Comprehensive compartmental model and calibration algorithm for the study of clinical implications of the population-level spread of COVID-19: a study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: The complex dynamics of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has made obtaining reliable long-term forecasts of the disease progression difficult. Simple mechanistic models with deterministic parameters are useful for short-term predictions but have ultimately been unsuccessful in extrapolating the trajectory of the pandemic because of unmodelled dynamics and the unrealistic level of certainty that is assumed in the predictions. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We propose a 22-compartment epidemiological model that includes compartments not previously considered concurrently, to account for the effects of vaccination, asymptomatic individuals, inadequate access to hospital care, post-acute COVID-19 and recovery with long-term health complications. Additionally, new connections between compartments introduce new dynamics to the system and provide a framework to study the sensitivity of model outputs to several concurrent effects, including temporary immunity, vaccination rate and vaccine effectiveness. Subject to data availability for a given region, we discuss a means by which population demographics (age, comorbidity, socioeconomic status, sex and geographical location) and clinically relevant information (different variants, different vaccines) can be incorporated within the 22-compartment framework. Considering a probabilistic interpretation of the parameters allows the model's predictions to reflect the current state of uncertainty about the model parameters and model states. We propose the use of a sparse Bayesian learning algorithm for parameter calibration and model selection. This methodology considers a combination of prescribed parameter prior distributions for parameters that are known to be essential to the modelled dynamics and automatic relevance determination priors for parameters whose relevance is questionable. This is useful as it helps prevent overfitting the available epidemiological data when calibrating the parameters of the proposed model. Population-level administrative health data will serve as partial observations of the model states. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Approved by Carleton University's Research Ethics Board-B (clearance ID: 114596). Results will be made available through future publication.

Disrupting gender norms in health systems: making the case for change.

Restrictive gender norms and gender inequalities are replicated and reinforced in health systems, contributing to gender inequalities in health. In this Series paper, we explore how to address all three through recognition and then with disruptive solutions. We used intersectional feminist theory to guide our systematic reviews, qualitative case studies based on lived experiences, and quantitative analyses based on cross-sectional and evaluation research. We found that health systems reinforce patients' traditional gender roles and neglect gender inequalities in health, health system models and clinic-based programmes are rarely gender responsive, and women have less authority as health workers than men and are often devalued and abused. With regard to potential for disruption, we found that gender equality policies are associated with greater representation of female physicians, which in turn is associated with better health outcomes, but that gender parity is insufficient to achieve gender equality. We found that institutional support and respect of nurses improves quality of care, and that women's empowerment collectives can increase health-care access and provider responsiveness. We see promise from social movements in supporting women's reproductive rights and policies. Our findings suggest we must view gender as a fundamental factor that predetermines and shapes health systems and outcomes. Without addressing the role of restrictive gender norms and gender inequalities within and outside health systems, we will not reach our collective ambitions of universal health coverage and the Sustainable Development Goals. We propose action to systematically identify and address restrictive gender norms and gender inequalities in health systems.

Are health systems interventions gender blind? examining health system reconstruction in conflict affected states.

BACKGROUND: Global health policy prioritizes improving the health of women and girls, as evident in the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), multiple women's health initiatives, and the billions of dollars spent by international donors and national governments to improve health service delivery in low-income countries. Countries recovering from fragility and conflict often engage in wide-ranging institutional reforms, including within the health system, to address inequities. Research and policy do not sufficiently explore how health system interventions contribute to the broader goal of gender equity. METHODS: This paper utilizes a framework synthesis approach to examine if and how rebuilding health systems affected gender equity in the post-conflict contexts of Mozambique, Timor Leste, Sierra Leone, and Northern Uganda. To undertake this analysis, we utilized the WHO health systems building blocks to establish benchmarks of gender equity. We then identified and evaluated a broad range of available evidence on these building blocks within these four contexts. We reviewed the evidence to assess if and how health interventions during the post-conflict reconstruction period met these gender equity benchmarks. FINDINGS: Our analysis shows that the four countries did not meet gender equitable benchmarks in their health systems. Across all four contexts, health interventions did not adequately reflect on how gender norms are replicated by the health system, and conversely, how the health system can transform these gender norms and promote gender equity. Gender inequity undermined the ability of health systems to effectively improve health outcomes for women and girls. From our findings, we suggest the key attributes of gender equitable health systems to guide further research and policy. CONCLUSION: The use of gender equitable benchmarks provides important insights into how health system interventions in the post-conflict period neglected the role of the health system in addressing or perpetuating gender inequities. Given the frequent contact made by individuals with health services, and the important role of the health system within societies, this gender blind nature of health system engagement missed an important opportunity to contribute to more equitable and peaceful societies.

A case study of health sector reform in Kosovo.

The impact of conflict on population health and health infrastructure has been well documented; however the efforts of the international community to rebuild health systems in post-conflict periods have not been systematically examined. Based on a review of relevant literature, this paper develops a framework for analyzing health reform in post-conflict settings, and applies this framework to the case study of health system reform in post-conflict Kosovo. The paper examines two questions: first, the selection of health reform measures; and second, the outcome of the reform process. It measures the success of reforms by the extent to which reform achieved its objectives. Through an examination of primary documents and interviews with key stakeholders, the paper demonstrates that the external nature of the reform process, the compressed time period for reform, and weak state capacity undermined the ability of the success of the reform program.