Who is "anti-science"?

Objectives: "Anti-science" accusations are common in medicine and public health, sometimes to discredit scientists who hold opposing views. However, there is no such thing as "one science". Epistemology recognizes that any "science" is sociologically embedded, and therefore contextual and intersubjective. In this paper, we reflect on how "science" needs to adopt various perspectives to give a comprehensive and nuanced understanding of a phenomenon. Study design: Opinion paper. Methods: Based on a targeted literature survey, we first clarify the known limits of traditional scientific methods and then reflect on how the scientific reporting about Covid-19 mRNA vaccines has evolved. Results: The first reports of the Covid-19 mRNA vaccines randomised controlled trial results showed impressive efficacy. Nevertheless, an abundant literature has since depicted a far more nuanced picture of the effectiveness and safety of those vaccines over the medium-term. We organise them around five themes: (i) differentiating between relative and absolute reduction; (ii) taking account of time in reporting effectiveness; (iii) taking account of all outcomes, including adverse effects; (iv) stratifying effectiveness and considering other decision criteria (efficiency, equity, and acceptance); (v) changing the outcome of concern and assessing vaccines' effectiveness on mortality. Conclusions: Science offers a wide range of perspectives on a given study object. Only the process of deliberation amongst scientists and other stakeholders can result in accepted new knowledge useful to support decision-making. Unfortunately, by trying to reduce "science" to simple messages set in stone, scientists can become the worse enemies of science.

COVAX - Time to reconsider the strategy and its target.

COVAX, the international initiative supporting COVID-19 vaccination campaigns globally, is budgeted to be the costliest public health initiative in low- and middle-income countries, with over 16 billion US dollars already committed. While some claim that the target of vaccinating 70% of people worldwide is justified on equity grounds, we argue that this rationale is wrong for two reasons. First, mass COVID-19 vaccination campaigns do not meet standard public health requirements for clear expected benefit, based on costs, disease burden and intervention effectiveness. Second, it constitutes a diversion of resources from more cost-effective and impactful public health programmes, thus reducing health equity. We conclude that the COVAX initiative warrants urgent review.

Taking Systems Thinking to the Global Level: Using the WHO Building Blocks to Describe and Appraise the Global Health System in Relation to COVID-19.

Adequately preparing for and containing global shocks, such as COVID-19, is a key challenge facing health systems globally. COVID-19 highlights that health systems are multilevel systems, a continuum from local to global. Goals and monitoring indicators have been key to strengthening national health systems but are missing at the supranational level. A framework to strengthen the global system-the global health actors and the governance, finance, and delivery arrangements within which they operate-is urgently needed. In this article, we illustrate how the World Health Organization Building Blocks framework, which has been used to monitor the performance of national health systems, can be applied to describe and appraise the global health system and its response to COVID-19, and identify potential reforms. Key weaknesses in the global response included: fragmented and voluntary financing; non-transparent pricing of medicines and supplies, poor quality standards, and inequities in procurement and distribution; and weak leadership and governance. We also identify positive achievements and identify potential reforms of the global health system for greater resilience to future shocks. We discuss the limitations of the Building Blocks framework and future research directions and reflect on political economy challenges to reform.

Who is paid in pay-for-performance? Inequalities in the distribution of financial bonuses amongst health centres in Zimbabwe.

Although pay-for-performance (P4P) schemes have been implemented across low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), little is known about their distributional consequences. A key concern is that financial bonuses are primarily captured by providers who are already better able to perform (for example, those in wealthier areas), P4P could exacerbate existing inequalities within the health system. We examine inequalities in the distribution of pay-outs in Zimbabwe's national P4P scheme (2014-2016) using quantitative data on bonus payments and facility characteristics and findings from a thematic policy review and 28 semi-structured interviews with stakeholders at all system levels. We found that in Zimbabwe, facilities with better baseline access to guidelines, more staff, higher consultation volumes and wealthier and less remote target populations earned significantly higher P4P bonuses throughout the programme. For instance, facilities that were 1 SD above the mean in terms of access to guidelines, earned 90 USD more per quarter than those that were 1 SD below the mean. Differences in bonus pay-outs for facilities that were 1 SD above and below the mean in terms of the number of staff and consultation volumes are even more pronounced at 348 USD and 445 USD per quarter. Similarly, facilities with villages in the poorest wealth quintile in their vicinity earned less than all others-and 752 USD less per quarter than those serving villages in the richest quintile. Qualitative data confirm these findings. Respondents identified facility baseline structural quality, leadership, catchment population size and remoteness as affecting performance in the scheme. Unequal distribution of P4P pay-outs was identified as having negative consequences on staff retention, absenteeism and motivation. Based on our findings and previous work, we provide some guidance to policymakers on how to design more equitable P4P schemes.

The danger of the single storyline obfuscating the complexities of managing SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19.

Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie showed how a single story is limited and thereby distorts the true nature of an issue. During this COVID-19 pandemic there have been, at least, three consecutive single stories-the 'lethal threat' story, followed by the 'economic threat' story, and finally the 'vaccine miracle' story. None of these single stories can convincingly and permanently capture the dynamics of the pandemic. This is because countries experienced different morbidity and mortality patterns, different socioeconomic disadvantage, age and vulnerability of population, timing and level of lockdown with economic variability, and, despite heavy promotion, vaccines were beset with a significant and variable degree of hesitancy. Lack of transparency, coherence and consistency of pandemic management-arising from holding on to single storylines-showed the global deficiency of public health policy and planning, an underfunding of (public) health and social services, and a growing distrust in governments' ability to manage crises effectively. Indeed, the global management has increased already large inequities, and little has been learnt to address the growing crises of more infectious and potentially more lethal virus mutations. Holding onto single stories prevents the necessary learnings to understand and manage the complexities of 'wicked' problems, whereas listening to the many stories provides insights and pathways to do so effectively as well as efficiently.

Surfing Corona waves - instead of breaking them: Rethinking the role of natural immunity in COVID-19 policy.

In the first two years of the pandemic, COVID-19 response policies have aimed to break Corona waves through non-pharmaceutical interventions and mass vaccination. However, for long-term strategies to be effective and efficient, and to avoid massive disruption and social harms, it is crucial to introduce the role of natural immunity in our thinking about COVID-19  (or future "Disease-X") control and prevention. We argue that any Corona or similar virus control policy must appropriately balance five key elements simultaneously: balancing the various fundamental interests of the nation, as well as the various interventions within the health sector; tailoring the prevention measures and treatments to individual needs; limiting social interaction restrictions; and balancing the role of vaccinations against the role of naturally induced immunity. Given the high infectivity of SARS-CoV-2 and its differential impact on population segments, we examine this last element in more detail and argue that an important aspect of 'living with the virus' will be to better understand the role of naturally induced immunity in our overall COVID-19 policy response. In our eyes, a policy approach that factors natural immunity should be considered for persons without major comorbidities and those having 'encountered' the antigen in the past.

COVID-19: an 'extraterrestrial' disease?

BACKGROUND: Since the beginning of the pandemic, COVID-19 has been regarded as an exceptional disease. Control measures have exclusively focused on 'the virus', while failing to account for other biological and social factors that determine severe forms of the disease. AIM: We argue that although COVID-19 was initially considered a new challenge, justifying extraordinary response measures, this situation has changed - and so should our response. MAIN ARGUMENTS: We now know that COVID-19 shares many features of common infectious respiratory diseases, and can now ascertain that SARS-CoV-2 has not suddenly presented new problems. Instead, it has exposed and exacerbated existing problems in health systems and the underlying health of the population. COVID-19 is evidently not an 'extraterrestrial' disease. It is a complex zoonotic disease, and it needs to be managed as such, following long-proven principles of medicine and public health. CONCLUSION: A complex disease cannot be solved through a simple, magic-bullet cure or vaccine. The heterogeneity of population profiles susceptible to developing a severe form of COVID-19 suggests the need to adopt varying, targeted measures that are able to address risk profiles in an appropriate way. The critical role of comorbidities in disease severity calls for short-term, virus-targeted interventions to be complemented with medium-term policies aimed at reducing the burden of comorbidities, as well as mitigating the risk of transition from infection to disease. Strategies required include upstream prevention, early treatment, and consolidation of the health system.

A realist review to assess for whom, under what conditions and how pay for performance programmes work in low- and middle-income countries.

Pay for performance (P4P) programmes are popular health system-focused interventions aiming to improve health outcomes in low-and middle-income countries (LMICs). This realist review aims to understand how, why and under what circumstance P4P works in LMICs.We systematically searched peer-reviewed and grey literature databases, and examined the mechanisms underpinning P4P effects on: utilisation of services, patient satisfaction, provider productivity and broader health system, and contextual factors moderating these. This evidence was then used to construct a causal loop diagram.We included 112 records (19 grey literature; 93 peer-reviewed articles) assessing P4P schemes in 36 countries. Although we found mixed evidence of P4P's effects on identified outcomes, common pathways to improved outcomes include: community outreach; adherence to clinical guidelines, patient-provider interactions, patient trust, facility improvements, access to drugs and equipment, facility autonomy, and lower user fees. Contextual factors shaping the system response to P4P include: degree of facility autonomy, efficiency of banking, role of user charges in financing public services; staffing levels; staff training and motivation, quality of facility infrastructure and community social norms. Programme design features supporting or impeding health system effects of P4P included: scope of incentivised indicators, fairness and reach of incentives, timely payments and a supportive, robust verification system that does not overburden staff. Facility bonuses are a key element of P4P, but rely on provider autonomy for maximum effect. If health system inputs are vastly underperforming pre-P4P, they are unlikely to improve only due to P4P. This is the first realist review describing how and why P4P initiatives work (or fail) in different LMIC contexts by exploring the underlying mechanisms and contextual and programme design moderators. Future studies should systematically examine health system pathways to outcomes for P4P and other health system strengthening initiatives, and offer more understanding of how programme design shapes mechanisms and effects.

Misunderstandings and ambiguities in strategic purchasing in low- and middle-income countries.

Strategic purchasing is branded as an approach that is necessary for progress towards universal health coverage. While we agree that publicly purchased health services should respond to society's needs and patient expectations, and thus generally endorse strategic purchasing, here we would like to explore two emerging concerns within current discussions in low- and middle-income countries. First, there exists a great deal of misunderstanding and conceptual unclarity, within practitioner groups, around the concept of strategic purchasing and what instruments it incorporates. Second, there is a growing trend to regularly fuse strategic purchasing into a performance-based financing (PBF) discourse in ways that increasingly blur their distinctive properties and policy orientations, while perhaps too easily obfuscating potential tensions. We believe the discourse on strategic purchasing would benefit from better conceptual clarity by dissociating and prioritising its two objectives, namely: priority should be given to needs-based allocation of resources, while rewarding performance is a subsequent concern. We argue there is a need for a more thoroughgoing conceptual and empirical re-examination of strategic purchasing's priorities, its link with PBF, as well as for a wider evidence-base on what strategic purchasing tools exist and which are most appropriate for diverse contexts.

Understanding global health and development partnerships: Perspectives from African and global health system professionals.

Partnership is a key idea in current debates about global health and development assistance, yet little is known about what partnership means to those who are responsible for operationalising it or how it is experienced in practice. This is particularly the case in the context of African health systems. This paper explores how health professionals working in global health hubs and the health systems of South Africa, Tanzania and Zambia understand and experience partnership. Drawing on semi-structured interviews with 101 professionals based in each country, Washington DC and Geneva between October 2012 and June 2013, the paper makes four key arguments. First, partnership has a legitimating function in global health policy processes for international development institutions, government agencies and civil society organisations alike. Second, the practice of partnership generates idiosyncratic and complicated relationships that health professionals have to manage and navigate, often informally. Third, partnership is shaped by historical legacies, critical events, and independent consultants. Fourth, despite being an accepted part of global health policy, there is little shared understanding of what good partnership is meant to include or resemble in practice. Knowing more about the specific socio-cultural and political dynamics of partnership in different health system contexts is critical to equip health professionals with the skills to build the informal relations that are essential to effective partnership engagement.

Globalization and its methodological discontents: Contextualizing globalization through the study of HIV/AIDS.

There remains considerable discontent between globalization scholars about how to conceptualize its meaning and in regards to epistemological and methodological questions concerning how we can come to understand how these processes ultimately operate, intersect and transform our lives. This article argues that to better understand what globalization is and how it affects issues such as global health, we must take a differentiating approach, which focuses on how the multiple processes of globalization are encountered and informed by different social groups and with how these encounters are experienced within particular contexts. The article examines the heuristic properties of qualitative field research as a means to help better understand how the intersections of globalization are manifested within particular locations. To do so, the article focuses on three recent case studies conducted on globalization and HIV/AIDS and explores how these cases can help us to understand the contextual permutations involved within the processes of globalization.