Prioritizing Global Public Health Investments for COVID-19 Response in Real Time: Results from a Delphi Exercise.

In the first months of the COVID-19 pandemic, there was a lack of guidance on how to channel the unprecedented amount of health financing toward the pandemic response. We employed a multistep, interactive Delphi process to reach consensus on a "menu" of priority COVID-19 response interventions. In all, 27 health security experts-representing national governments, bilateral and multilateral organizations, academia, technical agencies, and nongovernmental organizations-participated in the exercise. The experts rated 11 technical investment areas and 37 interventions on a 5-point scale in terms of their importance to COVID-19 response. Initial findings were discussed at a virtual meeting where experts suggested modifications. A group of 19 experts then rated a revised list of 11 technical areas and 39 interventions. Consensus was defined as at least 80% of experts agreeing on the importance of a technical area or intervention; stability of scores across the rounds was identified using Wilcoxon matched-pairs and unpaired signed rank tests. Between the initial and final menu, 3 technical areas and 7 interventions were slightly modified, 3 interventions were added, and 1 intervention was removed. Consensus was reached on all 11 technical areas and 35 of the final 39 interventions, and between 34 and 37 interventions were stable across rounds depending on the test used. In this exercise, the health security experts agreed that COVID-19 response financing should prioritize interventions that enhance a country's capacity to test, trace, and treat high-risk populations. Simultaneously, supportive systems (eg, risk communication, community engagement, public health infrastructure, information systems, policy and coordination, workforce capacity, other social protections) should be developed to ensure that nonpharmaceutical and medical interventions can maximize the effectiveness of these systems.

Evaluation of a community-based organization's intervention to reduce the incidence of sexually transmitted diseases: a randomized, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The study objectives were to determine whether a community-based organization's intensive counseling intervention would reduce sexually transmitted disease (STD) acquisition among high-risk STD clinic patients and to determine whether a low-cost trial could be conducted in a community-based setting with passive follow-up. METHODS: Participants were randomly assigned to routine counseling or intensive counseling consisting of three 1-hour sessions. We reviewed clinic records to determine 1-year cumulative incidence of STD. RESULTS: From September 1994 through December 1995, we enrolled 581 high-risk black men. Among the intervention group, 38% did not attend any intervention session; 38% attended all three. The 1-year cumulative incidence of STD did not differ significantly between the intervention (16%) and control groups (12%) (P = 0.20). CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that the intensive counseling did not reduce STD acquisition. We encountered problems in conducting this low-cost trial, making results difficult to interpret Future trials should schedule follow-up STD assessments and will likely need more staff.