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.

Evolution in key indicators of maternal and child health across the wealth gradient in 41 sub-Saharan African countries, 1986-2019.

BACKGROUND: Aggregate trends can be useful for summarizing large amounts of information, but this can obscure important distributional aspects. Some population subgroups can be worse off even as averages climb, for example. Distributional information can identify health inequalities, which is essential to understanding their drivers and possible remedies. METHODS: Using publicly available Demographic and Health Survey (DHS) data from 41 sub-Saharan African countries from 1986 to 2019, we analyzed changes in coverage for eight key maternal and child health indicators: first dose of measles vaccine (MCV1); Diphtheria-Pertussis-Tetanus (DPT) first dose (DPT1); DPT third dose (DPT3); care-seeking for diarrhea, acute respiratory infections (ARI), or fever; skilled birth attendance (SBA); and having four antenatal care (ANC) visits. To evaluate whether coverage diverged or converged over time across the wealth gradient, we computed several dispersion metrics including the coefficient of variation across wealth quintiles. Slopes and 5-year moving averages were computed to identify overall long-term trends. RESULTS: Average coverage increased for all quintiles and indicators, although the range and the speed at which they increased varied widely. There were small changes in the wealth-related gap for SBA, ANC, and fever. The wealth-related gap of vaccination-related indicators (DPT1, DPT3, MCV1) decreased over time. Compared to 2017, the wealth-gap between richest and poorest quintiles in 1995 was 7 percentage points larger for ANC and 17 percentage points larger for measles vaccination. CONCLUSIONS: Maternal and child health indicators show progress, but the distributional effects show differential evolutions in inequalities. Several reasons may explain why countries had smaller wealth-related gap trends in vaccination-related indicators compared to others. In addition to service delivery differences, we hypothesize that the allocation of development assistance for health, the prioritization of vaccine-preventable diseases on the global agenda, and indirect effects of structural adjustment programs on health system-related indicators might have played a role.

The G20 and development assistance for health: historical trends and crucial questions to inform a new era.

One of the most important gatherings of the world's economic leaders, the G20 Summit and ministerial meetings, takes place in June, 2019. The Summit presents a valuable opportunity to reflect on the provision and receipt of development assistance for health (DAH) and the role the G20 can have in shaping the future of health financing. The participants at the G20 Summit (ie, the world's largest providers of DAH, emerging donors, and DAH recipients) and this Summit's particular focus on global health and the Sustainable Development Goals offers a unique forum to consider the changing DAH context and its pressing questions. In this Health Policy perspective, we examined trends in DAH and its evolution over time, with a particular focus on G20 countries; pointed to persistent and emerging challenges for discussion at the G20 Summit; and highlighted key questions for G20 leaders to address to put the future of DAH on course to meet the expansive Sustainable Development Goals. Key questions include how to best focus DAH for equitable health gains, how to deliver DAH to strengthen health systems, and how to support domestic resource mobilisation and transformative partnerships for sustainable impact. These issues are discussed in the context of the growing effects of climate change, demographic and epidemiological transitions, and a global political shift towards increasing prioritisation of national interests. Although not all these questions are new, novel approaches to allocating DAH that prioritise equity, efficiency, and sustainability, particularly through domestic resource use and mobilisation are needed. Wrestling with difficult questions in a changing landscape is essential to develop a DAH financing system capable of supporting and sustaining crucial global health goals.

Equity and gender mainstreaming in public policy: A scoping review protocol.

BACKGROUND: Despite growing attention paid to health equity and efforts to promote gender mainstreaming-a global strategy to promote gender equality-how policymakers have 'institutionalized' this in their work is less clear. Therefore, this planned scoping review seeks to search the peer-reviewed and grey literature to compile evidence on the ways in which policymakers have routinely or systematically considered equity and/or gender in their work. METHODS: A scoping review will be undertaken by drawing on the PRISMA guidelines for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR). With the expert guidance of a research librarian, Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE, PAIS Index, and Scopus databases will be searched, in addition to custom Google searches of government documents. The search will be conducted from 1995 and onwards, as there were no hits prior to this date that included the term "gender mainstream*" in these databases. The inclusion criterion is that: (i) texts must provide information on how equity and/or gender has been considered by government officials in the development of public policy in a routine or systematic manner (e.g., descriptive, empirical); (ii) both texts produced by government or not (e.g., commentary about government action) will be included; (iii) there are no restrictions on study design or article type (i.e., commentaries, reports, and other documents, would all be included); and (iv) texts must be published in English due to resource constraints. However, texts that discuss the work of nongovernmental or intergovernmental organizations will be excluded. Data will be charted by: bibliographic information, including the authors, year, and article title; country the text discussed; and a brief summary on the approach taken. DISCUSSION: This protocol was developed to improve rigour in the study design and to promote transparency by sharing our methods with the broader research community. This protocol will support a scoping review of the ways in which policymakers have routinely or systematically considered equity and/or gender in their work. We will generate findings to inform government efforts to initiate, sustain, and improve gender and equity mainstreaming approaches in policymaking.

Strengthening regulation for medical products in Tanzania: An assessment of regulatory capacity development, 1978-2020.

Improving medicines regulation can lead to better population health, but how this process works in low- and middle-income countries remains underexplored. Tanzania's pharmaceutical sector is often cited as a successful example of a well-functioning regulatory system in a developing country, attributed to the work of the Tanzania Food and Drugs Authority (TFDA), now the Tanzania Medicines and Medical Devices Authority (TMDA). This raises the question: how was this regulatory capacity developed, and what lessons can other countries learn from Tanzania's experience? This paper analyzes changes in Tanzania's pharmaceutical regulation over three periods of significant sectoral reform. A desk review was conducted of Tanzania's policies, laws, regulations, guidelines, procedures, and institutional reports. The study reveals that Tanzania's regulatory capacity improved significantly through targeted reforms that addressed challenges in key regulatory areas. The three key periods examined are: 1) The separation of medicines regulation from food safety (1978-2003), 2) The expansion of regulatory domains and the establishment of a semi-autonomous regulatory agency (2003-2011), and 3) The expanded role of the Pharmacy Council to include premises regulation (2011-2020). The development of a well-functioning regulatory system in Tanzania resulted from advancements in four key areas: 1) The evolution of a legal regulatory framework, 2) Strong stakeholder engagement, 3) Continuous capacity building, and 4) Effective organizational leadership. Tanzania's regulatory system has evolved from being relatively ineffective to leading regional harmonization efforts in East Africa. This progress was not linear, requiring sustained effort, collaboration, and support from key development partners such as the Global Fund, WHO, and UNDP. Future efforts to enhance regulatory effectiveness should focus on creating adaptive systems that respond to changing needs, rather than solely prescriptive functions.

Where Is Equity in HiAP? Comment on "A Realist Explanatory Case Study Investigating How Common Goals, Leadership, and Committed Staff Facilitate Health in All Policies Implementation in the Municipality of Kuopio, Finland".

Health equity is no longer a central feature of Health in All Policies (HiAP) approaches despite its presence in select definitions of HiAP. In other words, HiAP is not just about considering health, but also health equity. But as HiAP has become more mainstream, its success around health equity has been muted and largely non-existent. Given the normative underpinning and centrality of equity in HiAP, equity should be better considered in HiAP and particularly when considering what 'successful' implementation may look like. Raising health on the radar of policy-makers is not mutually exclusive from considering equity. Taking an incremental approach to considering equity in HiAP can yield positive results. This article discusses these ideas and presents potential actions to restore HiAP's once central equity objectives, which include: seeking synergies focused on health equity with those who hold different convictions, both in terms of goals and measures of success; considering the conditions that allow HiAP to be fostered, such as good governance; and drawing on research on HiAP and other multisectoral approaches.

Conceptual approaches in combating health inequity: A scoping review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: What are the different ways in which health equity can be sought through policy and programs? Although there is a central focus on health equity in global and public health, we recognize that stakeholders can understand health equity as taking different approaches and that there is not a single conceptual approach. However, information on conceptual categories of actions to improve health equity and/or reduce health inequity is scarce. Therefore, this study asks the research question: "what conceptual approaches exist in striving for health equity and/or reducing health inequity?" with the aim of presenting a comprehensive overview of approaches. METHODS: A scoping review will be undertaken following the PRISMA guidelines for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) and in consultation with a research librarian. Both the peer-reviewed and grey literatures will be searched using: Ovid MEDLINE, Scopus, PAIS Index (ProQuest), JSTOR, Canadian Public Documents Collection, the World Health Organization IRIS (Institutional Repository for Information Sharing), and supplemented by a Google Advanced Search. Screening will be conducted by two independent reviewers and data will be charted, coded, and narratively synthesized. DISCUSSION: We anticipate developing a foundational document compiling categories of approaches and discussing the nuances inherent in each conceptualization to promote clarified and united action.

Colonialism, malaria, and the decolonization of global health.

This paper explores the decolonization of global health through a focus on malaria and European colonialism in Africa. We employ an historical perspective to better articulate what "colonial" means and to specify in greater detail how colonial ideas, patterns, and practices remain an obstacle to progress in global health now. This paper presents a history of malaria, a defining aspect of the colonial project. Through detailed analysis of the past, we recount how malaria became a colonial problem, how malaria control rose to prominence as a colonial activity, and how interest in malaria was harnessed to create the first schools of tropical medicine and the academic specialization now known as global health. We discuss how these historical experiences shape malaria policy around the world today. The objective of this paper is to advance discussion about how malaria and other aspects of global health could be decolonized, and to suggest directions for future analysis that can lead to concrete steps for action.

Assessing the World Health Organization: What does the academic debate reveal and is it democratic?

The World Health Organization (WHO), the leading global authority in public health, routinely attracts loud calls for reform. Although Member States negotiate reform internally, academic debate is more public, and can generate ideas and provide independent accountability. We investigate why authors advocate for WHO reform so commonly. We wondered if this literature had potentially useful themes for WHO, what methods and evidence were used, and we wanted to analyze the geography of participation. We conducted a systematic review using four databases to identify 139 articles assessing WHO or advocating for reform. We discuss these using categories we derived from the management literature on organizational performance. We also analyzed evidence, country of origin, and topic. The literature we reviewed contained 998 claims about WHO's performance or reform, although there were no standard methods for assessing WHO. We developed a framework to analyze WHO's performance and structure a synthesis of the claims, which find WHO imperiled. Its legitimacy and governance are weakened by disagreements about purpose, unequal Member State influence, and inadequate accountability. Contestation of goals and strategies constrain planning. Structure and workforce deficiencies limit coordination, agility, and competence. WHO has technical and normative authority, but insufficient independence and legal power to influence uncooperative states. WHO's identity claims transparency, independence, and courage, but these aspirations are betrayed in times of need. Most articles (88%) were commentaries without specified methods. More than three-quarters (76%) originated from the US, the UK, or Switzerland. A quarter of papers (25%) focused on international infectious disease outbreaks, and another 25% advocated for WHO reform generally. Many criticisms cite wide-ranging performance problems, some of which may relate to obstructive behavior by Member States. This literature is incomplete in the geographic representation of authors, evidence, methods, and topics. We offer ideas for developing more rigorous and inclusive academic debate on WHO.

When Do Governments Support Common Goods for Health? Four Cases on Surveillance, Traffic Congestion, Road Safety, and Air Pollution.

Common goods such as air, water, climate, and other resources shared by all humanity are under increasing pressure from growing population and advancing globalization of the world economy. Safeguarding these resources is generally considered a government responsibility, as common goods are vulnerable to market failure. However, governments do not always fulfill this role, and face many challenges in doing so. This observation-that governments only sometimes address common goods problems-informs the central question of this paper: when do governments act in support of common goods? We structure our inquiry using a framework derived from three theories of agenda setting, emphasizing problem perception, the role of actors and collective action patterns, strategies and policies, and catalyzing circumstances. We used a poll of experts to identify important common goods for health: disease surveillance, environmental protection, and accountability. We then chose four historical cases for analysis: the establishment of the Epidemic Intelligence Service in the US, transport planning in London, road safety in Argentina, and air quality control in urban India. Our analysis of the collective evidence of these cases suggests that decisions to advance government action on common goods require a concisely articulated problem, a well-defined strategy for addressing the problem, and leadership backed by at least a few important groups willing to cooperate. Our cases reveal a variety of collective action patterns, suggesting that there are many routes to success. We consider that the timing of an intervention in support of common goods depends on favorable circumstances, which can include a catalyzing event but does not necessarily require one.

Political Economy Analysis for Health Financing Reform.

Health financing reform is an inherently political process that alters the distribution of entitlements, responsibilities and resources across the health sector and beyond. As a result, changes in health financing policy affect a range of stakeholders and institutions in ways that can create political obstacles and tensions. As countries pursue health financing policies that support progress towards Universal Health Coverage, the analysis and management of these political concerns must be incorporated in reform processes. This article proposes an approach to political economy analysis to help policy makers develop more effective strategies for managing political challenges that arise in reform. Political economy analysis is used to assess the power and position of key political actors, as a way to develop strategies to change the political feasibility of desired reforms. Applying this approach to recent health financing reforms in Turkey and Mexico shows the importance of political economy factors in determining policy trajectories. In both cases, reform policies are analyzed according to the roles and positions of major categories of influential stakeholders: interest group politics, bureaucratic politics, budget politics, leadership politics, beneficiary politics, and external actor politics. The strategic responses to each political economy factor stress the connectedness of technical and political processes. Applying the approach to the two cases of Turkey and Mexico retrospectively shows its relevance for understanding reform experiences and its potential for helping decision makers manage reform processes prospectively. Moving forward, explicit political economy analysis can become an integral component of health financing reform processes to inform strategic responses and policy sequencing.

Health systems changes after decentralisation: progress, challenges and dynamics in Pakistan.

Decentralisation is widely practised but its scrutiny tends to focus on structural and authority changes or outcomes. Politics and process of devolution implementation needs to be better understood to evaluate how national governments use the enhanced decision space for bringing improvements in the health system and the underlying challenges faced. We use the example of Pakistan's radical, politically driven provincial devolution to analyse how national structures use decentralisation opportunities for improved health planning, spending and carrying out transformations to the health system. Our narrative draws on secondary data sources from the PRIMASYS study, supplemented with policy roundtable notes from Pakistan. Our analysis shows that in decentralised Pakistan, health became prioritised for increased government resources and achieved good budgetary use, major strides were made contextualised sector-wide health planning and legislations, and a proliferation seen in governance measures to improve and regulate healthcare delivery. Despite a disadvantaged and abrupt start to devolution, high ownership by politicians and bureaucracy in provincial governments led to resourcing, planning and innovations. However, effective translation remained impeded by weak institutional capacity, feeble federal-provincial coordination and vulnerability to interference by local elites. Building on this illustrative example, we propose (1) political management of decentralisation for effective national coordination, sustaining stable leadership and protecting from political interfere by local elites; (2) investment in stewardship capacity in the devolved structures as well as the central ministry to deliver on new roles.

Systematic review of evidence on public health in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.

BACKGROUND: Engaging in public health activities in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK, also known as North Korea) offers a means to improve population health for its citizens and the wider region. Such an engagement requires an understanding of current and future needs. METHODS: We conducted a systematic search of five English and eight Korean language databases to identify available literature published between 1988 and 2017. A narrative review of evidence was conducted for five major categories (health systems, communicable diseases (CDs), non-communicable diseases (NCDs), injuries, and reproductive, maternal, newborn and child health (RMNCH) and nutrition). FINDINGS: We found 465 publications on the DPRK and public health. Of the 253 articles that addressed major disease categories, we found under-representation of publications relative to proportion of disease burden for the two most significant causes: NCDs (54.5% publications vs 72.6% disability adjusted life years (DALYs)) and injuries (0.4% publications vs 12.1% DALYs), in comparison to publications on the third and fourth largest disease burdens, RMNCH and nutrition (30.4% publications vs 8.6% DALYs) and CDs (14.6% publications vs 6.7% DALYs) which were over-represented. Although most disease category articles were on NCDs, the majority of NCD articles addressed mental health of refugees. Only 165 articles addressed populations within the DPRK and among these, we found publication gaps on social and environmental determinants of health, CDs, and NCDs. CONCLUSION: There are gaps in the public health literature on the DPRK. Future research should focus on under-studied, significant burdens of disease. Moreover, establishing more precise estimates of disease burden and their distribution, as well as analysis on health systems responses aimed at addressing them, can result in improvements in population health.

Undernutrition, obesity and governance: a unified framework for upholding the right to food.

This paper addresses the need for conceptual and analytic clarity on nutrition governance, an essential underpinning of more effective approaches for undernutrition, the 'single greatest constraint to global development' and obesity, which already accounts for 4% of the world's disease burden and is growing rapidly. The governance of nutrition, which is essential to designing and implementing policies to realise the right to food, is among the most important and most defining duties of society. But research and action on nutrition governance are hampered by the absence of conceptual rigour, even as the continuing very high burden of undernutrition and the rapid rise in obesity highlight the need for such structures. The breadth of nutrition itself suggests that governance is both needed and sure to be complicated. This analysis explores the reasons attention has come to governance in development policy making, and why it has focused on nutrition governance in particular. It then assesses how the concept of nutrition governance has been used, finding that it has become increasingly prominent in scholarship on poor nutritional outcomes, but remains weakly specified and is invoked by different authors to mean different things. Undernutrition analysts have stressed coordination problems and structural issues related to the general functioning of government. Those studying obesity have emphasised international trade policies, regulatory issues and corporate behaviour. This paper argues that the lack of a clear, operational definition of governance is a serious obstacle to conceptualising and solving major problems in nutrition. To address this need, it develops a unified definition of nutrition governance consisting of three principles: accountability, participation and responsiveness. These are justified with reference to the social contract that defines modern nations and identifies citizens as the ultimate source of national power and legitimacy. A unified framework is then employed to explore solutions to nutrition governance problems.

Resource allocation processes at multilateral organizations working in global health.

International institutions provide well over US$10 billion in development assistance for health (DAH) annually and between 1990 and 2014, DAH disbursements totaled $458 billion but how do they decide who gets what, and for what purpose? In this article, we explore how allocation decisions were made by the nine convening agencies of the Equitable Access Initiative. We provide clear, plain language descriptions of the complete process from resource mobilization to allocation for the nine multilateral agencies with prominent agendas in global health. Then, through a comparative analysis we illuminate the choices and strategies employed in the nine international institutions. We find that resource allocation in all reviewed institutions follow a similar pattern, which we categorized in a framework of five steps: strategy definition, resource mobilization, eligibility of countries, support type and funds allocation. All the reviewed institutions generate resource allocation decisions through well-structured and fairly complex processes. Variations in those processes seem to reflect differences in institutional principles and goals. However, these processes have serious shortcomings. Technical problems include inadequate flexibility to account for or meet country needs. Although aid effectiveness and value for money are commonly referenced, we find that neither performance nor impact is a major criterion for allocating resources. We found very little formal consideration of the incentives generated by allocation choices. Political issues include non-transparent influence on allocation processes by donors and bureaucrats, and the common practice of earmarking funds to bypass the normal allocation process entirely. Ethical deficiencies include low accountability and transparency at international institutions, and limited participation by affected citizens or their representatives. We find that recipient countries have low influence on allocation processes themselves, although within these processes they have some influence in relatively narrow areas.

The financing gaps framework: using need, potential spending and expected spending to allocate development assistance for health.

As growth in development assistance for health levels off, development assistance partners must make allocation decisions within tighter budget constraints. Furthermore, with the advent of comprehensive and comparable burden of disease and health financing estimates, empirical evidence can increasingly be used to direct funding to those most in need. In our 'financing gaps framework', we propose a new approach for harnessing information to make decisions about health aid. The framework was designed to be forward-looking, goal-oriented, versatile and customizable to a range of organizational contexts and health aims. Our framework brings together expected health spending, potential health spending and spending need, to orient financing decisions around international health targets. As an example of how the framework could be applied, we develop a case study, focused on global goals for child health. The case study harnesses data from the Global Burden of Disease 2013 Study, Financing Global Health 2015, the WHO Global Health Observatory and National Health Accounts. Funding flows are tied to progress toward the Sustainable Development Goal's target for reductions in under-five mortality. The flexibility and comprehensiveness of our framework makes it adaptable for use by a diverse set of governments, donors, policymakers and other stakeholders. The framework can be adapted to short- or long-run time frames, cross-country or subnational scales, and to a number of specific health focus areas. Depending on donor preferences, the framework can be deployed to incentivize local investments in health, ensuring the long-term sustainability of health systems in low- and middle-income countries, while also furnishing international support for progress toward global health goals.