Challenges and Opportunities in China's Health Aid to Africa: Findings from Qualitative Interviews in Tanzania and Malawi.

BACKGROUND: China has played an increasing role in development aid across Africa. Most recently, China has increased its external investments through the Belt and Road Initiative, China's signature infrastructure and trade drive to link China to Asia and Africa. This is likely to result in continuing growth of China's investment in health in sub Saharan Africa. While conflicting opinions have been raised regarding the motivation and value of these investments, few data have been solicited from those directly involved in China-Africa health aid. We conducted a qualitative study to collect information on perceptions and opinions regarding Chinese-supported health related activities in Africa through in-depth interviews among local African and Chinese participants in Malawi and Tanzania. RESULTS: Our findings reveal shared experiences and views related to challenges in communication; cultural perspectives and historical context; divergence between political and business agendas; organization of aid implementation; management and leadership; and sustainability. Participants were broadly supportive and highly valued Chinese health aid. However, they also shared common insights that relate to challenging coordination between China and recipient countries; impediments to communication between health teams; and limited understanding of priorities and expectations. Further, they share perspectives about the need for shaping the assistance based on needs assessments as well as the importance of rigorous reporting, and monitoring and evaluation systems. Our findings suggest that China faces similar challenges to those experienced by other longstanding development aid and global health donors. As it continues to expand cooperation across Africa and other regions, it will be important for China to consider the issues identified through our study to help inform collaborative and effective global health assistance programs. The insights garnered from this research are not only relevant to China's engagement in Africa but for other global health assistance donors as well.

Spurious early ecological association suggesting BCG vaccination effectiveness for COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Several ecologic studies have suggested that the bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) vaccine may be protective against SARS-CoV-2 infection including a highly-cited published pre-print by Miller et al., finding that middle/high- and high-income countries that never had a universal BCG policy experienced higher COVID-19 burden compared to countries that currently have universal BCG vaccination policies. We provide a case study of the limitations of ecologic analyses by evaluating whether these early ecologic findings persisted as the pandemic progressed. METHODS: Similar to Miller et al., we employed Wilcoxon Rank Sum Tests to compare population medians in COVID-19 mortality, incidence, and mortality-to-incidence ratio between countries with universal BCG policies compared to those that never had such policies. We then computed Pearson's r correlations to evaluate the association between year of BCG vaccination policy implementation and COVID-19 outcomes. We repeated these analyses for every month in 2020 subsequent to Miller et al.'s March 2020 analysis. RESULTS: We found that the differences in COVID-19 burden associated with BCG vaccination policies in March 2020 generally diminished in magnitude and usually lost statistical significance as the pandemic progressed. While six of nine analyses were statistically significant in March, only two were significant by the end of 2020. DISCUSSION: These results underscore the need for caution in interpreting ecologic studies, given their inherent methodological limitations, which can be magnified in the context of a rapidly evolving pandemic in which there is measurement error of both exposure and outcome status.

Agreement of treatment effects from observational studies and randomized controlled trials evaluating hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir-ritonavir, or dexamethasone for covid-19: meta-epidemiological study.

OBJECTIVE: To systematically identify, match, and compare treatment effects and study demographics from individual or meta-analysed observational studies and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the same covid-19 treatments, comparators, and outcomes. DESIGN: Meta-epidemiological study. DATA SOURCES: National Institutes of Health Covid-19 Treatment Guidelines, a living review and network meta-analysis published in The BMJ, a living systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis in PLOS Medicine (The LIVING Project), and the Epistemonikos "Living OVerview of Evidence" (L·OVE) evidence database. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTION OF STUDIES: RCTs in The BMJ's living review that directly compared any of the three most frequently studied therapeutic interventions for covid-19 across all data sources (that is, hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir-ritonavir, or dexamethasone) for any safety and efficacy outcomes. Observational studies that evaluated the same interventions, comparisons, and outcomes that were reported in The BMJ's living review. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Safety and efficacy outcomes from observational studies were identified and treatment effects for dichotomous (odds ratios) or continuous (mean differences or ratios of means) outcomes were calculated and, when possible, meta-analyzed to match the treatment effects from individual RCTs or meta-analyses of RCTs reported in The BMJ's living review with the same interventions, comparisons, and outcomes (that is, matched pairs). The analysis compared the distribution of study demographics and the agreement between treatment effects from matched pairs. Matched pairs were in agreement if both observational and RCT treatment effects were significantly increasing or decreasing (P<0.05) or if both treatment effects were not significant (P≥0.05). RESULTS: 17 new, independent meta-analyses of observational studies were conducted that compared hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir-ritonavir, or dexamethasone with an active or placebo comparator for any safety or efficacy outcomes in covid-19 treatment. These studies were matched and compared with 17 meta-analyses of RCTs reported in The BMJ's living review. 10 additional matched pairs with only one observational study and/or one RCT were identified. Across all 27 matched pairs, 22 had adequate reporting of demographical and clinical data for all individual studies. All 22 matched pairs had studies with overlapping distributions of sex, age, and disease severity. Overall, 21 (78%) of the 27 matched pairs had treatment effects that were in agreement. Among the 17 matched pairs consisting of meta-analyses of observational studies and meta-analyses of RCTs, 14 (82%) were in agreement; seven (70%) of the 10 matched pairs consisting of at least one observational study or one RCT were in agreement. The 18 matched pairs with treatment effects for dichotomous outcomes had a higher proportion of agreement (n=16, 89%) than did the nine matched pairs with treatment effects for continuous outcomes (n=5, 56%). CONCLUSIONS: Meta-analyses of observational studies and RCTs evaluating treatments for covid-19 have summary treatment effects that are generally in agreement. Although our evaluation is limited to three covid-19 treatments, these findings suggest that meta-analyzed evidence from observational studies might complement, but should not replace, evidence collected from RCTs.

Strengthening health care worker engagement with early adolescence in low- and middle-income countries: an overdue area for action.

The very young adolescent population (ages 10-14) is currently under-served by health care systems, particularly in low- and middle-income countries. Although there is a substantial and growing effort to reach adolescents with the health services and commodities they need, such efforts often overlook the period of early adolescence given this population's lower vulnerability to risk-taking behaviors. However, early adolescence is a period of significant change, with the onset of puberty introducing physiological, emotional, and social changes in girls' and boys' lives. This period also represents a time of intensifying gendered norms, and the transition of youth from childhood focused health care (e.g. deworming programs, nutrition interventions) to additional mid- and older adolescent related care [e.g. human papilloma virus (HPV) vaccine, and contraceptive provision). Strengthening young adolescents' engagement with health care workers around preventative and promotive health behaviors could have profound impacts on their health and wellbeing, which in turn could have cascading effects across the course of their lives. Critically, young adolescents would gain trust in health care systems, and be more likely to return when significant health issues arise later in adolescence or adulthood. Such an effort requires sensitizing health care workers and building their capacity to respond to young adolescents' unique needs, by defining a package of actions that they are mandated to provide, training them, providing them with desk reference tools, and putting in place systems to provide supportive supervision and collaborative learning on the one hand, and encouraging caregivers to connect their pubescent-aged boys and girls with the health care system, on the other hand. This paper presents an argument for increased focus in particular on building attitudes and capacities of health care workers on engaging with early adolescents, applying Principle 3 of the Society of Adolescent Medicine's position paper entitled "Health Care Reform and Adolescents."