Access to sexual and reproductive health commodities in East and Southern Africa: a cross-country comparison of availability, affordability and stock-outs in Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda and Zambia.

BACKGROUND: Access to sexual and reproductive health services continues to be a public health concern in Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda and Zambia: use of modern contraceptives is low, and unmet family planning needs and maternal mortality remain high. This study is an assessment of the availability, affordability and stock-outs of essential sexual and reproductive health commodities (SRHC) in these countries to inform interventions to improve access. METHODS: The study consisted of an adaptation of the World Health Organization/Health Action International methodology, Measuring Medicine Prices, Availability, Affordability and Price Components. Price, availability and stock-out data was collected in July 2019 for over fifty lowest-priced SRHC from public, private and private not-for-profit health facilities in Kenya (n = 221), Tanzania (n = 373), Uganda (n = 146) and Zambia (n = 245). Affordability was calculated using the wage of a lowest-paid government worker. Accessibility was illustrated by combining the availability (≥ 80%) and affordability (less than 1 day's wage) measures. RESULTS: Overall availability of SRHC was low at less than 50% in all sectors, areas and countries, with highest mean availability found in Kenyan public facilities (46.6%). Stock-outs were common; the average number of stock-out days per month ranged from 3 days in Kenya's private and private not-for-profit sectors, to 12 days in Zambia's public sector. In the public sectors of Kenya, Uganda and Zambia, as well as in Zambia's private not-for-profit sector, all SRHC were free for the patient. In the other sectors unaffordability ranged from 2 to 9 SRHC being unaffordable, with magnesium sulphate being especially unaffordable in the countries. Accessibility was low across the countries, with Kenya's and Zambia's public sectors having six SRHC that met the accessibility threshold, while the private sector of Uganda had only one SRHC meeting the threshold. CONCLUSIONS: Accessibility of SRHC remains a challenge. Low availability of SRHC in the public sector is compounded by regular stock-outs, forcing patients to seek care in other sectors where there are availability and affordability challenges. Health system strengthening is needed to ensure access, and these findings should be used by national governments to identify the gaps and shortcomings in their supply chains.

A View from the Wellcome Trust Drug-Resistant Infections Priority Programme: Creating a Sustainable Research and Development Ecosystem to Meet the Global Need for Antibiotics.

Antibiotics have been a key component of modern medicine for decades. A critical question is why not enough antibacterials are being developed to tackle the growing challenge of drug-resistant infections. While current innovation in the early preclinical pipeline is encouraging, the journey for any new antibiotic is burdened with multiple challenges across its early and late development path. In this viewpoint, we explore the barriers to antibiotic development and how the Wellcome Trust is addressing these problems and working toward developing long-term solutions to facilitate a sustainable R&D ecosystem.

Civil society engagement in multi-stakeholder dialogue: a qualitative study exploring the opinions and perceptions of MeTA members.

BACKGROUND: The Medicines Transparency Alliance (MeTA) is an initiative that brings together all stakeholders in the medicines market to create a multi-stakeholder dialogue and improve access, availability and affordability of medicines. Key to this multi-stakeholder dialogue is the participation of Civil Society Organisations. A recent MeTA annual review, identified uneven engagement of civil society organisations in the multi-stakeholder process. This study was designed to explore the engagement of Civil Society Organisations in the MeTA multi-stakeholder process and the factors influencing their participation. METHODS: Participants were drawn from a convenience sample of key MeTA informants attending a MeTA global meeting in Geneva in 2014. Study participants consisted of members of MeTA, which included representatives from government, the private sector and civil society. In-depth semi-structured face-to-face interviews were conducted to identify perceptions around the barriers to civil society engagement in the multi-stakeholder process. Interviews were guided by a conceptual framework exploring the three main themes of the political environment, relative stakeholder strength and agenda setting/gatekeepers. Interviews were structured to enable additional themes to emerge and be explored. Fifteen interviews were conducted. The interviews were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed using a general inductive approach. All interviewees provided written informed consent. RESULTS: Findings were captured within three main overarching themes: the political environment, relative stakeholder strength and agenda setting/gatekeepers, with the opportunity for additional themes to emerge in the interviewing process. The study conformed these three themes were important in the engagement process. Participants reported that civil society engagement is particularly limited by those who set the agenda. It was largely seen that the political environment was the significant factor that enabled or disabled all others. The findings counter the argument that CSO barriers to engagement are predominantly due to capacity issues. CONCLUSIONS: This study enriches previous findings by providing insights into civil society participation in multi-stakeholder dialogue, specifically the MeTA initiative. The development of more rigorous and systematic accountability mechanisms in order to maintain the legitimacy of decision-making processes and establish more equal power relations would significantly benefit the engagement of civil society organisations. The results inform practical recommendations for MeTA and future multi-stakeholder programmes tasked with improving policy on the access, availability and affordability of medicines.

Data, disease and diplomacy: GISAID's innovative contribution to global health.

The international sharing of virus data is critical for protecting populations against lethal infectious disease outbreaks. Scientists must rapidly share information to assess the nature of the threat and develop new medical countermeasures. Governments need the data to trace the extent of the outbreak, initiate public health responses, and coordinate access to medicines and vaccines. Recent outbreaks suggest, however, that the sharing of such data cannot be taken for granted - making the timely international exchange of virus data a vital global challenge. This article undertakes the first analysis of the Global Initiative on Sharing All Influenza Data as an innovative policy effort to promote the international sharing of genetic and associated influenza virus data. Based on more than 20 semi-structured interviews conducted with key informants in the international community, coupled with analysis of a wide range of primary and secondary sources, the article finds that the Global Initiative on Sharing All Influenza Data contributes to global health in at least five ways: (1) collating the most complete repository of high-quality influenza data in the world; (2) facilitating the rapid sharing of potentially pandemic virus information during recent outbreaks; (3) supporting the World Health Organization's biannual seasonal flu vaccine strain selection process; (4) developing informal mechanisms for conflict resolution around the sharing of virus data; and (5) building greater trust with several countries key to global pandemic preparedness.