An analysis of health system resources in relation to pandemic response capacity in the Greater Mekong Subregion.

BACKGROUND: There is increasing perception that countries cannot work in isolation to militate against the threat of pandemic influenza. In the Greater Mekong Subregion (GMS) of Asia, high socio-economic diversity and fertile conditions for the emergence and spread of infectious diseases underscore the importance of transnational cooperation. Investigation of healthcare resource distribution and inequalities can help determine the need for, and inform decisions regarding, resource sharing and mobilisation. METHODS: We collected data on healthcare resources deemed important for responding to pandemic influenza through surveys of hospitals and district health offices across four countries of the GMS (Cambodia, Lao PDR, Thailand, Vietnam). Focusing on four key resource types (oseltamivir, hospital beds, ventilators, and health workers), we mapped and analysed resource distributions at province level to identify relative shortages, mismatches, and clustering of resources. We analysed inequalities in resource distribution using the Gini coefficient and Theil index. RESULTS: Three quarters of the Cambodian population and two thirds of the Laotian population live in relatively underserved provinces (those with resource densities in the lowest quintile across the region) in relation to health workers, ventilators, and hospital beds. More than a quarter of the Thai population is relatively underserved for health workers and oseltamivir. Approximately one fifth of the Vietnamese population is underserved for beds and ventilators. All Cambodian provinces are underserved for at least one resource. In Lao PDR, 11 percent of the population is underserved by all four resource items. Of the four resources, ventilators and oseltamivir were most unequally distributed. Cambodia generally showed higher levels of inequalities in resource distribution compared to other countries. Decomposition of the Theil index suggests that inequalities result principally from differences within, rather than between, countries. CONCLUSIONS: There is considerable heterogeneity in healthcare resource distribution within and across countries of the GMS. Most inequalities result from within countries. Given the inequalities, mismatches, and clustering of resources observed here, resource sharing and mobilization in a pandemic scenario could be crucial for more effective and equitable use of the resources that are available in the GMS.

Health system resource gaps and associated mortality from pandemic influenza across six Asian territories.

BACKGROUND: Southeast Asia has been the focus of considerable investment in pandemic influenza preparedness. Given the wide variation in socio-economic conditions, health system capacity across the region is likely to impact to varying degrees on pandemic mitigation operations. We aimed to estimate and compare the resource gaps, and potential mortalities associated with those gaps, for responding to pandemic influenza within and between six territories in Asia. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We collected health system resource data from Cambodia, Indonesia (Jakarta and Bali), Lao PDR, Taiwan, Thailand and Vietnam. We applied a mathematical transmission model to simulate a "mild-to-moderate" pandemic influenza scenario to estimate resource needs, gaps, and attributable mortalities at province level within each territory. The results show that wide variations exist in resource capacities between and within the six territories, with substantial mortalities predicted as a result of resource gaps (referred to here as "avoidable" mortalities), particularly in poorer areas. Severe nationwide shortages of mechanical ventilators were estimated to be a major cause of avoidable mortalities in all territories except Taiwan. Other resources (oseltamivir, hospital beds and human resources) are inequitably distributed within countries. Estimates of resource gaps and avoidable mortalities were highly sensitive to model parameters defining the transmissibility and clinical severity of the pandemic scenario. However, geographic patterns observed within and across territories remained similar for the range of parameter values explored. CONCLUSIONS: The findings have important implications for where (both geographically and in terms of which resource types) investment is most needed, and the potential impact of resource mobilization for mitigating the disease burden of an influenza pandemic. Effective mobilization of resources across administrative boundaries could go some way towards minimizing avoidable deaths.

Pandemic influenza preparedness and health systems challenges in Asia: results from rapid analyses in 6 Asian countries.

BACKGROUND: Since 2003, Asia-Pacific, particularly Southeast Asia, has received substantial attention because of the anticipation that it could be the epicentre of the next pandemic. There has been active investment but earlier review of pandemic preparedness plans in the region reveals that the translation of these strategic plans into operational plans is still lacking in some countries particularly those with low resources. The objective of this study is to understand the pandemic preparedness programmes, the health systems context, and challenges and constraints specific to the six Asian countries namely Cambodia, Indonesia, Lao PDR, Taiwan, Thailand, and Viet Nam in the prepandemic phase before the start of H1N1/2009. METHODS: The study relied on the Systemic Rapid Assessment (SYSRA) toolkit, which evaluates priority disease programmes by taking into account the programmes, the general health system, and the wider socio-cultural and political context. The components under review were: external context; stewardship and organisational arrangements; financing, resource generation and allocation; healthcare provision; and information systems. Qualitative and quantitative data were collected in the second half of 2008 based on a review of published data and interviews with key informants, exploring past and current patterns of health programme and pandemic response. RESULTS: The study shows that health systems in the six countries varied in regard to the epidemiological context, health care financing, and health service provision patterns. For pandemic preparation, all six countries have developed national governance on pandemic preparedness as well as national pandemic influenza preparedness plans and Avian and Human Influenza (AHI) response plans. However, the governance arrangements and the nature of the plans differed. In the five developing countries, the focus was on surveillance and rapid containment of poultry related transmission while preparation for later pandemic stages was limited. The interfaces and linkages between health system contexts and pandemic preparedness programmes in these countries were explored. CONCLUSION: Health system context influences how the six countries have been preparing themselves for a pandemic. At the same time, investment in pandemic preparation in the six Asian countries has contributed to improvement in health system surveillance, laboratory capacity, monitoring and evaluation and public communications. A number of suggestions for improvement were presented to strengthen the pandemic preparation and mitigation as well as to overcome some of the underlying health system constraints.