ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Leprosy control achieved dramatic success in the 1980s-1990s with the implementation of short course multidrug therapy, which reduced the global prevalence of leprosy to less than 1 in 10 000 population. However, a period of relative stagnation in leprosy control followed this achievement, and only limited further declines in the global number of new cases reported have been achieved over the past decade. MAIN TEXT: In 2016, major stakeholders called for the development of an innovative and comprehensive leprosy strategy aimed at reducing the incidence of leprosy, lowering the burden of disability and discrimination, and interrupting transmission. This led to the establishment of the Global Partnership for Zero Leprosy (GPZL) in 2018, with partners aligned around a shared Action Framework committed to achieving the WHO targets by 2030 through national leprosy program capacity-building, resource mobilisation and an enabling research agenda. GPZL convened over 140 experts from more than 20 countries to develop a research agenda to achieve zero leprosy. The result is a detailed research agenda focusing on diagnostics, mapping, digital technology and innovation, disability, epidemiological modelling and investment case, implementation research, stigma, post exposure prophylaxis and transmission, and vaccines. This research agenda is aligned with the research priorities identified by other stakeholders. CONCLUSIONS: Developing and achieving consensus on the research agenda for zero leprosy is a significant step forward for the leprosy community. In a next step, research programmes must be developed, with individual components of the research agenda requiring distinct expertise, varying in resource needs, and operating over different timescales. Moving toward zero leprosy now requires partner alignment and new investments at all stages of the research process, from discovery to implementation.
Subject(s)
Biomedical Research , Leprosy/prevention & control , Bacterial Vaccines/therapeutic use , Drug Therapy, Combination , Humans , Incidence , Leprostatic Agents/therapeutic use , Leprosy/epidemiology , Leprosy/therapy , Mycobacterium leprae/immunology , Post-Exposure Prophylaxis , Research DesignABSTRACT
The current influenza A H1N1 epidemic has demonstrated once again the importance of being able to count on robust, coordinated, and comprehensive public health systems. Countries that do rely on such health systems have proven to recognize, diagnose, and treat influenza in a timely manner, and to provide the public with the education needed to minimize the number of deaths and acute cases. The International Association of National Public Health Institutes (IANPHI) recommends that all countries begin to coordinate their national public health efforts. IANPHI offers its support and guidance to all who would create or strengthen their national public health institutes. By strengthening national public health systems, the ability to collaborate and the security of all countries is heightened. These institutions exist for the public good, and any improvements made to them are also a contribution toward better health for the population.
Subject(s)
Influenza A Virus, H1N1 Subtype , Influenza, Human/prevention & control , Public Health , Government Agencies/organization & administration , Humans , PanamaABSTRACT
The current influenza A H1N1 epidemic has demonstrated once again the importance of being able to count on robust, coordinated, and comprehensive public health systems. Countries that do rely on such health systems have proven to recognize, diagnose, and treat influenza in a timely manner, and to provide the public with the education needed to minimize the number of deaths and acute cases. The International Association of National Public Health Institutes (IANPHI) recommends that all countries begin to coordinate their national public health efforts. IANPHI offers its support and guidance to all who would create or strengthen their national public health institutes. By strengthening national public health systems, the ability to collaborate and the security of all countries is heightened. These institutions exist for the public good, and any improvements made to them are also a contribution toward better health for the population.
Subject(s)
Humans , Influenza A Virus, H1N1 Subtype , Influenza, Human/prevention & control , Public Health , Government Agencies/organization & administration , PanamaABSTRACT
Donor and government funding for public health programs in low-resource countries - to increase immunizations or treat HIV/AIDS, for example - has risen dramatically. Rising less rapidly is the funding for public health functions that are not direct services or linked to programs for high-priority diseases and conditions. In many countries, these functions are housed in National Public Health Institutes (NPHIs). NPHIs are science-based agencies, usually within national governments, that include in their missions such public goods as assessing and monitoring the population's health and responding to outbreaks. Through a survey, we collected information from and about members of a new international organization for NPHIs. The responses illustrate the roles of NPHIs as purveyors of public goods. Data collected in the future on NPHI structures, practices, and challenges will be helpful to countries that are creating or restructuring NPHIs. The new knowledge will also help advocates for increasing budgetary support for the public goods functions of NPHIs.
