to the multifaceted nature of AMR, and studies analyzing these aspects are lacking. We analyzed the development and implementation of the Philippine NAP on AMR with guidance from an AMR governance framework. We conducted in-depth interviews with 37 participants across the One Health spectrum. The interviews were transcribed verbatim and were analyzed thematically, adopting an interpretative approach. The enabling factors for NAP implementation include (1) a high level of governmental support and involvement of relevant stakeholders, (2) the development of policies to support improved responses in infection prevention and control and antimicrobial stewardship, and (3) better engagement and advocacy by professional associations and civil society groups. The challenges include (1) a lack of resources and regulatory capacity, (2) insufficient impetus for AMR research and surveillance, and (3) limited One Health engagement. Although there has been considerable progress for human health, strengthening the involvement and representation of the animal health and environment sectors in the AMR scene must be undertaken. Developing well-defined roles within policies will be paramount to the strong implementation of AMR strategies.

COVID-19 public health and social measures: a comprehensive picture of six Asian countries.

The COVID-19 pandemic will not be the last of its kind. As the world charts a way towards an equitable and resilient recovery, Public Health and Social Measures (PHSMs) that were implemented since the beginning of the pandemic need to be made a permanent feature of health systems that can be activated and readily deployed to tackle sudden surges in infections going forward. Although PHSMs aim to blunt the spread of the virus, and in turn protect lives and preserve health system capacity, there are also unintended consequences attributed to them. Importantly, the interactions between PHSMs and their accompanying key indicators that influence the strength and duration of PHSMs are elements that require in-depth exploration. This research employs case studies from six Asian countries, namely Indonesia, Singapore, South Korea, Thailand, the Philippines and Vietnam, to paint a comprehensive picture of PHSMs that protect the lives and livelihoods of populations. Nine typologies of PHSMs that emerged are as follows: (1) physical distancing, (2) border controls, (3) personal protective equipment requirements, (4) transmission monitoring, (5) surge health infrastructure capacity, (6) surge medical supplies, (7) surge human resources, (8) vaccine availability and roll-out and (9) social and economic support measures. The key indicators that influence the strength and duration of PHSMs are as follows: (1) size of community transmission, (2) number of severe cases and mortality, (3) health system capacity, (4) vaccine coverage, (5) fiscal space and (6) technology. Interactions between PHSMs can be synergistic or inhibiting, depending on various contextual factors. Fundamentally, PHSMs do not operate in silos, and a suite of PHSMs that are complementary is required to ensure that lives and livelihoods are safeguarded with an equity lens. For that to be achieved, strong governance structures and community engagement are also required at all levels of the health system.

Power analysis in health policy and systems research: a guide to research conceptualisation.

Power is a growing area of study for researchers and practitioners working in the field of health policy and systems research (HPSR). Theoretical development and empirical research on power are crucial for providing deeper, more nuanced understandings of the mechanisms and structures leading to social inequities and health disparities; placing contemporary policy concerns in a wider historical, political and social context; and for contributing to the (re)design or reform of health systems to drive progress towards improved health outcomes. Nonetheless, explicit analyses of power in HPSR remain relatively infrequent, and there are no comprehensive resources that serve as theoretical and methodological starting points. This paper aims to fill this gap by providing a consolidated guide to researchers wishing to consider, design and conduct power analyses of health policies or systems. This practice article presents a synthesis of theoretical and conceptual understandings of power; describes methodologies and approaches for conducting power analyses; discusses how they might be appropriately combined; and throughout reflects on the importance of engaging with positionality through reflexive praxis. Expanding research on power in health policy and systems will generate key insights needed to address underlying drivers of health disparities and strengthen health systems for all.