Mitigating the impact of COVID-19 on tuberculosis and HIV services: A cross-sectional survey of 669 health professionals in 64 low and middle-income countries.

OBJECTIVE: The experiences of frontline healthcare professionals are essential in identifying strategies to mitigate the disruption to healthcare services caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study of TB and HIV professionals in low and middle-income countries (LMIC). Between May 12 and August 6, 2020, we collected qualitative and quantitative data using an online survey in 11 languages. We used descriptive statistics and thematic analysis to analyse responses. FINDINGS: 669 respondents from 64 countries completed the survey. Over 40% stated that it was either impossible or much harder for TB and HIV patients to reach healthcare facilities since COVID-19. The most common barriers reported to affect patients were: fear of getting infected with SARS-CoV-2, transport disruptions and movement restrictions. 37% and 28% of responses about TB and HIV stated that healthcare provider access to facilities was also severely impacted. Strategies to address reduced transport needs and costs-including proactive coordination between the health and transport sector and cards that facilitate lower cost or easier travel-were presented in qualitative responses. Access to non-medical support for patients, such as food supplementation or counselling, was severely disrupted according to 36% and 31% of HIV and TB respondents respectively; qualitative data suggested that the need for such services was exacerbated. CONCLUSION: Patients and healthcare providers across numerous LMIC faced substantial challenges in accessing healthcare facilities, and non-medical support for patients was particularly impacted. Synthesising recommendations of frontline professionals should be prioritised for informing policymakers and healthcare service delivery organisations.

Improving National Intelligence for Public Health Preparedness: a methodological approach to finding local multi-sector indicators for health security.

The COVID-19 epidemic is the latest evidence of critical gaps in our collective ability to monitor country-level preparedness for health emergencies. The global frameworks that exist to strengthen core public health capacities lack coverage of several preparedness domains and do not provide mechanisms to interface with local intelligence. We designed and piloted a process, in collaboration with three National Public Health Institutes (NPHIs) in Ethiopia, Nigeria and Pakistan, to identify potential preparedness indicators that exist in a myriad of frameworks and tools in varying local institutions. Following a desk-based systematic search and expert consultations, indicators were extracted from existing national and subnational health security-relevant frameworks and prioritised in a multi-stakeholder two-round Delphi process. Eighty-six indicators in Ethiopia, 87 indicators in Nigeria and 51 indicators in Pakistan were assessed to be valid, relevant and feasible. From these, 14-16 indicators were prioritised in each of the three countries for consideration in monitoring and evaluation tools. Priority indicators consistently included private sector metrics, subnational capacities, availability and capacity for electronic surveillance, measures of timeliness for routine reporting, data quality scores and data related to internally displaced persons and returnees. NPHIs play an increasingly central role in health security and must have access to data needed to identify and respond rapidly to public health threats. Collecting and collating local sources of information may prove essential to addressing gaps; it is a necessary step towards improving preparedness and strengthening international health regulations compliance.

Methodological gaps and opportunities for studying multisectoral collaboration for health in low- and middle-income countries.

The current body of research into multisectoral collaborations (MSCs) for health raises more questions than it answers, both in terms of how to implement MSCs and how to study them. This article reflects on current methodological gaps and opportunities for advancing MSC research, based on a targeted review of existing literature and qualitative input from researchers and practitioners at the 2018 Health Systems Research (HSR) Symposium in Liverpool. Through framework analysis of 205 MSC research papers referenced in a separately published MSC 'overview of reviews' paper, this article identifies six broad MSC question domains ('meta questions') and applies content analysis to estimate the relative frequency with which these meta questions and the research method(s) used to answer them are present in the literature. Results highlight a preponderance of research exploring MSC implementation using case study methods, which, in aggregate, does not seem to adequately meet policymakers' and practitioners' needs for generalizable or transferable insights. The content analysis is complemented by qualitative insights from HSR Symposium participants and the authors' own experience to identify six key methodological gaps in research on MSC for health. For each of these gaps, we propose areas in which we believe there are opportunities for methodological development and innovation to help advance this field of study, including: better understanding the role of power dynamics in shaping MSCs; development of a classification framework (or frameworks) of governance arrangements; exploring divergence of perspective and experience among MSC partners; identifying or generating theoretical frameworks for MSC that work across sectors and disciplines; developing intermediate indicators of collaboration; and increasing transferability of insights to other contexts. Collaboration with researchers outside of the health sector will enhance efforts in each of these areas, as will the establishment and strengthening of pluralistic MSC evidence networks also involving policymakers and practitioners.

How can we improve priority-setting for investments in health research? A case study of tuberculosis.

BACKGROUND: Although enhanced priority-setting for investments in health research for development is essential to tackling inequalities in global health, there is a lack of consensus on an optimal priority-setting process. In light of the current surge in tuberculosis (TB) research investment, we use TB as a case study. METHODS: We investigated two critical aspects of a research prioritisation process, namely the criteria that should be used to rank alternative research options and which stakeholders should be involved in priority-setting. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 24 key informants purposively selected from four distinct groups - academia, funding bodies, international policy or technical agencies, and national disease control programmes. Interview transcripts were analysed verbatim using a framework approach. We also performed a systematic analysis of seven diverse TB research prioritisation processes. RESULTS: There was consensus that well-defined and transparent criteria for assessing research options need to be agreed at the outset of any prioritisation process. It was recommended that criteria should select for research that is likely to have the greatest public health impact in affected countries rather than research that mainly fills scientific knowledge gaps. Some interviewees expressed strong views about the need - and reluctance - to make politically challenging decisions that place some research areas at a lower priority for funding. The importance of taking input from stakeholders from countries with high disease burden was emphasised; such stakeholders were notably absent from the majority of prioritisation processes we analysed. CONCLUSIONS: This study indicated two critical areas for improvement of research prioritisation processes such that inequalities in health are better addressed - the need to deprioritise some research areas to generate a specific and meaningful list for investment, and greater involvement of experts working in high disease-burden countries.

'LMICs as reservoirs of AMR': a comparative analysis of policy discourse on antimicrobial resistance with reference to Pakistan.

Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) has recently emerged as a salient global issue, and policy formulation to address AMR has become a contested space, with various actors sharing competing-and sometimes contradictory-explanations of the problem and the range of possible solutions. To facilitate national policy setting and implementation around AMR, more needs to be done to effectively engage policymakers in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). However, there is a dearth of research on differences in issue framing by external agencies and LMIC's national policymakers on the problem of AMR; such analyses are imperative to identify areas of conflict and/or potential convergence. We compared representations of AMR across nine policy documents produced by multilateral agencies, donor countries and an LMIC at the forefront of the global response to AMR-Pakistan. We analysed the texts in relation to five narratives that have been commonly used to frame health issues as requiring action: economic impact, stunting of human development, consequences for health equity, health security threats and relationship with food production. We found that AMR was most frequently framed as a threat to human health security and economic progress, with several US, UK and international documents depicting LMICs as 'hotspots' for AMR. Human development and equity dimensions of the problem were less frequently discussed as reasons to address the growing burden of AMR. It is clear that no single coherent narrative on AMR has emerged, with notable differences in framing in Pakistani and external agency led documents, as well as across stakeholders primarily working on human vs animal health. While framing AMR as a threat to economic growth and human security has achieved high-level political attention and catalysed action from governments in high-income countries, our analysis suggests that conflicting narratives relevant to policymakers in Pakistan may affect policy-making and impede the development and implementation of integrated initiatives needed to tackle AMR.

"For how long are we going to take the tablets?" Kenyan stakeholders' views on priority investments to sustainably tackle soil-transmitted helminths.

Recent global commitments to shift responsibility for Neglected Tropical Disease (NTD) control to affected countries reflect a renewed emphasis on sustainability, away from aid-dependency. This calls for a better understanding of how domestic stakeholders perceive investments in different strategies for NTD control. Soil transmitted helminths (STH) are among the NTDs targeted for elimination as a public health problem by international agencies through mass drug administration, provided periodically to at-risk population groups, often using drugs donated by pharmaceutical companies. This study was conducted in Kenya at a time when responsibilities for long running STH programmes were transitioning from external to national and sub-national agencies. Following an initial assessment in which we identified key domestic stakeholders and reviewed relevant scientific and government documents, the perspectives of stakeholders working in health, education, community engagement and sanitation were investigated through semi-structured interviews with national level policymakers, county level policymakers, and frontline implementers in one high-STH burden county, Kwale. Our conceptual framework on sustainability traced a progression in thinking, from ensuring financial stability through the technical ability to adapt to changing circumstances, and ultimately to a situation where a programme is prioritised by domestic policymakers because empowered communities demand it. It was clear from our interviews that most Kenyan stakeholders sought to be at the final stage in this progression. Interviewees criticised long-term investment in mass drug administration, the approach favoured predominantly by external agencies, for failing to address underlying causes of STH. Instead they identified three synergistic priority areas for investment: changes in institutional structures and culture to reduce working in silos; building community demand and ownership; and increased policymaker engagement on underlying socioeconomic and environmental causes of STH. Although challenging to implement, the shift in responsibility from external agencies to domestic stakeholders may lead to emergence of new strategic directions.

How do external donors influence national health policy processes? Experiences of domestic policy actors in Cambodia and Pakistan.

Although concerns have historically been raised about the influence of external donors on health policy process in recipient countries, remarkably few studies have investigated perspectives and experiences of domestic policymakers and advisers. This study examines donor influence at different stages of the health policy process (priority setting, policy formulation, policy implementation and monitoring and evaluation) in two aid-dependent LMICs, Cambodia and Pakistan. It identifies mechanisms through which asymmetries in influence between donors and domestic policy actors emerge. We conducted 24 key informant interviews-14 in Pakistan and 10 in Cambodia-with high-level decision-makers who inform or authorize health priority setting, allocate resources and/or are responsible for policy implementation, identifying three routes of influence: financial resources, technical expertise and indirect financial and political incentives. We used both inductive and deductive approaches to analyse the data. Our findings indicate that different routes of influence emerged depending on the stage of the policy process. Control of financial resources was the most commonly identified route by which donors influenced priority setting and policy implementation. Greater (perceived) technical expertise played an important role in donor influence at the policy formulation stage. Donors' power in influencing decisions, particularly during the final (monitoring and evaluation) stage of the policy process, was mediated by their ability to control indirect financial and political incentives as well as direct control of financial resources. This study thus helps unpack the nuances of donor influence over health policymaking in these settings, and can potentially indicate areas that require attention to increase the ownership of domestic actors of their countries' health policy processes.

Are scientific research outputs aligned with national policy makers' priorities? A case study of tuberculosis in Cambodia.

With funding for tuberculosis (TB) research decreasing, and the high global disease burden persisting, there are calls for increased investment in TB research. However, justification of such investments is questionable, when translation of research outputs into policy and health care improvements remains a challenge for TB and other diseases. Using TB in Cambodia as a case study, we investigate how evidence needs of national policy makers are addressed by topics covered in research publications. We first conducted a systematic review to compile all studies on TB in Cambodia published since 2000. We then identified priority areas in which evidence for policy and programme planning are required from the perspective of key national TB control stakeholders. Finally, results from the literature review were analysed in relation to the priority research areas for national policy makers to assess overlap and highlight gaps in evidence. Priority research areas were: TB-HIV co-infection; childhood TB; multidrug resistant TB (MDR-TB); and universal and equitable access to quality diagnosis and treatment. On screening 1687 unique papers retrieved from our literature search, 253 were eligible publications focusing on TB in Cambodia. Of these, only 73 (29%) addressed one of the four priority research areas. Overall, 30 (11%), five (2%), seven (2%) and 37 (14%) studies reported findings relevant to TB-HIV, childhood TB, MDR-TB and access to quality diagnosis and treatment respectively. Our analysis shows that a small proportion of the research outputs in Cambodia address priority areas for informing policy and programme planning. This case study illustrates that there is substantial room for improvement in alignment between research outputs and evidence gaps that national policy makers would like to see addressed; better coordination between researchers, funders and policy makers' on identifying priority research topics may increase the relevance of research findings to health policies and programmes.

A strong TB programme embedded in a developing primary healthcare system is a lose-lose situation: insights from patient and community perspectives in Cambodia.

As exemplified by the situation in Cambodia, disease specific (vertical) health programmes are often favoured when the health system is fragile. The potential of such an approach to impede strengthening of primary healthcare services has been studied from a health systems perspective in terms of access and quality of care. In this bottom-up, qualitative study we investigate patient and community member experiences of health services when a strong tuberculosis (TB) programme is embedded into a relatively underutilized primary healthcare system. We conducted six gender-stratified community focus group discussions (n = 49) and seven mixed-gender focus group discussions with TB patients (n = 45) in three provinces located in urban, peri-urban and rural areas of Cambodia. Our analysis of health-seeking behaviour and experiences for TB and TB-like illness indicates that building a strong vertical TB control programme has had numerous benefits, including awareness of typical symptoms and need to seek care early; confidence in free TB services at public facilities; and willingness to complete treatment. However, there was a clear dichotomy in experiences and behaviour with respect to care-seeking for less severe illness at primary health services, which were generally avoided owing to access barriers and perceived poor quality. The tendency to delay seeking health care until the development of severe symptoms clearly indicative of TB is a major barrier to early diagnosis and treatment of TB. Our study indicates that an imbalance in the strength of vertical and primary health services could be a lose-lose situation as this impedes improvements in health system functioning and constrains progress of vertical disease control programmes.

Large funding inflows, limited local capacity and emerging disease control priorities: a situational assessment of tuberculosis control in Myanmar.

There are numerous challenges in planning and implementing effective disease control programmes in Myanmar, which is undergoing internal political and economic transformations whilst experiencing massive inflows of external funding. The objective of our study-involving key informant discussions, participant observations and linked literature reviews-was to analyse how tuberculosis (TB) control strategies in Myanmar are influenced by the broader political, economic, epidemiological and health systems context using the Systemic Rapid Assessment conceptual and analytical framework. Our findings indicate that the substantial influx of donor funding, in the order of one billion dollars over a 5-year period, may be too rapid for the country's infrastructure to effectively utilize. TB control strategies thus far have tended to favour medical or technological approaches rather than infrastructure development, and appear to be driven more by perceived urgency to 'do something' rather informed by evidence of cost-effectiveness and sustainable long-term impact. Progress has been made towards ambitious targets for scaling up treatment of drug-resistant TB, although there are concerns about ensuring quality of care. We also find substantial disparities in health and funding allocation between regions and ethnic groups, which are related to the political context and health system infrastructure. Our situational assessment of emerging TB control strategies in this transitioning health system indicates that large investments by international donors may be pushing Myanmar to scale up TB and drug-resistant TB services too quickly, without due consideration given to the health system (service delivery infrastructure, human resource capacity, quality of care, equity) and epidemiological (evidence of effectiveness of interventions, prevention of new cases) context.

Evidence to inform resource allocation for tuberculosis control in Myanmar: a systematic review based on the SYSRA framework.

Myanmar represents an extreme example of the difficulties in optimally allocating resources for maximum public health benefit, on the basis of limited information. At the recent Myanmar Health Forum 'Investing in Health' much of the discussion revolved around what to invest in, how health systems could be strengthened, and what research and capacity building areas the international donor community should prioritise for support. Funding for infectious disease control, particularly HIV and tuberculosis, is being channelled to the country at an unprecedented rate, but very little research has been conducted in recent years, and existing information has not yet been synthesised. This paper presents findings of the first systematic literature review on tuberculosis control and the health system in Myanmar, with the aim of informing the development of optimal research priorities and strategies. Medline and grey literature were searched for relevant papers. Inclusion criteria and analyses were structured to capture data on the Myanmar health system, healthcare delivery, financing, tuberculosis control indicators and information systems. A total of 77 papers were included in the analysis. The results indicate that there has been a large increase in the number of peer-reviewed articles published on tuberculosis in Myanmar over the past decade, although the absolute number of studies remains small. We identified several areas in which evidence to inform policy and resource allocation decisions is lacking, including research focused on rural and/or vulnerable populations, analyses of risk factors for TB and drug resistance that can inform prevention strategies and economic analyses for optimising resource allocation. The gaps in research to inform policy identified through this study may be relevant to other low resource settings with extremely limited research capacity.

Investments in tuberculosis research - what are the gaps?

Through decades of research, numerous studies have generated robust evidence about effective interventions for tuberculosis control. Yet, the global annual decline in incidence of approximately 1 % is evidence that current approaches and investment strategies are not sufficient. In this article, we assess recent tuberculosis research funding and discuss two critical gaps in funding and in scientific evidence from topics that have been left off the research priority agenda.We first examine research and development funding goals in the 2011-2015 Global Plan to Stop Tuberculosis and analyze disbursements to different research areas by funders worldwide in 2014. We then summarize, through a compilation of published literature and consultation with 35 researchers across multiple disciplines in the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine TB Centre, priorities identified by the tuberculosis research community. Finally, we compare researchers' priority areas to the global funding agendas and activities.Our analysis shows that, among the five key research areas defined in the 2011-2015 Global Plan - namely drugs, basic science, vaccines, diagnostics and operational research - drug discovery and basic science on Mycobacterium tuberculosis accounted for 60 % of the $2 billion annual funding target. None of the research areas received the recommended level of funding. Operational research, which had the lowest target, received 66 % of its target funding, whereas new diagnostics received only 19 %. Although many of the priority research questions identified by researchers fell within the Global Plan categories, our analysis highlights important areas that are not explicitly mentioned in the current plan. These priority research areas included improved understanding of tuberculosis transmission dynamics, the role of social protection and social determinants, and health systems and policy research.While research priorities are increasingly important in light of the limited funding for tuberculosis, there is a risk that we neglect important research areas and encourage the formation of research silos. To ensure that funding priorities, researchers' agendas and national tuberculosis control policies are better coordinated, there should be more, and wider, dialogue between stakeholders in high tuberculosis burden countries, researchers, international policymakers and funders.

Economic interventions to improve population health: a scoping study of systematic reviews.

BACKGROUND: Recognizing the close relationship between poverty and health, national program managers, policy-makers and donors are increasingly including economic interventions as part of their core strategies to improve population health. However, there is often confusion among stakeholders about the definitions and operational differences between distinct types of economic interventions and financial instruments, which can lead to important differences in interpretation and expectations. METHODS: We conducted a scoping study to define and clarify concepts underlying key economic interventions - price interventions (taxes and subsidies), income transfer programs, incentive programs, livelihood support programs and health-related financial services - and map the evidence currently available from systematic reviews. RESULTS: We identified 195 systematic reviews on economic interventions published between 2005 and July 2015. Overall, there was an increase in the number of reviews published after 2010. The majority of reviews focused on price interventions, income transfer programs and incentive programs, with much less evidence available from systematic reviews on livelihood support programs and health-related financial services. We also identified a lack of evidence on: health outcomes in low income countries; unintended or perverse outcomes; implementation challenges; scalability and cost-effectiveness of economic interventions. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that while more research is clearly needed to assess suitability and effectiveness of economic interventions in different contexts, before interventions are tested and further systematic reviews conducted, a consistent and accurate understanding of the fundamental differences in terminology and approaches is essential among researchers, public health policy makers and program planners.

Pathogens, prejudice, and politics: the role of the global health community in the European refugee crisis.

Involuntary migration is a crucially important global challenge from an economic, social, and public health perspective. The number of displaced people reached an unprecedented level in 2015, at a total of 60 million worldwide, with more than 1 million crossing into Europe in the past year alone. Migrants and refugees are often perceived to carry a higher load of infectious diseases, despite no systematic association. We propose three important contributions that the global health community can make to help address infectious disease risks and global health inequalities worldwide, with a particular focus on the refugee crisis in Europe. First, policy decisions should be based on a sound evidence base regarding health risks and burdens to health systems, rather than prejudice or unfounded fears. Second, for incoming refugees, we must focus on building inclusive, cost-effective health services to promote collective health security. Finally, alongside protracted conflicts, widening of health and socioeconomic inequalities between high-income and lower-income countries should be acknowledged as major drivers for the global refugee crisis, and fully considered in planning long-term solutions.

Engaging for-profit providers in TB control: lessons learnt from initiatives in South Asia.

There has been a huge expansion in the private health-care sector over the past two decades, particularly in South Asia, resulting in over 80% of patients seeking care from private health providers. Despite concerns about the quality and equity of private sector service provision, most government public health bodies recognize that the private sector reaches individuals that public institutions cannot cater to, thereby being important in moving closer to universal health coverage. Numerous initiatives have been launched and are being planned to involve private practitioners in effectively diagnosing, reporting and managing infectious diseases such as tuberculosis. However, there is a notable dearth of papers discussing which elements of private sector engagement strategies are more or less successful and the ethical issues that arise when engagement strategies are operationalized. This article brings together the authors' experiences of working on projects to engage private allopathic health providers in Pakistan, Bangladesh and India for improved tuberculosis control. Motivations of and strategies required to engage private allopathic heath providers, specifically doctors, diagnostic laboratories and pharmacies, and some of the ethical issues that arise when designing programmes for engagement are discussed.