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.

Economic Aspects of Delivering Primary Care Services: An Evidence Synthesis to Inform Policy and Research Priorities.

Policy Points The 2018 Declaration of Astana reemphasized the importance of primary health care and its role in achieving universal health coverage. While there is a large amount of literature on the economic aspects of delivering primary care services, there is a need for more comprehensive overviews of this evidence. In this article, we offer such an overview. Evidence suggests that there are several strategies involving coverage, financing, service delivery, and governance arrangements which can, if implemented, have positive economic impacts on the delivery of primary care services. These include arrangements such as worker task-shifting and telemedicine. The implementation of any such arrangements, based on positive economic evidence, should carefully account for potential impacts on overall health care access and quality. There are many opportunities for further research, with notable gaps in evidence on the impacts of increasing primary care funding or the overall supply of primary care services. CONTEXT: The 2018 Declaration of Astana reemphasized the importance of primary health care and its role in achieving universal health coverage. To strengthen primary health care, policymakers need guidance on how to allocate resources in a manner that maximizes its economic benefits. METHODS: We collated and synthesized published systematic reviews of evidence on the economic aspects of different models of delivering primary care services. Building on previous efforts, we adapted existing taxonomies of primary care components to classify our results according to four categories: coverage, financing, service delivery, and governance. FINDINGS: We identified and classified 109 reviews that met our inclusion criteria according to our taxonomy of primary care components: coverage, financing, service delivery, and governance arrangements. A significant body of evidence suggests that several specific primary care arrangements, such as health workers' task shifting and telemedicine, can have positive economic impacts (such as lower overall health care costs). Notably absent were reviews on the impact of increasing primary care funding or the overall supply of primary care services. CONCLUSIONS: There is a great opportunity for further research to systematically examine the broader economic impacts of investing in primary care services. Despite progress over the last decade, significant evidence gaps on the economic implications of different models of primary care services remain, which could help inform the basis of future research efforts.

An introduction to economic studies, health emergencies, and COVID-19.

The COVID-19 pandemic has created widespread harm and disruption. Countries have implemented unprecedented measures to protect the lives and livelihoods of their inhabitants. The scope and composition of these responses are shaped, in part, by research and analysis about the estimated economic impacts of the COVID-19 Pandemic and proposed responses to it. This analysis outlines basic features and principles involved in economic studies, specifically economic impact studies and economic evaluations, which have formed a significant part of the ever-increasing evidence base about COVID-19. This analysis introduces economic studies in this context, highlighting what they can do, their limitations, and key steps involved in conducting them. It highlights examples of economic analysis focused on COVID-19 and on health emergencies and disasters more broadly. Knowing how economic studies are conducted, and their limitations, will help introduce how their findings can be a useful, usable, and used part of efforts to tackle this global health crisis.

Investing in health R&D: where we are, what limits us, and how to make progress in Africa.

Global research and development (R&D) pipelines for diseases that disproportionately affect African countries appear to be inadequate, with governments struggling to prioritise investment in R&D. This article provides insights into the sources of investment in health science research, available research capacity and level of research output in Africa. The African region comprises 15% of the world's population, yet only accounted for 1.1% of global investments in R&D in 2016. There were substantial disparities within the continent, with Egypt, Nigeria and South Africa contributing 65.7% of the total R&D spending. In most countries of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, the largest source of R&D funding is the private sector. R&D in Africa is mainly funded by the public sector, with significant proportions of financing in many countries coming from international funding. Challenges that limit private sector investment include unstable political environments, poor governance and corruption. Evidence suggests various research output and research capacity limitations in Africa when considering a global context. Metrics that reflect this include university rankings, number of researchers, number of publications, clinical trials networks and pharmaceutical manufacturing capacity. Within the continent there are substantial regional disparities. Incentivising investment is crucial to foster current and future research output and research capacity. This paper outlines some of the many commendable initiatives under way. Innovative and collaborative financing mechanisms can stimulate further investment. Given the vast inequalities across Africa in R&D, strategies need to reflect the different capacities of countries to address this disparity.

Knowing What We Know - Reflections on the Development of Technical Guidance for Loss Data for the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction.

INTRODUCTION: To report on activities aligned with the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030, national governments will use the Sendai Monitor platform to track progress using a series of indicators that inform seven Global Targets originally agreed in 2015. In February 2017, the UN General Assembly adopted a set of 38 agreed indicators based on work led by an open-ended intergovernmental expert working group (OIEWG) on indicators and terminology relating to disaster risk reduction. In January 2018 the United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction released technical guidance documents in advance of the launch of the Sendai Monitor in March 2018. METHODS: This paper discusses several challenges to recording and reporting on loss data under the Sendai Framework. Additional insights to elaborate on discussion build upon commentary and examples raised during a workshop held on developing loss data that was hosted by the United Nations Office of Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR), the Integrated Research on Disaster Risk (IRDR) programme, and Public Health England (PHE) from February 15-17 2017 at the Royal Society in London, United Kingdom. The meeting's purpose was to refine technical guidance notes concerning Global Targets A, B, C, and D, which had been drafted in coordination with the work of the OIEWG. The workshop was attended by representatives from UN Agencies, UN Member States, international scientific bodies, academic bodies, the government of the United Kingdom and the private sector. RESULTS: Global Targets A, B, C and D of the Sendai Framework have common and specific complexities which require acknowledgement and support in recording, reporting and using disaster loss data. Discussions during the February 2017 loss data workshop highlighted a number of complexities and the need for common standards and principles for loss data. Individual target complexities include attribution of health impacts, assessing impacts, consistently calculating economic losses and measuring disruption to critical infrastructure. DISCUSSION: Transparent monitoring is critical to ensure political will, financial efforts and effective evidence support the global shift towards more sustainable development. Data involves common challenges which can undermine accuracy and understanding of reporting across the frameworks that outline the United Nations' 2030 Agenda. Disaster loss data adds further challenges which require support and innovation to ensure stakeholders across sectors in all sectors have appropriate technical guidance that can support useful loss data management processes. The February 2017 workshop highlighted systemic challenges with working with loss data and highlighted several pertinent pathways to progress on the breadth and reliability of disaster loss data across different settings.

Yes Sir, no Sir, not much difference Sir.

OBJECTIVE: To assess whether making the sender's knighthood explicit in a series of letters would have any detectable effect on the response. DESIGN: A random sequence was generated by flipping a coin to determine whether a letter would have 'Sir Iain Chalmers' or 'Iain Chalmers' typed under the signature. This sequence was prepared independently of the preparation of an alphabetic list of the intended recipients and was then used to determine which letter would be sent. The allocation could not be influenced by prior knowledge of the recipient. Two batches of letters were sent. SETTING: Medical royal colleges and associated faculties, and postgraduate medical and dental schools in the UK. PARTICIPANTS: Presidents and deans of medical royal colleges and deans of postgraduate medical and dental schools in the UK. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Rates of response and the mean number of days between the posting of the original letter and the date on the response. RESULTS: No differences between the groups were detected in the response rates: 91% and 90% for 'Sir Iain Chalmers' and 'Iain Chalmers' (relative rate for response of 1.01, 95%CI 0.83-1.23, P = 0.92), or in the mean number of days to response ('Sir': 32 days; 'no Sir': 33 days). CONCLUSIONS: This finding is consistent with a systematic review of responses to postal surveys, in which the effect of the status of the signatory was investigated. Combining our result with the two trials that are most comparable to our study, in which letters from professors were compared with letters from students, gives a relative response rate of 1.00 (95% CI 0.91-1.10, P = 0.99). There is, therefore, no evidence from the existing randomized experiments that the status of the signatory has any impact on the likelihood or promptness of response-even if the status was conferred by the British monarch.

How useful are Cochrane reviews in identifying research needs?

OBJECTIVES: To determine the extent to which reports of Cochrane reviews recommend the need for further research and, if so, the extent to which they make suggestions regarding that research. METHODS: We examined all 2535 reviews in Issue 4, 2005 of The Cochrane Library. Each review was categorized on the basis of whether a suggestion was included about specific interventions, participants, or outcome measures that should be included in future research. We also identified the frequency with which reviews conclude that no more research is needed or feasible, noted the need for further systematic reviewing, and refered to a relevant ongoing or planned study. We also report the number of studies listed in the 'Ongoing Studies' section in each review. RESULTS: Only 3.2% of reviews suggested explicitly that no more research is needed or feasible. In 82.0% of reviews, suggestions were made as to the specific interventions that need evaluating, in 30.2% the appropriate participants were suggested, and in 51.9% outcome measures were suggested. Suggestions for all three domains were made in 16.9% of the reviews. While 11.6% did not include a specific suggestion about any of these domains, 21.2% of reviews mention a relevant ongoing or planned study in one or both of the 'Implications for Research' and the 'Ongoing Studies' sections. CONCLUSIONS: Most Cochrane reviews identify residual uncertainty and are a rich source of suggestions for further health-care research.