Lessons learnt from easing COVID-19 restrictions: an analysis of countries and regions in Asia Pacific and Europe.

The COVID-19 pandemic is an unprecedented global crisis. Many countries have implemented restrictions on population movement to slow the spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 and prevent health systems from becoming overwhelmed; some have instituted full or partial lockdowns. However, lockdowns and other extreme restrictions cannot be sustained for the long term in the hope that there will be an effective vaccine or treatment for COVID-19. Governments worldwide now face the common challenge of easing lockdowns and restrictions while balancing various health, social, and economic concerns. To facilitate cross-country learning, this Health Policy paper uses an adapted framework to examine the approaches taken by nine high-income countries and regions that have started to ease COVID-19 restrictions: five in the Asia Pacific region (ie, Hong Kong [Special Administrative Region], Japan, New Zealand, Singapore, and South Korea) and four in Europe (ie, Germany, Norway, Spain, and the UK). This comparative analysis presents important lessons to be learnt from the experiences of these countries and regions. Although the future of the virus is unknown at present, countries should continue to share their experiences, shield populations who are at risk, and suppress transmission to save lives.

Interrogating the World Bank's role in global health knowledge production, governance, and finance.

BACKGROUND: In the nearly half century since it began lending for population projects, the World Bank has become one of the largest financiers of global health projects and programs, a powerful voice in shaping health agendas in global governance spaces, and a mass producer of evidentiary knowledge for its preferred global health interventions. How can social scientists interrogate the role of the World Bank in shaping 'global health' in the current era? MAIN BODY: As a group of historians, social scientists, and public health officials with experience studying the effects of the institution's investment in health, we identify three challenges to this research. First, a future research agenda requires recognizing that the Bank is not a monolith, but rather has distinct inter-organizational groups that have shaped investment and discourse in complicated, and sometimes contradictory, ways. Second, we must consider how its influence on health policy and investment has changed significantly over time. Third, we must analyze its modes of engagement with other institutions within the global health landscape, and with the private sector. The unique relationships between Bank entities and countries that shape health policy, and the Bank's position as a center of research, permit it to have a formative influence on health economics as applied to international development. Addressing these challenges, we propose a future research agenda for the Bank's influence on global health through three overlapping objects of and domains for study: knowledge-based (shaping health policy knowledge), governance-based (shaping health governance), and finance-based (shaping health financing). We provide a review of case studies in each of these categories to inform this research agenda. CONCLUSIONS: As the COVID-19 pandemic continues to rage, and as state and non-state actors work to build more inclusive and robust health systems around the world, it is more important than ever to consider how to best document and analyze the impacts of Bank's financial and technical investments in the Global South.

Who pays for cooperation in global health? A comparative analysis of WHO, the World Bank, the Global Fund to Fight HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, and Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance.

In this report we assess who pays for cooperation in global health through an analysis of the financial flows of WHO, the World Bank, the Global Fund to Fight HIV/AIDS, TB and Malaria, and Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance. The past few decades have seen the consolidation of influence in the disproportionate roles the USA, UK, and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation have had in financing three of these four institutions. Current financing flows in all four case study institutions allow donors to finance and deliver assistance in ways that they can more closely control and monitor at every stage. We highlight three major trends in global health governance more broadly that relate to this development: towards more discretionary funding and away from core or longer-term funding; towards defined multi-stakeholder governance and away from traditional government-centred representation and decision-making; and towards narrower mandates or problem-focused vertical initiatives and away from broader systemic goals.

Universal Health Coverage and the Right to Health: From Legal Principle to Post-2015 Indicators.

Universal Health Coverage (UHC) is widely considered one of the key components for the post-2015 health goal. The idea of UHC is rooted in the right to health, set out in the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights. Based on the Covenant and the General Comment of the Committee on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, which is responsible for interpreting and monitoring the Covenant, we identify 6 key legal principles that should underpin UHC based on the right to health: minimum core obligation, progressive realization, cost-effectiveness, shared responsibility, participatory decision making, and prioritizing vulnerable or marginalized groups. Yet, although these principles are widely accepted, they are criticized for not being specific enough to operationalize as post-2015 indicators for reaching the target of UHC. In this article, we propose measurable and achievable indicators for UHC based on the right to health that can be used to inform the ongoing negotiations on Sustainable Development Goals. However, we identify 3 major challenges that face any exercise in setting indicators post-2015: data availability as an essential criterion, the universality of targets, and the adaptation of global goals to local populations.

Health systems appraisal of the response to antimicrobial resistance in low- and middle-income countries in relation to COVID-19: Application of the WHO building blocks.

COVID-19 has inflicted both beneficial and damaging effects on health systems responding to antimicrobial resistance (AMR). Data shows that the positive impacts of the pandemic (including enhanced hygiene, mask wearing and widespread use of personal protective equipment), are likely to have been overshadowed by the negative effects: emerging AMR pathogens and mechanisms; further outbreaks and geographic spread of AMR to non-endemic countries; rising infections from multidrug-resistant pathogen; an overall higher burden of AMR. The multisectoral complexities of AMR and the totality of health systems challenge our ability to understand the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on country responses to AMR. In this analysis, we synthesise international evidence characterising the role of the pandemic on the six key building blocks of health systems in responding to AMR across low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). We apply systems thinking within and between the building blocks to contextualise the impact of one pandemic on another.

Measuring the global response to antimicrobial resistance, 2020-21: a systematic governance analysis of 114 countries.

BACKGROUND: Understanding strategic commitments and policy responses to overcome antimicrobial resistance at the national, regional, and global levels is required to evaluate current progress and direct future planning. National action plans (NAPs) are the primary mechanism for guiding national strategy and action for antimicrobial resistance governance. Although several NAPs have been developed, no comprehensive content analysis of these plans exists. Using a governance framework, we aimed to assess all publicly available NAPs on antimicrobial resistance. METHODS: We systematically reviewed the contents of NAPs on antimicrobial resistance from 114 countries, applying a governance framework containing 18 domains and 54 indicators in three integral areas: policy design, implementation tools, and monitoring and evaluation. As well as manually searching NAPs and doing online and literature searches that were relevant to specific indicators from repository inception to June 1, 2022, several data sources were used to generate scores, including the Tripartite Antimicrobial Resistance Country Self-Assessment Survey, the Global Antimicrobial Resistance and Use Surveillance System, the Global Antimicrobial Resistance Research and Development Hub, and various WHO datasets. NAPs were included if the country had also submitted the NAP to the Tripartite Antimicrobial Resistance Country Self-Assessment Survey 2020-21, if the NAP was retrievable through a publicly accessible database or website, and if the NAP was either published in English or eligible for machine translation. Three researchers independently reviewed each NAP and were initially blinded to the evaluations of other researchers. They generated a score using a quantification system for each of 54 indicators. The Cochrane protocol for ensuring reliability was followed. The three researchers were then unblinded and met to resolve any disagreements in scoring to reach a consensus agreement. In each case of discrepancy, consensus was reached between the researchers. We developed criteria to standardise the process of quantifying each indicator. We also weighted and collated relevant national data from various sources to generate composite scores concordant with the key governance areas. We transformed these data to a scale of 0 (worst) to 100 (best), ranked countries on the basis of their mean scores, and used descriptive statistics to analyse global and regional trends. FINDINGS: 306 NAPs were identified and 114 were eligible for analysis. Between 2020 and 2021, the mean antimicrobial resistance governance score was 51 (SD 14). Norway had the highest governance score (mean 85 [SD 32]), and the Federated States of Micronesia had the lowest governance score (28 [37]). The highest scoring domain was participation (83 [16]), and the lowest scoring domains were accountability (30 [18]) and feedback mechanism (30 [25]). Domains relating to policy design (55 [13]) and implementation tools (54 [17]) scored similarly, whereas monitoring and evaluation (38 [20]) efforts were lower. INTERPRETATION: International efforts to control antimicrobial resistance varied considerably between countries. Monitoring and evaluation efforts need improving for continuous understanding of national and international progress. International response might not be commensurate with the scale and severity of antimicrobial resistance. FUNDING: None.