To vaccinate or not to vaccinate? Experiences of COVID-19 vaccine uptake among people living with non-communicable diseases in Ghana: A qualitative study.

Following the development of a vaccine for COVID-19, the expectation was instantaneous widespread distribution and uptake to halt further spread, severe illness and deaths from the virus. However, studies show very low uptake, especially in resource-poor settings, and little is documented about the drivers of vaccine uptake in populations classified as high-risk. In this study, we explored access and uptake of COVID-19 vaccines among people living with non-communicable diseases (PLWNCDs) in Ghana. A qualitative study using in-depth interviews and focus group discussions was conducted among adults (>18 years) PLWNCDs stratified by sex, age, and type of non-communicable diseases (NCDs) at the community level (non-users of the health service) and health facility levels. Purposive sampling was used to select eligible participants. Topic guides were used to facilitate the face-to-face in-depth interviews and focus group discussions. The interviews and discussions were all digitally audio recorded. All transcripts and field notes were thematically analysed. Overall, 62 participants were recruited for this study. Family members, friends/peers, health workers and media were identified as the main sources of information for COVID-19 vaccines. Several barriers that mediated access to the COVID-19 vaccines in Ghana were reported including mistrust of vaccine efficacy and fears of vaccine side-effects, long distance to and waiting hours at vaccination centres, shortages of vaccines at vaccination centres and non-prioritization of NCD patients for the vaccine. To improve uptake, intensified education and sensitization, house-to-house vaccination, expansion of vaccination centers and increased supply of vaccines were recommended by participants. Compared to studies elsewhere, misinformation and disinformation were not major causes of vaccine hesitancy. If policymakers can improve community-based vaccine delivery, reduce queues and waiting times, prioritize PLWNCDs and other vulnerable groups, and improve sensitization and communication-our findings suggest there will be major improvements in COVID-19 vaccine coverage in Ghana.

A conceptual learning analysis of paired after action and intra action reviews for health emergencies.

Background: Processes of self-reflection and the learning they allow are crucial before, during, and after acute emergencies, including infectious disease outbreaks. Tools-such as Action Reviews-offer World Health Organization (WHO) member states a platform to enhance learning. We sought to better understand the value of these tools and how they may be further refined and better used. Methods: We searched the publicly available WHO Strategic Partnership for Health Security website for paired reports of Action Reviews, that is, reports with a comparable follow-up report. We complemented the paired action reviews, with a literature search, including the gray literature. The paired action reviews were analyzed using the "Learning Health Systems" framework. Results: We identified three paired action reviews: Lassa Fever After Action Reviews (AARs) in Nigeria (2017 and 2018), COVID-19 Intra-Action Reviews (IARs) in Botswana (2020 and 2021), and COVID-19 IARs in South Sudan (2020 and 2021). Action Reviews allowed for surfacing relevant knowledge and, by engaging the right (in different contexts) actors, asking "are we doing things right?" (single loop learning) was evident in all the reports. Single loop learning is often embedded within examples of double loop learning ("are we doing the right things?"), providing a more transformative basis for policy change. Triple loop learning ("are we learning right"?) was evident in AARs, and less in IARs. The range of participants involved, the level of concentrated focus on specific issues, the duration available for follow through, and the pressures on the health system to respond influenced the type (i.e., loop) and the effectiveness of learning. Conclusion: Action Reviews, by design, surface knowledge. With favorable contextual conditions, this knowledge can then be applied and lead to corrective and innovative actions to improve health system performance, and in exceptional cases, continuous learning.

Readiness for non-communicable disease service delivery in Ethiopia: an empirical analysis.

BACKGROUND: Ethiopia's health system is overwhelmed by the growing burden of non-communicable diseases (NCDs). In this study, we assessed the availability of and readiness for NCD services and the interaction of NCD services with other essential and non-NCD services. METHODS: The analysis focused on four main NCD services: diabetes mellitus, cardiovascular diseases, chronic respiratory diseases, and cancer screening. We used data from the 2018 Ethiopian Service Availability and Readiness Assessment (SARA) survey. As defined by the World Health Organization, readiness, both general and service-specific, was measured based on the mean percentage availability of the tracer indicators, such as trained staff and guidelines, equipment, diagnostic capacity, and essential medicines and commodities needed for delivering essential health services and NCD-specific services, respectively. The survey comprised 632 nationally representative healthcare facilities, and we applied mixed-effects linear and ordered logit models to identify factors affecting NCD service availability and readiness. RESULTS: Only 8% of facilities provided all four NCD services. Availability varied for specific services, with cervical cancer screening being the least available service in the country: less than 10% of facilities, primarily higher-level hospitals, provided cervical cancer screening. General service readiness was a strong predictor of NCD service availability. Differences in NCD service availability and readiness between regions and facility types were significant. Increased readiness for specific NCD services was significantly associated with increased readiness for communicable disease services and interacted with the readiness for other NCD services. CONCLUSION: NCD service availability has considerable regional variation and is positively associated with general and communicable disease services readiness. Readiness for specific NCD services interacted with one another. The findings suggest an integrated approach to service delivery, focussing holistically on all disease services, is needed. There also needs to be increased attention to reducing resource allocation variation between facility types and locations.

Global inequities in adverse pregnancy outcomes: what can we do?

The Health Equity Leadership & Exchange Network states that "health equity exists when all people, regardless of race, sex, sexual orientation, disability, socioeconomic status, geographic location, or other societal constructs, have fair and just access, opportunity, and resources to achieve their highest potential for health." It is clear from the wide discrepancies in maternal and infant mortalities, by race, ethnicity, location, and social and economic status, that health equity has not been achieved in pregnancy care. Although the most obvious evidence of inequities is in low-resource settings, inequities also exist in high-resource settings. In this presentation, based on the Global Pregnancy Collaboration Workshop, which addressed this issue, the bases for the differences in outcomes were explored. Several different settings in which inequities exist in high- and low-resource settings were reviewed. Apparent causes include social drivers of health, such as low income, inadequate housing, suboptimal access to clean water, structural racism, and growing maternal healthcare deserts globally. In addition, a question is asked whether maternal health inequities will extend to and be partially due to current research practices. Our overview of inequities provides approaches to resolve these inequities, which are relevant to low- and high-resource settings. Based on the evidence, recommendations have been provided to increase health equity in pregnancy care. Unfortunately, some of these inequities are more amenable to resolution than others. Therefore, continued attention to these inequities and innovative thinking and research to seek solutions to these inequities are encouraged.

Science should save all, not just some.

Discussions around global equity and justice in science typically emphasize the lack of diversity in the editorial boards of scientific journals, inequities in authorship, "parachute research," dominance of the English language, or scientific awards garnered predominantly by Global North scientists. These inequities are pervasive and must be redressed. But there is a bigger problem. The legacy of colonialism in scientific research includes an intellectual property system that favors Global North countries and the big corporations they support. This unfairness shows up in who gets access to the fruits of science and raises the question of who science is designed to serve or save.

People and sites as community resources for preventing and managing chronic health conditions: A conceptual analysis.

The prevention and management of chronic non-communicable diseases (NCDs) require community-based efforts-especially as their burden grows, and recognition of the need for engaging diverse stakeholders in care grows. The aim of this conceptual analysis was to categorise existing community resources (people and sites) used to support such efforts, the mechanisms by which they work, and the conditions that constrain their effectiveness. We developed an initial framework for categorising community resources. We then used a sample of the literature- 24 studies from 12 countries-to refine and enrich the framework. We identified seven categories of sites ('where': House, Meeting place, Community health centre, Primary health care centre, Mobile clinic, Pharmacy, and Hospital) and ten categories of people ('who': Community Health Worker, Nurse/Midwife, Health educator, Physician, Primary Health Care Worker, Peer Group, Navigator, Pharmacist, Cultural Advisor, Family caregiver). We identified eight mechanisms through which those resources improve NCD prevention and management: Context specific engagement, Personalised and integrated care, Community health worker led knowledge dissemination, Social support through family and/or friends, Extending the reach of the health system, Social support through peer groups, Task shifting, and Training of health workforce. We identified two broad categories of constraints on these mechanisms: (i) health system barriers such as inadequate workforce, training, coordination and engagement; and (ii) socio-economic, political, and cultural barriers to care. The conceptual categories (of people and sites as resources, the mechanisms through which they work and the contextual constraints on their effectiveness) identified in this analysis may be useful in further analysing current approaches in NCD efforts using community resources, in informing the development of community-based efforts, and in exploring the commonalities and transferable insights between different locations or settings around the world and between different efforts to prevent and manage NCDs within communities.

Frontline health workers' experiences of providing care for people living with non-communicable diseases during the COVID-19 pandemic in Ghana: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has significantly impacted frontline health workers. However, a neglected dimension of this discourse was the extent to which the pandemic impacted frontline healthcare workers providing non-communicable diseases (NCDs) care. This study aims to understand the experiences of healthcare workers with no prior exposure to pandemics who provided care to people living with NCDs (PLWNCDs). METHODS: A qualitative study design was employed, using a face-to-face in-depth interviews. Interviews were conducted in primary healthcare facilities in three administrative regions of Ghana, representing the Northern, Southern and Middle Belts. Only frontline health workers with roles in providing care for PLWNCDs were included. Purposive snowballing and convenience sampling methods were employed to select frontline health workers. An open-ended interview guide was used to facilitate data collection, and thematic content analysis was used to analyse the data. RESULTS: A total of 47 frontline health workers were interviewed. Overall, these workers experienced diverse patient-driven and organisational challenges. Patient-level challenges included a decline in healthcare utilisation, non-adherence to treatment, a lack of continuity, fear and stigma. At the organisational levels, there was a lack of medical logistics, increased infection of workers and absenteeism, increased workload and burnout, limited motivational packages and inadequate guidelines and protocols. Workers coped and responded to the pandemic by postponing reviews and consultations, reducing inpatient and outpatient visits, changing their prescription practices, using teleconsultation and moving to long-shift systems. CONCLUSION: This study has brought to the fore the experiences that adversely affected frontline health workers and, in many ways, affected the care provided to PLWNCDs. Policymakers and health managers should take these experiences into account in plans to mitigate the impact of future pandemics.

The health workforce conundrum for burn care in Uttar Pradesh, India: a qualitative exploration.

Delivering specialised care for major burns requires a multidisciplinary health workforce. While health systems 'hardware' issues, such as shortages of the healthcare workforce and training gaps in burn care are widely acknowledged, there is limited evidence around the systems 'software' aspects, such as interest, power dynamics, and relationships that impact the healthcare workforce performance. This study explored challenges faced by the health workforce in burn care to identify issues affecting their performance. Qualitative in-depth interviews were conducted with a purposively selected sample (n = 31, 18 women and 13 men) of various cadres of the burn care health workforce in Uttar Pradesh, India. Inductive coding and thematic analysis identified three major themes. First, the dynamics within the multidisciplinary team where complex relations, power and normative hierarchy hampered performance. Second, the dynamics between health workers and patients due to the clinical and emotional challenges of dealing with burn injuries and multitasking. Third, dynamics between specialised burn units and broader health systems are narrated in challenges due to inadequate first response and delayed referral from primary care facilities. These findings indicate that burn care health workers in India face multiple challenges that need systemic intervention with a multipronged human resource for health framework.

Unfair knowledge practices in global health: a realist synthesis.

Unfair knowledge practices easily beset our efforts to achieve health equity within and between countries. Enacted by people from a distance and from a position of power ('the centre') on behalf of and alongside people with less power ('the periphery'), these unfair practices have generated a complex literature of complaints across various axes of inequity. We identified a sample of this literature from 12 journals and systematized it using the realist approach to explanation. We framed the outcome to be explained as 'manifestations of unfair knowledge practices'; their generative mechanisms as 'the reasoning of individuals or rationale of institutions'; and context that enable them as 'conditions that give knowledge practices their structure'. We identified four categories of unfair knowledge practices, each triggered by three mechanisms: (1) credibility deficit related to pose (mechanisms: 'the periphery's cultural knowledge, technical knowledge and "articulation" of knowledge do not matter'), (2) credibility deficit related to gaze (mechanisms: 'the centre's learning needs, knowledge platforms and scholarly standards must drive collective knowledge-making'), (3) interpretive marginalization related to pose (mechanisms: 'the periphery's sensemaking of partnerships, problems and social reality do not matter') and (4) interpretive marginalization related to gaze (mechanisms: 'the centre's learning needs, social sensitivities and status preservation must drive collective sensemaking'). Together, six mutually overlapping, reinforcing and dependent categories of context influence all 12 mechanisms: 'mislabelling' (the periphery as inferior), 'miseducation' (on structural origins of disadvantage), 'under-representation' (of the periphery on knowledge platforms), 'compounded spoils' (enjoyed by the centre), 'under-governance' (in making, changing, monitoring, enforcing and applying rules for fair engagement) and 'colonial mentality' (of/at the periphery). These context-mechanism-outcome linkages can inform efforts to redress unfair knowledge practices, investigations of unfair knowledge practices across disciplines and axes of inequity and ethics guidelines for health system research and practice when working at a social or physical distance.

The Lancet and colonialism: past, present, and future.

The historical and contemporary alignment of medical and health journals with colonial practices needs elucidation. Colonialism, which sought to exploit colonised people and places, was justified by the prejudice that colonised people's ways of knowing and being are inferior to those of the colonisers. Institutions for knowledge production and dissemination, including academic journals, were therefore central to sustaining colonialism and its legacies today. This invited Viewpoint focuses on The Lancet, following its 200th anniversary, and is especially important given the extent of The Lancet's global influence. We illuminate links between The Lancet and colonialism, with examples from the past and present, showing how the journal legitimised and continues to promote specific types of knowers, knowledge, perspectives, and interpretations in health and medicine. The Lancet's role in colonialism is not unique; other institutions and publications across the British empire cooperated with empire-building through colonisation. We therefore propose investigations and raise questions to encourage broader contestation on the practices, audience, positionality, and ownership of journals claiming leadership in global knowledge production.

Why does a public health issue (not) get priority? Agenda setting for the national burns programme in India.

There is growing scholarly interest in what leads to global or national prioritization of specific health issues. By retrospectively analysing agenda setting for India's national burn programme, this study aimed to better understand how the agenda-setting process influenced its design, implementation and performance. We conducted document reviews and key informant interviews with stakeholders and used a combination of analytical frameworks on policy prioritization and issue framing for analysis. The READ (readying material, extracting data, analysing data and distilling findings) approach was used for document reviews, and qualitative thematic analysis was used for coding and analysis of documents and interviews. The findings suggest three critical features of burns care policy prioritization in India: challenges of issue characteristics, divergent portrayal of ideas and its framing as a social and/or health issue and over-centralization of agenda setting. First, lack of credible indicators on the magnitude of the problem and evidence on interventions limited issue framing, advocacy and agenda setting. Second, the policy response to burns has two dimensions in India: response to gender-based intentional injuries and the healthcare response. While intentional burns have received policy attention, the healthcare response was limited until the national programme was initiated in 2010 and scaled up in 2014. Third, over-centralization of agenda setting (dominated by a few homogenous actors, located in the national capital, with attention focused on the national ministry of health) contributed to limitations in programme design and implementation. We note following elements to consider when analysing issues of significant burden but limited priority: the need to analyse how actors influence issue framing, the particularities of issues, the inadequacy of any one dominant frame and the limited intersection of frames. Based on this analysis in India, we recommend a decentralized approach to agenda setting and for the design and implementation of national programmes from the outset.

Promoting equitable health workforce distribution through improved migration governance: A mixed methods study of African health professionals' perceptions in Australia.

BACKGROUND: This study examined skilled health worker (SHW) migration governance in African countries and Australia, with an emphasis on areas of influence for achieving an equitable global health workforce distribution. METHODS: We used a mixed-methods research design with African SHW migrants in Australia. An institutional and rights-based framing of governance guided thematic analysis of the interviews, which was mapped to survey findings from a Bayesian Exploratory Factor Analysis. RESULTS: The findings imply that Australian state actors enforce laws that attract SHW migrants and promote safe clinical practice, but do not adequately address their integration concerns or role in health system strengthening. Non-state actors in Australia make donations to African health institutions but rarely promote health workforce equity. African state actors respond to increased SHW migration trends by increasing health worker training and limiting migration, but they lack a comprehensive governance framework for involving citizens and engaging foreign governments. There is limited evidence of a shared community definition of SHW migration governance in many African countries. CONCLUSION: When stakeholders in both sending and receiving countries recognise the indivisibility of the rights at stake (for example, SHW rights as migrants and the right to health), support for an equity-focused SHW migration governance system may increase. Promoting these rights can result in policies that enhance health system strengthening in destination and source countries. Similarly, growing adoption of these rights in sending countries should help inspire a coordinated plan for strengthening health system and SHW migration governance.

Making Sense of the Complexity of Decentralised Governance Comment on "The Effects of Health Sector Fiscal Decentralisation on Availability, Accessibility, and Utilisation of Healthcare Services: A Panel Data Analysis".

The article by Rotulo and colleagues suggests that health sector fiscal decentralisation has been bad for Italy. But given the complexity of fiscal decentralisation, this interpretation is not necessarily so. Their analysis was based on assumptions about causality that are better suited for simple interventions. Assumptions of simplicity show up as misleading artefacts in the conclusion of evaluations of complex interventions. Complex interventions work by triggering mechanisms - eg, reasoning and learning processes - that manifest differently across the units of a decentralised system, contingent on context, evolving over time. Evaluation findings can only be partial and provisional; neither summarily good nor bad. The goal of evaluating a complex intervention - such as decentralised governance - should be to understand how, under what circumstances and for whom they are good or bad - at a point in time.

Health systems research in burn care: an evidence gap map.

BACKGROUND: Burn injury is associated with significant mortality and disability. Resilient and responsive health systems are needed for optimal response and care for people who sustain burn injuries. However, the extent of health systems research (HSR) in burn care is unknown. This review aimed to systematically map the global HSR related to burn care. METHODS: An evidence gap map (EGM) was developed based on the World Health Organization health systems framework. All major medical, health and injury databases were searched. A standard method was used to develop the EGM. RESULTS: A total of 6586 articles were screened, and the full text of 206 articles was reviewed, of which 106 met the inclusion criteria. Most included studies were cross-sectional (61%) and were conducted in hospitals (71%) with patients (48%) or healthcare providers (29%) as participants. Most studies were conducted in high-income countries, while only 13% were conducted in low-and middle-income countries, accounting for 60% of burns mortality burden globally. The most common health systems areas of focus were service delivery (53%), health workforce (33%) and technology (19%). Studies on health policy, governance and leadership were absent, and there were only 14 qualitative studies. CONCLUSIONS: Major evidence gaps exist for an integrated health systems response to burns care. There is an inequity between the burden of burn injuries and HSR. Strengthening research capacity will facilitate evidence-informed health systems and policy reforms to sustainably improve access to affordable, equitable and optimal burn care and outcomes.

The impact of decentralisation on health systems in fragile and post-conflict countries: a narrative synthesis of six case studies in the Indo-Pacific.

A health system has three key stakeholders, the State-at national and subnational levels-the health service providers and the citizens. In most settings and especially in peacetime, these stakeholders are typically well-defined. In contrast, during conflict and crisis as well as during ceasefire and post-conflict peacebuilding, stakeholders in the health system are often more diverse and contested. Health systems in such settings tend to be more decentralised, de facto-often in addition to de jure decentralisation. Despite much debate on the potential benefits of decentralisation, assessing its impact on health system performance remains difficult and its effect is open to dispute in the literature. This narrative synthesis aims to support efforts to assess and make sense of how decentralisation impacts health system performance in fragile and post-conflict countries-by synthesising evidence on the impact of decentralisation on health system performance from six country case studies: Papua New Guinea, the Philippines, Indonesia, Pakistan, Myanmar and Nepal. The impact of decentralisation on health system performance is optimised when combining centralisation (e.g., the benefits of central coordination in improving efficiency) with decentralisation (e.g., the benefits of local decision making in improving equity and resilience). The findings may inform efforts to think through what to centralise or decentralise, the impacts of those choices, and how the impact may change over time as countries go through and emerge from conflict-and as they go through and recover from the Covid-19 pandemic and prepare for future pandemics.

Navigating health systems for burn care: Patient journeys and delays in Uttar Pradesh, India.

BACKGROUND: India has one of the highest burden of burns. The health systems response to burn care is sometimes patchy and highly influenced by social determinants. Delay in access to acute care and rehabilitation adversely affects recovery outcomes. Evidence on underlying factors for delays in care are limited. In this study, we aim to explore patients' journeys to analyse their experiences in accessing burn care in Uttar Pradesh, India. METHODS: We conducted qualitative inquiry using the patient journey mapping approach and in-depth interviews (IDI). We purposively selected a referral burn centre in Uttar Pradesh, India and included a diverse group of patients. A chronological plot of the patient's journey was drawn and confirmed with respondents at the end of the interview. A detailed patient journey map was drawn for each patient based on interview transcripts and notes. Further analysis was done in NVivo 12 using a combination of inductive and deductive coding. Similar codes were categorised into sub-themes, which were distributed to one of the major themes of the 'three delays' framework. RESULTS: Six major burns patients (4 female and 2 males) aged between 2 and 43 years were included in the study. Two patients had flame burns, and one had chemical, electric, hot liquid, and blast injury, respectively. Delay in seeking care (delay 1) was less common for acute care but was a concern for rehabilitation. Accessibility and availability of services, costs of care and lack of financial support influenced delay (1) for rehabilitation. Delay in reaching an appropriate facility (delay 2) was common due to multiple referrals before reaching an appropriate burn facility. Lack of clarity on referral systems and proper triaging influenced this delay. Delay in getting adequate care (delay 3) was mainly due to inadequate infrastructure at various levels of health facilities, shortage of skilled health providers, and high costs of care. COVID-19-related protocols and restrictions influenced all three delays. CONCLUSIONS: Burn care pathways are adversely affected by barriers to timely access. We propose using the modified 3-delays framework to analyse delays in burns care. There is a need to strengthen referral linkage systems, ensure financial risk protection, and integrate burn care at all levels of health care delivery systems.