The role of health systems for health security: a scoping review revealing the need for improved conceptual and practical linkages.

BACKGROUND: Practical links between health systems and health security are historically prevalent, but the conceptual links between these fields remain under explored, with little on health system strengthening. The need to address this gap gains relevance in light of the COVID-19 pandemic as it demonstrated a crucial relationship between health system capacities and effective health security response. Acknowledging the importance of developing stronger and more resilient health systems globally for health emergency preparedness, the WHO developed a Health Systems for Health Security framework that aims to promote a common understanding of what health systems for health security entails whilst identifying key capacities required. METHODS/ RESULTS: To further explore and analyse the conceptual and practical links between health systems and health security within the peer reviewed literature, a rapid scoping review was carried out to provide an overview of the type, extent and quantity of research available. Studies were included if they had been peer-reviewed and were published in English (seven databases 2000 to 2020). 343 articles were identified, of those 204 discussed health systems and health security (high and medium relevance), 101 discussed just health systems and 47 discussed only health security (low relevance). Within the high and medium relevance articles, several concepts emerged, including the prioritization of health security over health systems, the tendency to treat health security as exceptionalism focusing on acute health emergencies, and a conceptualisation of security as 'state security' not 'human security' or population health. CONCLUSION: Examples of literature exploring links between health systems and health security are provided. We also present recommendations for further research, offering several investments and/or programmes that could reliably lead to maximal gains from both a health system and a health security perspective, and why these should be explored further. This paper could help researchers and funders when deciding upon the scope, nature and design of future research in this area. Additionally, the paper legitimises the necessity of the Health Systems for Health Security framework, with the findings of this paper providing useful insights and evidentiary examples for effective implementation of the framework.

The costs of improving health emergency preparedness: A systematic review and analysis of multi-country studies.

BACKGROUND: Investing in health emergency preparedness is critical to the safety, welfare and stability of communities and countries worldwide. Despite the global push to increase investments, questions remain around how much should be spent and what to focus on. We conducted a systematic review and analysis of studies that costed improvements to health emergency preparedness to help to answer these questions. METHODS: We searched for studies that estimated the costs of improving health emergency preparedness and that were published between 1 January 2000 and 14 May 2021, using PubMed, Web of Science, Google Scholar, EconLit, and National Health Service Economic Evaluation Databases (PROSPERO CRD42021254428). We also searched grey literature repositories and contacted subject experts. We included studies that estimated the costs of improving preparedness at the global level and/or at the national level across at least ten countries, covered two or more technical areas in the WHO Benchmarks for International Health Regulations (IHR) Capacities, and included activities focused on human health. We mapped costs across technical areas in the WHO Benchmarks for IHR Capacities. FINDINGS: Ten studies met our inclusion criteria. Costing methods varied substantially across included studies and cost estimates ranged from US$1·6 billion per year to improve capacities across 139 low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) to US$43 billion per year to support national-level activities worldwide and implement global-level initiatives, such as research and development for health technologies (diagnostics, therapeutics, and vaccines). Two recent studies estimated costs by drawing on IHR Monitoring and Evaluation Framework country capacity data, with one study estimating costs across 67 LMICs of US$15·4 billion per year (US$29·1 billion including upfront capital costs) and the other calculating costs for the 196 States Parties to the IHR of US$24·8 billion per year. Differences in included studies' methods, and the characteristics of countries considered, mean it is difficult to make like-for-like comparisons of the absolute costs or per-capita costs estimated by studies. INTERPRETATION: Improving health emergency preparedness worldwide will require substantial and sustained increases in investments. Further guidance on estimating the size of those investments can help to standardise methods, allowing greater interpretation and comparison across studies/countries. As well as greater transparency and detail in the reporting of methods by studies focused on this topic, this can help support estimates of global resource requirements and facilitate investments towards improving preparedness for future pandemics. FUNDING: None.

Operationalisation of consensual One Health roadmaps in countries for improved IHR capacities and health security.

The COVID-19 pandemic is a devastating reminder that mitigating the threat of emerging zoonotic outbreaks relies on our collective capacity to work across human health, animal health and environment sectors. Despite the critical need for shared approaches, collaborative benchmarks in the International Health Regulations (IHR) Monitoring and Evaluation Framework and more specifically the Joint External Evaluation (JEE) often reveal low levels of performance in collaborative technical areas (TAs), thus identifying a real need to work on the human-animal-environment interface to improve health security. The National Bridging Workshops (NBWs) proposed jointly by the World Organisation of Animal Health and World Health Organization (WHO) provide opportunity for national human health, animal health, environment and other relevant sectors in countries to explore the efficiency and gaps in their coordination for the management of zoonotic diseases. The results, gathered in a prioritised roadmap, support the operationalisation of the recommendations made during JEE for TAs where a multisectoral One Health approach is beneficial. For those collaborative TAs (12 out of 19 in the JEE), more than two-thirds of the recommendations can be implemented through one or multiple activities jointly agreed during NBW. Interestingly, when associated with the WHO Benchmark Tool for IHR, it appears that NBW activities are often associated with lower level of performance than anticipated during the JEE missions, revealing that countries often overestimate their capacities at the human-animal-environment interface. Deeper, more focused and more widely shared discussions between professionals highlight the need for concrete foundations of multisectoral coordination to meet goals for One Health and improved global health security through IHR.

Simulation exercises and after action reviews - analysis of outputs during 2016-2019 to strengthen global health emergency preparedness and response.

BACKGROUND: Under the International Health Regulations (2005) [IHR (2005)] Monitoring and Evaluation Framework, after action reviews (AAR) and simulation exercises (SimEx) are two critical components which measure the functionality of a country's health emergency preparedness and response under a "real-life" event or simulated situation. The objective of this study was to describe the AAR and SimEx supported by the World Health Organization (WHO) globally in 2016-2019. METHODS: In 2016-2019, WHO supported 63 AAR and 117 SimEx, of which 42 (66.7%) AAR reports and 56 (47.9%) SimEx reports were available. We extracted key information from these reports and created two central databases for AAR and SimEx, respectively. We conducted descriptive analysis and linked the findings according to the 13 IHR (2005) core capacities. RESULTS: Among the 42 AAR and 56 SimEx available reports, AAR and SimEx were most commonly conducted in the WHO African Region (AAR: n = 32, 76.2%; SimEx: n = 32, 52.5%). The most common public health events reviewed or tested in AAR and SimEx, respectively, were epidemics and pandemics (AAR: n = 38, 90.5%; SimEx: n = 46, 82.1%). For AAR, 10 (76.9%) of the 13 IHR core capacities were reviewed at least once, with no AAR conducted for food safety, chemical events, and radiation emergencies, among the reports available. For SimEx, all 13 (100.0%) IHR capacities were tested at least once. For AAR, the most commonly reviewed IHR core capacities were health services provision (n = 41, 97.6%), risk communication (n = 39, 92.9%), national health emergency framework (n = 39, 92.9%), surveillance (n = 37, 88.1%) and laboratory (n = 35, 83.3%). For SimEx, the most commonly tested IHR core capacity were national health emergency framework (n = 56, 91.1%), followed by risk communication (n = 48, 85.7%), IHR coordination and national IHR focal point functions (n = 45, 80.4%), surveillance (n = 31, 55.4%), and health service provision (n = 29, 51.8%). For AAR, the median timeframe between the end of the event and AAR was 125 days (range = 25-399 days). CONCLUSIONS: WHO has recently published guidance for the planning, execution, and follow-up of AAR and SimEx. Through the guidance and the simplified reporting format provided, we hope to see more countries conduct AAR and SimEx and standardization in their methodology, practice, reporting and follow-up.

Information Disorder Syndrome and Its Management.

Many of us may be unknowingly suffering from information disorder syndrome. It is more prevalent due to the digitized world where the information flows to every individual's phone, tablet and computer in no time. Information disorder syndrome is the sharing or developing of false information with or without the intent of harming and they are categorized as misinformation, disinformation and malinformation. The severity of the syndrome is categorized into three grades. Grade 1 is a milder form in which the individual shares false information without the intent of harming others. Grade 2 is a moderate form in which the individual develops and shares false information with the intent of making money and political gain, but not with the intent of harming people. Grade 3 is a severe form in which the individual develops and shares false information with the intent of harming others. The management of this disorder requires the management of false information, which is rumor surveillance, targeted messaging and community engagement. Repeated sufferers at the Grade 1 level, all sufferers from grade 2 and 3 levels need psycho-social counseling and sometimes require strong regulations and enforcement to control such information disorder. The most critical intervention is to be mindful of the fact that not all posts in social media and news are real, and need to be interpreted carefully.

Health security capacities in the context of COVID-19 outbreak: an analysis of International Health Regulations annual report data from 182 countries.

BACKGROUND: Public health measures to prevent, detect, and respond to events are essential to control public health risks, including infectious disease outbreaks, as highlighted in the International Health Regulations (IHR). In light of the outbreak of 2019 novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19), we aimed to review existing health security capacities against public health risks and events. METHODS: We used 18 indicators from the IHR State Party Annual Reporting (SPAR) tool and associated data from national SPAR reports to develop five indices: (1) prevent, (2) detect, (3) respond, (4) enabling function, and (5) operational readiness. We used SPAR 2018 data for all of the indicators and categorised countries into five levels across the indices, in which level 1 indicated the lowest level of national capacity and level 5 the highest. We also analysed data at the regional level (using the six geographical WHO regions). FINDINGS: Of 182 countries, 52 (28%) had prevent capacities at levels 1 or 2, and 60 (33%) had response capacities at levels 1 or 2. 81 (45%) countries had prevent capacities and 78 (43%) had response capacities at levels 4 or 5, indicating that these countries were operationally ready. 138 (76%) countries scored more highly in the detect index than in the other indices. 44 (24%) countries did not have an effective enabling function for public health risks and events, including infectious disease outbreaks (7 [4%] at level 1 and 37 [20%] at level 2). 102 (56%) countries had level 4 or level 5 enabling function capacities in place. 32 (18%) countries had low readiness (2 [1%] at level 1 and 30 [17%] at level 2), and 104 (57%) countries were operationally ready to prevent, detect, and control an outbreak of a novel infectious disease (66 [36%] at level 4 and 38 [21%] at level 5). INTERPRETATION: Countries vary widely in terms of their capacity to prevent, detect, and respond to outbreaks. Half of all countries analysed have strong operational readiness capacities in place, which suggests that an effective response to potential health emergencies could be enabled, including to COVID-19. Findings from local risk assessments are needed to fully understand national readiness capacities in relation to COVID-19. Capacity building and collaboration between countries are needed to strengthen global readiness for outbreak control. FUNDING: None.

Joint external evaluation of the International Health Regulation (2005) capacities: current status and lessons learnt in the WHO African region.

The International Health Regulations (IHR, 2005) are an essential vehicle for addressing global health security. Here, we report the IHR capacities in the WHO African from independent joint external evaluation (JEE). The JEE is a voluntary component of the IHR monitoring and evaluation framework. It evaluates IHR capacities in 19 technical areas in four broad themes: 'Prevent' (7 technical areas, 15 indicators); 'Detect' (4 technical areas, 13 indicators); 'Respond' (5 technical areas, 14 indicators), points of entry (PoE) and other IHR hazards (chemical and radiation) (3 technical areas, 6 indicators). The IHR capacity scores are graded from level 1 (no capacity) to level 5 (sustainable capacity). From February 2016 to March 2019, 40 of 47 WHO African region countries (81% coverage) evaluated their IHR capacities using the JEE tool. No country had the required IHR capacities. Under the theme 'Prevent', no country scored level 5 for 12 of 15 indicators. Over 80% of them scored level 1 or 2 for most indicators. For 'Detect', none scored level 5 for 12 of 13 indicators. However, many scored level 3 or 4 for several indicators. For 'Respond', none scored level 5 for 13 of 14 indicators, and less than 10% had a national multihazard public health emergency preparedness and response plan. For PoE and other IHR hazards, most countries scored level 1 or 2 and none scored level 5. Countries in the WHO African region are commended for embracing the JEE to assess their IHR capacities. However, major gaps have been identified. Urgent collective action is needed now to protect the WHO African region from health security threats.

Development of a Costed National Action Plan for Health Security in Pakistan: Lessons Learned.

In order to assess progress toward achieving compliance with the International Health Regulations (2005), member states may voluntarily request a Joint External Evaluation (JEE). Pakistan was the first country in the WHO Eastern Mediterranean Region to volunteer for and complete a JEE to establish the baseline of the country's public health capacity across multiple sectors covering 19 technical areas. It subsequently developed a post-JEE costed National Action Plan for Health Security (NAPHS). The process for developing the costed NAPHS was based on objectives and activities related to the 3 to 5 priority actions for each of the 19 JEE technical areas. Four key lessons were learned during the process of developing the NAPHS. First, multisectoral coordination at both federal and provincial levels is important in a devolved health system, where provinces are autonomous from a public health sector standpoint. Second, the development of a costed NAPHS requires engagement and investment of the country's own resources for sustainability as well as donor coordination among national and international donors and partners. Engagement from the ministries of Finance, Planning and Development, and Foreign Affairs and from WHO was also important. Third, development of predefined goals, targets, and indicators aligned with the JEE as part of the NAPHS process proved to be critical, as they can be used to monitor progress toward implementation of the NAPHS and provide data for repeat JEEs. Lastly, several challenges were identified related to the NAPHS process and costing tool, which need to be addressed by WHO and partners to help countries develop their plans.

Nepal Health Insurance Bill: Possible Challenges and Way Forwards.

Nepal has one of the highest proportions of out of pocket expenditures on health and one quarter of the people is living below poverty line. In recent time, there is some increase of the health budget but country still relies on development partners. The endorsement of the national health insurance bill has enabled government to establish the national health insurance scheme through development of adequate policies, strategies and mechanisms for implementation at national and federal level. The scheme has many challenges to address on governance and leadership, financing, information, health services, workforce, and essential medicines and technologies. Therefore, it is imperative to establish a robust mechanism like a "tree", which has strong roots of building blocks of health systems, which produces fruits that ensure improved responsiveness, efficiency and equity and financial protection. It is necessary to learn and apply from the experiences of other countries while implementing the national health insurance scheme. Keywords: bill; health; insurance; Nepal.

Is there a business continuity plan for emergencies like an Ebola outbreak or other pandemics?

During emergencies, the health system will be overwhelmed and challenged by various factors like staff absenteeism and other limited resources. More than half of the workforce in Liberia has been out of work since the start of the Ebola outbreak. It is vital to continue essential services like maternal and child health care, emergency care and others while responding to emergencies like an Ebola outbreak other pandemic or disaster. Having a business continuity plan (BCP) and involving various sectors during planning and implementing the plan during a crisis will assist in providing essential services to the public. An established BCP will not only help the continuity of services, it also assists in maintaining achievements of sustainable development. This applies to all sectors other than health, for instance, energy sectors, communication, transportation, education, production and agriculture.