Global health diplomacy-reconstructing power and governance.

Over the past two decades, global health diplomacy, foreign policy for health, and global health policy have changed substantially. Diplomacy is a constitutive part of the system of global health governance. COVID-19 hit the world when multilateral cooperation was subject to major challenges, and global health has since become integral to geopolitics. The importance of global health diplomacy, especially at WHO, in keeping countries jointly committed to improving health for everyone, has once again been shown. Through a systematic review, this Series paper explores how international relations concepts and theories have been applied to better understand the role of power in shaping positions, negotiations, and outcomes in global health diplomacy. We apply an international relations perspective to reflect on the effect that those concepts and theories have had on global health diplomacy over the past two decades. This Series paper argues that a more central role of international relations concepts and theories in analysing global health diplomacy would help develop a more nuanced understanding of global health policy making. However, the world has changed to an extent that was not envisioned in academic discourse. This shift calls for new international relations concepts and theories to inform global health diplomacy.

Views on Using Social Robots in Professional Caregiving: Content Analysis of a Scenario Method Workshop.

BACKGROUND: Interest in digital technologies in the health care sector is growing and can be a way to reduce the burden on professional caregivers while helping people to become more independent. Social robots are regarded as a special form of technology that can be usefully applied in professional caregiving with the potential to focus on interpersonal contact. While implementation is progressing slowly, a debate on the concepts and applications of social robots in future care is necessary. OBJECTIVE: In addition to existing studies with a focus on societal attitudes toward social robots, there is a need to understand the views of professional caregivers and patients. This study used desired future scenarios to collate the perspectives of experts and analyze the significance for developing the place of social robots in care. METHODS: In February 2020, an expert workshop was held with 88 participants (health professionals and educators; [PhD] students of medicine, health care, professional care, and technology; patient advocates; software developers; government representatives; and research fellows) from Austria, Germany, and Switzerland. Using the scenario methodology, the possibilities of analog professional care (Analog Care), fully robotic professional care (Robotic Care), teams of robots and professional caregivers (Deep Care), and professional caregivers supported by robots (Smart Care) were discussed. The scenarios were used as a stimulus for the development of ideas about future professional caregiving. The discussion was evaluated using qualitative content analysis. RESULTS: The majority of the experts were in favor of care in which people are supported by technology (Deep Care) and developed similar scenarios with a focus on dignity-centeredness. The discussions then focused on the steps necessary for its implementation, highlighting a strong need for the development of eHealth competence in society, a change in the training of professional caregivers, and cross-sectoral concepts. The experts also saw user acceptance as crucial to the use of robotics. This involves the acceptance of both professional caregivers and care recipients. CONCLUSIONS: The literature review and subsequent workshop revealed how decision-making about the value of social robots depends on personal characteristics related to experience and values. There is therefore a strong need to recognize individual perspectives of care before social robots become an integrated part of care in the future.

Germany's expanding role in global health.

Germany has become a visible actor in global health in the past 10 years. In this Series paper, we describe how this development complements a broad change in perspective in German foreign policy. Catalysts for this shift have been strong governmental leadership, opportunities through G7 and G20 presidencies, and Germany's involvement in managing the Ebola virus disease outbreak. German global health engagement has four main characteristics that are congruent with the health agenda of the Sustainable Development Goals; it is rooted in human rights, multilateralism, the Bismarck model of social protection, and a link between development and investment on the basis of its own development trajectory after World War 2. The combination of momentum and specific characteristics makes Germany well equipped to become a leader in global health, yet the country needs to accept additional financial responsibility for global health, expand its domestic global health competencies, reduce fragmentation of global health policy making, and solve major incoherencies in its policies both nationally and internationally.

The Global Fund's paradigm of oversight, monitoring, and results in Mozambique.

BACKGROUND: The Global Fund is one of the largest actors in global health. In 2015 the Global Fund was credited with disbursing close to 10 % of all development assistance for health. In 2011 it began a reform process in response to internal reviews following allegations of recipients' misuse of funds. Reforms have focused on grant application processes thus far while the core structures and paradigm have remained intact. We report results of discussions with key stakeholders on the Global Fund, its paradigm of oversight, monitoring, and results in Mozambique. METHODS: We conducted 38 semi-structured in-depth interviews in Maputo, Mozambique and members of the Global Fund Board and Secretariat in Switzerland. In-country stakeholders were representatives from Global Fund country structures (eg. Principle Recipient), the Ministry of Health, health or development attachés bilateral and multilateral agencies, consultants, and the NGO coordinating body. Thematic coding revealed concerns about the combination of weak country oversight with stringent and cumbersome requirements for monitoring and evaluation linked to performance-based financing. RESULTS: Analysis revealed that despite the changes associated with the New Funding Model, respondents in both Maputo and Geneva firmly believe challenges remain in Global Fund's structure and paradigm. The lack of a country office has many negative downstream effects including reliance on in-country partners and ineffective coordination. Due to weak managerial and absorptive capacity, more oversight is required than is afforded by country team visits. In-country partners provide much needed support for Global Fund recipients, but roles, responsibilities, and accountability must be clearly defined for a successful long-term partnership. Furthermore, decision-makers in Geneva recognize in-country coordination as vital to successful implementation, and partners welcome increased Global Fund engagement. CONCLUSIONS: To date, there are no institutional requirements for formalized coordination, and the Global Fund has no consistent representation in Mozambique's in-country coordination groups. The Global Fund should adapt grant implementation and monitoring procedures to the specific local realities that would be illuminated by more formalized coordination.

European Healthy Cities come to terms with health network governance.

A focus on good governance in the WHO European network of Healthy Cities mirrors the WHO Region's strategic emphasis-its member states in the Health 2020 strategy espouse governance for health as key. Healthy Cities adopted governance as a key value and approach to delivering specific health programmes and policies. This article reviews the extent to which they actually introduce and align governance concepts and approaches with their local government commitments. Healthy Cities show that better participation, policy-making and intersectoral action result from an emphasis on governance. This happens across the designated cities and is not limited to a certain class (in terms of population or geographical location) or the time they have been designated. The support of WHO in driving the governance agenda seems important, but no data are available to show that European Healthy Cities are different from other urban environments.

Healthy Cities Phase V evaluation: further synthesizing realism.

In this article we reflect on the quality of a realist synthesis paradigm applied to the evaluation of Phase V of the WHO European Healthy Cities Network. The programmatic application of this approach has led to very high response rates and a wealth of important data. All articles in this Supplement report that cities in the network move from small-scale, time-limited projects predominantly focused on health lifestyles to the significant inclusion of policies and programmes on systems and values for good health governance. The evaluation team felt that, due to time and resource limitations, it was unable to fully exploit the potential of realist synthesis. In particular, the synthetic integration of different strategic foci of Phase V designation areas did not come to full fruition. We recommend better and more sustained integration of realist synthesis in the practice of Healthy Cities in future Phases.

Health Impact Assessment in New South Wales & Health in All Policies in South Australia: differences, similarities and connections.

BACKGROUND: Policy decisions made within all sectors have the potential to influence population health and equity. Recognition of this provides impetus for the health sector to engage with other sectors to facilitate the development of policies that recognise, and aim to improve, population outcomes. This paper compares the approaches implemented to facilitate such engagement in two Australian jurisdictions. These are Health Impact Assessment (HIA) in New South Wales (NSW) and Health in All Policies (HiAP) in South Australia (SA). METHODS: The comparisons presented in this paper emerged through collaborative activities between stakeholders in both jurisdictions, including critical reflection on HIA and HiAP practice, joint participation in a workshop, and the preparation of a discussion paper written to inform a conference plenary session. The plenary provided an opportunity for the incorporation of additional insights from policy practitioners and academics. RESULTS: Comparison of the approaches indicates that their overall intent is similar. Differences exist, however, in the underpinning principles, technical processes and tactical strategies applied. These differences appear to stem mainly from the organisational positioning of the work in each state and the extent to which each approach is linked to government systems. CONCLUSIONS: The alignment of the HiAP approach with the systems of the SA Government increases the likelihood of influence within the policy cycle. However, the political priorities and sensitivities of the SA Government limit the scope of HiAP work. The implementation of the HIA approach from outside government in NSW means greater freedom to collaborate with a range of partners and to assess policy issues in any area, regardless of government priorities. However, the comparative distance of HIA from NSW Government systems may reduce the potential for impact on government policy. The diversity in the technical and tactical strategies that are applied within each approach provides insight into how the approaches have been tailored to suit the particular contexts in which they have been implemented.