The transition of human resources for health information systems from the MDGs into the SDGs and the post-pandemic era: reviewing the evidence from 2000 to 2022.

BACKGROUND: This review paper offers a policy-tracing trend analysis of national experiences among low- and middle-income countries in strengthening human resources for health information systems (HRHIS). This paper draws on evidence from the last two decades and applies a modified Bardach's policy analysis framework. A timely review of the evidence on HRHIS and underlying data systems is needed now more than ever, given the halfway mark of the Global Strategy on Human Resources for Health: Workforce 2030 and the protracted COVID-19 pandemic and other global health emergencies, over and above the increasing need for health and care workers to provide essential health services. MAIN TEXT: Considering World Health Assembly resolutions and HRH-related global developments between 2000 and 2022, we targeted peer-reviewed and gray literature covering the inception, impact, bottlenecks, and gaps of HRHIS. We also considered results from a Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation-funded project that assessed HRH data systems in 21 countries and the use of HRH data and information for policy, planning, and management. Aligned with the National Health Workforce Accounts (NHWA), we identify priority themes related to digital priorities for HRHIS and governance/leadership and present case studies of five countries that pursued different pathways to successfully develop their HRHIS. Over the last two decades, considerable progress has been achieved through a scaled-up implementation of HRHIS combined with the skills needed to analyze and use data, sustain systems functionality, and make systematic improvements over time. Global health development aid investments and technical innovations have led to advancements in HRHIS, district health information software (DHIS2), and partner collaborations during the HIV/AIDS, Ebola, and COVID-19 crises. Although the progressive implementation of NHWA continues to steer country-level efforts through standardized indicators and regular reporting, traditional challenges remain, such as data systems fragmentation, lack of interoperability between systems, and underutilization of reported data. Encouragingly, some countries demonstrate strong governance and leadership capacities and others strong HRHIS digital capacities. Both HRH and health service data are needed to inform on-demand decisions during times of emergencies and pandemics as well as during routine essential health services delivery. Evidence-based examples from distinctive countries demonstrate that reliable HRHIS is achievable for better planning and management of the health and care workforce.

Advancing Universal Health Coverage in the WHO South-East Asia Region with a focus on Human Resources for Health.

The identification in 2014 of Universal Health Coverage, including focus on human resources for health, as a flagship priority for the WHO South-East Asia Region marked critical departure from the prior period of the Millennium Development Goals. The last decade witnessed strong political commitment and action to advance UHC across the Region. At regional level, UHC service coverage index improved from 47 in 2010 to 62 in 2021. Improved availability of human resources for health has been an important contributor, with the regional average of doctors, nurses and midwives increasing by approximately a third between 2014 and 2020. Progress on financial protection has been mixed: proportion of population impoverished declined significantly but catastrophic expenditure did not reduce. Despite important gains, progress is insufficient to achieve UHC targets by 2030. Covid-19 pandemic and subsequent economic challenges have created further urgency to accelerate progress towards UHC, with attention to strengthening primary health care.

The global inequity in COVID-19 vaccination coverage among health and care workers.

BACKGROUND: Health and care workers (HCWs) are at the forefront of COVID-19 response, at high risk of infection, and as a result they are a priority group for COVID-19 vaccination. This paper presents the global patterns in COVID-19 vaccination coverage among HCWs in 2021, how HCWs were prioritized, and identifies factors associated with the early vaccination coverage. METHODS: Using monthly data reported to the World Health Organization, the percentages of partially and fully vaccinated HCWs were computed. The rates of vaccination of HCWs for the first and second half of 2021 were compared in a stratified analysis using several factors. A multivariate analysis was used to investigate the independent associations of these factors with the percentage of HCWs fully vaccinated. RESULTS: Based on data from 139 Member States, as of end of 2021, 82% HCWs were reported as fully vaccinated with important variations by income groups: 33% for low income countries, 83% for lower-middle income countries, 79% for upper-middle income countries and 88% for high income countries. Overall 76% of countries did not achieve 70% vaccination coverage of their HCWs in the first half of 2021, and 38% of countries by end of 2021. Compared with the general population, the rate of HCWs full vaccination was 3.5 times higher, in particular for low income countries (RR = 5.9). Stratified analysis showed that beyond income group, the availability of vaccine doses was a critical factor of HCWs vaccination coverage with medians of 59.1% and 88.6% coverage in the first and second half of 2021, respectively for countries with enough doses to cover 70% of their population, compared with 0.8% and 47.5% coverage, respectively for countries with doses to cover 40% of their population. The multivariate analysis confirmed this observation with a 35.9% overall difference (95%CI 15.1%; 56.9%) between these two groups. CONCLUSION: Despite being considered a priority group, more than a third of countries did not achieve 70% vaccination coverage of their HCWs at the end of 2021. Large inequities were observed with low income countries lagging behind. Additional efforts should be dedicated to ensure full protection of HCWs through vaccination.

The global health workforce stock and distribution in 2020 and 2030: a threat to equity and 'universal' health coverage?

OBJECTIVE: The 2016 Global Strategy on Human Resources for Health: Workforce 2030 projected a global shortage of 18 million health workers by 2030. This article provides an assessment of the health workforce stock in 2020 and presents a revised estimate of the projected shortage by 2030. METHODS: Latest data reported through WHO's National Health Workforce Accounts (NHWA) were extracted to assess health workforce stock for 2020. Using a stock and flow model, projections were computed for the year 2030. The global health workforce shortage estimation was revised. RESULTS: In 2020, the global workforce stock was 29.1 million nurses, 12.7 million medical doctors, 3.7 million pharmacists, 2.5 million dentists, 2.2 million midwives and 14.9 million additional occupations, tallying to 65.1 million health workers. It was not equitably distributed with a 6.5-fold difference in density between high-income and low-income countries. The projected health workforce size by 2030 is 84 million health workers. This represents an average growth of 29% from 2020 to 2030 which is faster than the population growth rate (9.7%). This reassessment presents a revised global health workforce shortage of 15 million health workers in 2020 decreasing to 10 million health workers by 2030 (a 33% decrease globally). WHO African and Eastern Mediterranean regions' shortages are projected to decrease by only 7% and 15%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The latest NHWA data show progress in the increasing size of the health workforce globally as more jobs are and will continue to be created in the health economy. It however masks considerable inequities, particularly in WHO African and Eastern Mediterranean regions, and alarmingly among the 47 countries on the WHO Support and Safeguards List. Progress should be acknowledged with caution considering the immeasurable impact of COVID-19 pandemic on health workers globally.

Estimating the health workforce requirements and costing to reach 70% COVID-19 vaccination coverage by mid-2022: a modelling study and global estimates.

OBJECTIVES: The implementation of COVID-19 vaccination globally poses unprecedented stress to health systems particularly for countries with persisting health workforce shortages prior the pandemic. The present paper estimates the workforce requirement to reach 70% COVID-19 vaccination coverage in all countries by mid-2022 using service target-based estimation. METHODS: Health workforce data from National Health Workforce Accounts and vaccination coverage reported to WHO as of January 2022 were used. Workload parameters were used to estimate the number of health workers needed with a service target-based approach, the gap and the scale-up required partially accounting for countries' challenges, as well as the associated costs in human resources. RESULTS: As of 1 January 2022, only 34 countries achieved 70% COVID-19 vaccination coverage and 61 countries covered less than a quarter of their population. This analysis showed that 1 831 000 health workers working full time would be needed to reach a global coverage of 70% COVID-19 vaccination by mid-2022. To avoid severe disruptions to health system, 744 000 additional health workers should be added to domestic resources mostly (77%) in low-income countries. In a sensitivity analysis, allowing for vaccination over 12 months instead of 6 months would decrease the scale-up to 476 000 health workers. The costing for the employment of these 744 000 additional health workers is estimated to be US$2.5 billion. In addition to such a massive scale-up, it is estimated that 29 countries would have needed to redeploy more than 20% of their domestic workforce, placing them at serious risk of not achieving the mid-year target. CONCLUSION: Reaching 70% global coverage with COVID-19 vaccination by mid-2022 requires extraordinary efforts not before witnessed in the history of immunisation programmes. COVID-19 vaccination programmes should receive rapid and sustainable investment in health workforce.

The burden of recording and reporting health data in primary health care facilities in five low- and lower-middle income countries.

BACKGROUND: Recording and reporting health data in facilities is the backbone of routine health information systems which provide data collected by health facility workers during service provision. Data is firstly collected in a register, to record patient health data and care process, and tallied into nationally designed reporting forms. While there is anecdotal evidence of large numbers of registers and reporting forms for primary health care (PHC) facilities, there are few systematic studies to document this potential burden on health workers. This multi-country study aimed to document the numbers of registers and reporting forms use at the PHC level and to estimate the time it requires for health workers to meet data demands. METHODS: In Cambodia, Ghana, Mozambique, Nigeria and Tanzania, a desk review was conducted to document registers and reporting forms mandated at the PHC level. In each country, visits to 16 randomly selected public PHC facilities followed to assess the time spent on paper-based recording and reporting. Information was collected through self-reports of estimated time use by health workers, and observation of 1360 provider-patient interactions. Data was primarily collected in outpatient care (OPD), antenatal care (ANC), immunization (EPI), family planning (FP), HIV and Tuberculosis (TB) services. RESULT: Cross-countries, the average number of registers was 34 (ranging between 16 and 48). Of those, 77% were verified in use and each register line had at least 20 cells to be completed per patient. The mean time spent on recording was about one-third the total consultation time for OPD, FP, ANC and EPI services combined. Cross-countries, the average number of monthly reporting forms was 35 (ranging between 19 and 52) of which 78% were verified in use. The estimated time to complete monthly reporting forms was 9 h (ranging between 4 to 15 h) per month per health worker. CONCLUSIONS: PHC facilities are mandated to use many registers and reporting forms pausing a considerable burden to health workers. Service delivery systems are expected to vary, however an imperative need remains to invest in international standards of facility-based registers and reporting forms, to ensure regular, comparable, quality-driven facility data collection and use.

Measuring antibiotic availability and use in 20 low- and middle-income countries.

OBJECTIVE: To assess antibiotic availability and use in health facilities in low- and middle-income countries, using the service provision assessment and service availability and readiness assessment surveys. METHODS: We obtained data on antibiotic availability at 13 561 health facilities in 13 service provision assessment and 8 service availability and readiness assessment surveys. In 10 service provision assessment surveys, child consultations with health-care providers were observed, giving data on antibiotic use in 22 699 children. Antibiotics were classified as access, watch or reserve, according to the World Health Organization's AWaRe categories. The percentage of health-care facilities across countries with specific antibiotics available and the proportion of children receiving antibiotics for key clinical syndromes were estimated. FINDINGS: The surveys assessed the availability of 27 antibiotics (19 access, 7 watch, 1 unclassified). Co-trimoxazole and metronidazole were most widely available, being in stock at 89.5% (interquartile range, IQR: 11.6%) and 87.1% (IQR: 15.9%) of health facilities, respectively. In contrast, 17 other access and watch antibiotics were stocked, by fewer than a median of 50% of facilities. Of the 22 699 children observed, 60.1% (13 638) were prescribed antibiotics (mostly co-trimoxazole or amoxicillin). Children with respiratory conditions were most often prescribed antibiotics (76.1%; 8972/11 796) followed by undifferentiated fever (50.1%; 760/1518), diarrhoea (45.7%; 1293/2832) and malaria (30.3%; 352/1160). CONCLUSION: Routine health facility surveys provided a valuable data source on the availability and use of antibiotics in low- and middle-income countries. Many access antibiotics were unavailable in a majority of most health-care facilities.

Health workforce metrics pre- and post-2015: a stimulus to public policy and planning.

BACKGROUND: Evidence-based health workforce policies are essential to ensure the provision of high-quality health services and to support the attainment of universal health coverage (UHC). This paper describes the main characteristics of available health workforce data for 74 of the 75 countries identified under the 'Countdown to 2015' initiative as accounting for more than 95% of the world's maternal, newborn and child deaths. It also discusses best practices in the development of health workforce metrics post-2015. METHODS: Using available health workforce data from the Global Health Workforce Statistics database from the Global Health Observatory, we generated descriptive statistics to explore the current status, recent trends in the number of skilled health professionals (SHPs: physicians, nurses, midwives) per 10 000 population, and future requirements to achieve adequate levels of health care in the 74 countries. A rapid literature review was conducted to obtain an overview of the types of methods and the types of data sources used in human resources for health (HRH) studies. RESULTS: There are large intercountry and interregional differences in the density of SHPs to progress towards UHC in Countdown countries: a median of 10.2 per 10 000 population with range 1.6 to 142 per 10 000. Substantial efforts have been made in some countries to increase the availability of SHPs as shown by a positive average exponential growth rate (AEGR) in SHPs in 51% of Countdown countries for which there are data. Many of these countries will require large investments to achieve levels of workforce availability commensurate with UHC and the health-related sustainable development goals (SDGs). The availability, quality and comparability of global health workforce metrics remain limited. Most published workforce studies are descriptive, but more sophisticated needs-based workforce planning methods are being developed. CONCLUSIONS: There is a need for high-quality, comprehensive, interoperable sources of HRH data to support all policies towards UHC and the health-related SDGs. The recent WHO-led initiative of supporting countries in the development of National Health Workforce Accounts is a very promising move towards purposive health workforce metrics post-2015. Such data will allow more countries to apply the latest methods for health workforce planning.

Monitoring the implementation of the WHO Global Code of Practice on the International Recruitment of Health Personnel.

OBJECTIVE: To present the findings of the first round of monitoring of the global implementation of the WHO Global Code of Practice on the International Recruitment of Health Personnel ("the Code"), a voluntary code adopted in 2010 by all 193 Member States of the World Health Organization (WHO). METHODS: WHO requested that its Member States designate a national authority for facilitating information exchange on health personnel migration and the implementation of the Code. Each designated authority was then sent a cross-sectional survey with 15 questions on a range of topics pertaining to the 10 articles included in the Code. FINDINGS: A national authority was designated by 85 countries. Only 56 countries reported on the status of Code implementation. Of these, 37 had taken steps towards implementing the Code, primarily by engaging relevant stakeholders. In 90% of countries, migrant health professionals reportedly enjoy the same legal rights and responsibilities as domestically trained health personnel. In the context of the Code, cooperation in the area of health workforce development goes beyond migration-related issues. An international comparative information base on health workforce mobility is needed but can only be developed through a collaborative, multi-partnered approach. CONCLUSION: Reporting on the implementation of the Code has been suboptimal in all but one WHO region. Greater collaboration among state and non-state actors is needed to raise awareness of the Code and reinforce its relevance as a potent framework for policy dialogue on ways to address the health workforce crisis.

Worldwide implementation of the WHO Child Growth Standards.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the worldwide implementation of the WHO Child Growth Standards ('WHO standards'). DESIGN: A questionnaire on the adoption of the WHO standards was sent to health authorities. The questions concerned anthropometric indicators adopted, newly introduced indicators, age range, use of sex-specific charts, previously used references, classification system, activities undertaken to roll out the standards and reasons for non-adoption. SETTING: Worldwide. SUBJECTS: Two hundred and nineteen countries and territories. RESULTS: By April 2011, 125 countries had adopted the WHO standards, another twenty-five were considering their adoption and thirty had not adopted them. Preference for local references was the main reason for non-adoption. Weight-for-age was adopted almost universally, followed by length/height-for-age (104 countries) and weight-for-length/height (eighty-eight countries). Several countries (thirty-six) reported newly introducing BMI-for-age. Most countries opted for sex-specific charts and the Z-score classification. Many redesigned their child health records and updated recommendations on infant feeding, immunization and other health messages. About two-thirds reported incorporating the standards into pre-service training. Other activities ranged from incorporating the standards into computerized information systems, to providing supplies of anthropometric equipment and mobilizing resources for the standards' roll-out. CONCLUSIONS: Five years after their release, the WHO standards have been widely scrutinized and implemented. Countries have adopted and harmonized best practices in child growth assessment and established the breast-fed infant as the norm against which to assess compliance with children's right to achieve their full genetic growth potential.