A synthesis of concepts of resilience to inform operationalization of health systems resilience in recovery from disruptive public health events including COVID-19.

This article is part of the Research Topic 'Health Systems Recovery in the Context of COVID-19 and Protracted Conflict' Health systems resilience has become a ubiquitous concept as countries respond to and recover from crises such as the COVID-19 pandemic, war and conflict, natural disasters, and economic stressors inter alia. However, the operational scope and definition of health systems resilience to inform health systems recovery and the building back better agenda have not been elaborated in the literature and discourse to date. When widely used terms and their operational definitions appear nebulous or are not consistently used, it can perpetuate misalignment between stakeholders and investments. This can hinder progress in integrated approaches such as strengthening primary health care (PHC) and the essential public health functions (EPHFs) in health and allied sectors as well as hinder progress toward key global objectives such as recovering and sustaining progress toward universal health coverage (UHC), health security, healthier populations, and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). This paper represents a conceptual synthesis based on 45 documents drawn from peer-reviewed papers and gray literature sources and supplemented by unpublished data drawn from the extensive operational experience of the co-authors in the application of health systems resilience at country level. The results present a synthesis of global understanding of the concept of resilience in the context of health systems. We report on different aspects of health systems resilience and conclude by proposing a clear operational definition of health systems resilience that can be readily applied by different stakeholders to inform current global recovery and beyond.

Developing technical support and strategic dialogue at the country level to achieve Primary Health Care-based health systems beyond the COVID-19 era.

This article is part of the Research Topic 'Health Systems Recovery in the Context of COVID-19 and Protracted Conflict'. Pursuing the objectives of the Declaration of Alma-Ata for Primary Health Care (PHC), the World Health Organization (WHO) and global health partners are supporting national authorities to improve governance to build resilient and integrated health systems, including recovery from public health stressors, through the long-term deployment of WHO country senior health policy advisers under the Universal Health Coverage Partnership (UHC Partnership). For over a decade, the UHC Partnership has progressively reinforced, via a flexible and bottom-up approach, the WHO's strategic and technical leadership on Universal Health Coverage, with more than 130 health policy advisers deployed in WHO Country and Regional Offices. This workforce has been described as a crucial asset by WHO Regional and Country Offices in the integration of health systems to enhance their resilience, enabling the WHO offices to strengthen their support of PHC and Universal Health Coverage to Ministries of Health and other national authorities as well as global health partners. Health policy advisers aim to build the technical capacities of national authorities, in order to lead health policy cycles and generate political commitment, evidence, and dialogue for policy-making processes, while creating synergies and harmonization between stakeholders. The policy dialogue at the country level has been instrumental in ensuring a whole-of-society and whole-of-government approach, beyond the health sector, through community engagement and multisectoral actions. Relying on the lessons learned during the 2014-2016 Ebola outbreak in West Africa and in fragile, conflict-affected, and vulnerable settings, health policy advisers played a key role during the COVID-19 pandemic to support countries in health systems response and early recovery. They brought together technical resources to contribute to the COVID-19 response and to ensure the continuity of essential health services, through a PHC approach in health emergencies. This policy and practice review, including from the following country experiences: Colombia, Islamic Republic of Iran, Lao PDR, South Sudan, Timor-Leste, and Ukraine, provides operational and inner perspectives on strategic and technical leadership provided by WHO to assist Member States in strengthening PHC and essential public health functions for resilient health systems. It aims to demonstrate and advise lessons and good practices for other countries in strengthening their health systems.

On the resilience of health systems: A methodological exploration across countries in the WHO African Region.

The need for resilient health systems is recognized as important for the attainment of health outcomes, given the current shocks to health services. Resilience has been defined as the capacity to "prepare and effectively respond to crises; maintain core functions; and, informed by lessons learnt, reorganize if conditions require it". There is however a recognized dichotomy between its conceptualization in literature, and its application in practice. We propose two mutually reinforcing categories of resilience, representing resilience targeted at potentially known shocks, and the inherent health system resilience, needed to respond to unpredictable shock events. We determined capacities for each of these categories, and explored this methodological proposition by computing country-specific scores against each capacity, for the 47 Member States of the WHO African Region. We assessed face validity of the computed index, to ensure derived values were representative of the different elements of resilience, and were predictive of health outcomes, and computed bias-corrected non-parametric confidence intervals of the emergency preparedness and response (EPR) and inherent system resilience (ISR) sub-indices, as well as the overall resilience index, using 1000 bootstrap replicates. We also explored the internal consistency and scale reliability of the index, by calculating Cronbach alphas for the various proposed capacities and their corresponding attributes. We computed overall resilience to be 48.4 out of a possible 100 in the 47 assessed countries, with generally lower levels of ISR. For ISR, the capacities were weakest for transformation capacity, followed by mobilization of resources, awareness of own capacities, self-regulation and finally diversity of services respectively. This paper aims to contribute to the growing body of empirical evidence on health systems and service resilience, which is of great importance to the functionality and performance of health systems, particularly in the context of COVID-19. It provides a methodological reflection for monitoring health system resilience, revealing areas of improvement in the provision of essential health services during shock events, and builds a case for the need for mechanisms, at country level, that address both specific and non-specific shocks to the health system, ultimately for the attainment of improved health outcomes.

Towards applying the essential public health functions for building health systems resilience: A renewed list and key enablers for operationalization.

The COVID-19 pandemic, climate change-related events, protracted conflicts, economic stressors and other health challenges, call for strong public health orientation and leadership in health system strengthening and policies. Applying the essential public health functions (EPHFs) represents a holistic operational approach to public health, which is considered to be an integrated, sustainable, and cost-effective means for supporting universal health coverage, health security and improved population health and wellbeing. As a core component of the Primary Health Care (PHC) Operational Framework, EPHFs also support the continuum of health services from health promotion and protection, disease prevention to treatment, rehabilitation, and palliative services. Comprehensive delivery of EPHFs through PHC-oriented health systems with multisectoral participation is therefore vital to meet population health needs, tackle public health threats and build resilience. In this perspective, we present a renewed EPHF list consisting of twelve functions as a reference to foster country-level operationalisation, based on available authoritative lists and global practices. EPHFs are presented as a conceptual bridge between prevailing siloed efforts in health systems and allied sectors. We also highlight key enablers to support effective implementation of EPHFs, including high-level political commitment, clear national structures for institutional stewardship on EPHFs, multisectoral accountability and systematic assessment. As countries seek to transform health systems in the context of recovery from COVID-19 and other public health emergencies, the renewed EPHF list and enablers can inform public health reform, PHC strengthening, and more integrated recovery efforts to build resilient health systems capable of managing complex health challenges for all people.

Towards universal health coverage in the WHO African Region: assessing health system functionality, incorporating lessons from COVID-19.

The move towards universal health coverage is premised on having well-functioning health systems, which can assure provision of the essential health and related services people need. Efforts to define ways to assess functionality of health systems have however varied, with many not translating into concrete policy action and influence on system development. We present an approach to provide countries with information on the functionality of their systems in a manner that will facilitate movement towards universal health coverage. We conceptualise functionality of a health system as being a construct of four capacities: access to, quality of, demand for essential services and its resilience to external shocks. We test and confirm the validity of these capacities as appropriate measures of system functionality. We thus provide results for functionality of the 47 countries of the WHO African Region based on this. The functionality of health systems ranges from 34.4 to 75.8 on a 0-100 scale. Access to essential services represents the lowest capacity in most countries of the region, specifically due to poor physical access to services. Funding levels from public and out-of-pocket sources represent the strongest predictors of system functionality, compared with other sources. By focusing on the assessment on the capacities that define system functionality, each country has concrete information on where it needs to focus, in order to improve the functionality of its health system to enable it respond to current needs including achieving universal health coverage, while responding to shocks from challenges such as the 2019 coronavirus disease. This systematic and replicable approach for assessing health system functionality can provide the guidance needed for investing in country health systems to attain universal health coverage goals.

Institutionalising participatory health governance: lessons from nine years of the National Health Assembly model in Thailand.

Improving health governance is increasingly recognised as a key pillar for achieving universal health coverage (UHC). One good practice example of a participatory health governance platform is the National Health Assembly (NHA) in Thailand. This review of 9 years of the Thai NHA process attempted to understand how it works, given the paucity of such mechanisms worldwide. In addition, an in-depth look at its strengths and weaknesses allowed for reflection on whether the lessons learnt from this participatory governance model can be relevant for other settings. Overall, the power of stakeholder groups coming together has been impressively harnessed in the NHA process. The NHA has helped foster dialogue through understanding and respect for very differing takes on the same issue. The way in which different stakeholders discuss with each other in a real attempt at consensus thus represents a qualitatively improved policy dialogue. Nevertheless, the biggest challenge facing the NHA is ensuring a sustainable link to decision-making and the highest political circles. Modalities are needed to make NHA resolutions high priorities for the health sector. The NHA embodies many core features of a well-prepared deliberative process as defined in the literature (information provision, diverse views, opportunity to discuss freely) as well as key ingredients to enable the public to effectively participate (credibility, legitimacy and power). This offers important lessons for other countries for conducting similar processes. However, more research is necessary to understand how improvements in the deliberative process lead to concrete policy outcomes.

Population Consultation: A Powerful Means to Ensure that Health Strategies are Oriented Towards Universal Health Coverage.

BACKGROUND: We seek to highlight why population consultations need to be promoted more strongly as a powerful means to move health reforms towards Universal Health Coverage (UHC). However, despite this increasing recognition that the "population" is the key factor of successful health planning and high-quality service delivery, there has been very little systematic reflection and only limited (international) attention brought to the idea of specifically consulting the population to improve the quality and soundness of health policies and strategies and to strengthen the national health planning process and implementation. So far, research has done little to assess the significance of population consultations for the health sector and its importance for strategic planning and implementation processes; in addition, there has been insufficient evaluation of population consultations in the health sector or health-related areas. DISCUSSION: We drew on ongoing programmatic work of World Health Organization (WHO) offices worldwide, as most population consultations are not well-documented. In addition, we analyzed any existing documentation available on population consultations in health. We then elaborate on the potential benefits of bringing the population's voice into national health planning. We briefly mention the key methods used for population consultations, and we put forward recent country examples showing that population consultation is an effective way of assessing the population's needs and expectations, and should be more widely used in strategizing health. Giving the voice to the population is a means to strengthen accountability, to reinforce the commitment of policy makers, decision-makers and influencers (media, political parties, academics, etc.) to the health policy objectives of UHC, and, in the specific case of donor-dependent countries, to sensitize donors' engagement and alignment with national health strategies. CONCLUSIONS: The consequence of the current low international interest for population consultations probably has the most negative effect on resource-poor countries, as this analytical oversight comes with a high price. However, a population consultation has the potential to give more benefit and added value to contexts where resources are scarce and where planning processes pose a high extra burden, and should thus be promoted among international donor agencies.

A resource planning analysis of district hospital surgical services in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

BACKGROUND: The impact of surgical conditions on global health, particularly on vulnerable populations, is gaining recognition. However, only 3.5% of the 234.2 million cases per year of major surgery are performed in countries where the world's poorest third reside, such as the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). METHODS: Data on the availability of anesthesia and surgical services were gathered from 12 DRC district hospitals using the World Health Organization's (WHO's) Emergency and Essential Surgical Care Situation Analysis Tool. We complemented these data with an analysis of the costs of surgical services in a Congolese norms-based district hospital as well as in 2 of the 12 hospitals in which we conducted the situational analysis (Demba and Kabare District Hospitals). For the cost analysis, we used WHO's integrated Healthcare Technology Package tool. RESULTS: Of the 32 surgical interventions surveyed, only 2 of the 12 hospitals provided all essential services. The deficits in procedures varied from no deficits to 17 services that could not be provided, with an average of 7 essential procedures unavailable. Many of the hospitals did not have basic infrastructure such as running water and electricity; 9 of 12 had no or interrupted water and 7 of 12 had no or interrupted electricity. On average, 21% of lifesaving surgical interventions were absent from the facilities, compared with the model normative hospital. According to the normative hospital, all surgical services would cost US$2.17 per inhabitant per year, representing 33.3% of the total patient caseload but only 18.3% of the total district hospital operating budget. At Demba Hospital, the operating budget required for surgical interventions was US$0.08 per inhabitant per year, and at Kabare Hospital, US$0.69 per inhabitant per year. CONCLUSION: A significant portion of the health problems addressed at Congolese district hospitals is surgical in nature, but there is a current inability to meet this surgical need. The deficient services and substandard capacity in the surveyed district hospitals are systemic in nature, representing infrastructure, supply, equipment, and human resource constraints. Yet surgical services are affordable and represent a minor portion of the total operating budget. Greater emphasis should be made to appropriately fund district hospitals to meet the need for lifesaving surgical services.

Health service planning contributes to policy dialogue around strengthening district health systems: an example from DR Congo 2008-2013.

BACKGROUND: This case study from DR Congo demonstrates how rational operational planning based on a health systems strengthening strategy (HSSS) can contribute to policy dialogue over several years. It explores the operationalization of a national strategy at district level by elucidating a normative model district resource plan which details the resources and costs of providing an essential health services package at district level. This paper then points to concrete examples of how the results of this exercise were used for Ministry of Health (MoH) decision-making over a time period of 5 years. METHODS: DR Congo's HSSS and its accompanying essential health services package were taken as a base to construct a normative model health district comprising of 10 Health Centres (HC) and 1 District Hospital (DH). The normative model health district represents a standard set by the Ministry of Health for providing essential primary health care services. RESULTS: The minimum operating budget necessary to run a normative model health district is $17.91 per inhabitant per year, of which $11.86 is for the district hospital and $6.05 for the health centre. The Ministry of Health has employed the results of this exercise in 4 principal ways: 1.Advocacy and negotiation instrument; 2. Instrument to align donors; 3. Field planning; 4. Costing database to extract data from when necessary. CONCLUSIONS: The above results have been key in the policy dialogue on affordability of the essential health services package in DR Congo. It has allowed the MoH to provide transparent information on financing needs around the HSSS; it continues to help the MoH negotiate with the Ministry of Finance and bring partner support behind the HSSS.