A shared agenda for gender and COVID-19 research: priorities based on broadening engagement in science.

While the acute and collective crisis from the pandemic is over, an estimated 2.5 million people died from COVID-19 in 2022, tens of millions suffer from long COVID and national economies still reel from multiple deprivations exacerbated by the pandemic. Sex and gender biases deeply mark these evolving experiences of COVID-19, impacting the quality of science and effectiveness of the responses deployed. To galvanise change by strengthening evidence-informed inclusion of sex and gender in COVID-19 practice, we led a virtual collaboration to articulate and prioritise gender and COVID-19 research needs. In addition to standard prioritisation surveys, feminist principles mindful of intersectional power dynamics underpinned how we reviewed research gaps, framed research questions and discussed emergent findings. The collaborative research agenda-setting exercise engaged over 900 participants primarily from low/middle-income countries in varied activities. The top 21 research questions included the importance of the needs of pregnant and lactating women and information systems that enable sex-disaggregated analysis. Gender and intersectional aspects to improving vaccine uptake, access to health services, measures against gender-based violence and integrating gender in health systems were also prioritised. These priorities are shaped by more inclusive ways of working, which are critical for global health as it faces further uncertainties in the aftermath of COVID-19. It remains imperative to address the basics in gender and health (sex-disaggregated data and sex-specific needs) and also advance transformational goals to advance gender justice across health and social policies, including those related to global research.

Institutional gender mainstreaming in health in UN Agencies: Promising strategies and ongoing challenges.

While the United Nations has long implemented strategies to tackle deep-rooted gender-based inequalities and discrimination in its programmes and policies, there is limited evidence on successful strategies to foster institutional structures and practices that promote gender equality or institutional gender mainstreaming. This paper explores and analyses the experience of institutional gender mainstreaming within UN Agencies working on global health, highlighting potential areas for learning. Overall, progress on institutional gender mainstreaming has been modest, with slow increases (if any) in investments in financial and human resources. The findings highlight the importance of well-established strategies, such as enforcing accountability, a robust gender architecture, and a cohesive capacity-building policy. Drawing on the experiences of gender experts, the paper shows that equally or more critical to the success of institutional gender mainstreaming were approaches such as leveraging strategic internal and external support and identifying strategic entry points for gender mainstreaming. There is considerable scope for strengthening gender mainstreaming within UN Agencies by reviewing and learning from UN system successes. In addition to learning from practice, the way forward lies in making visible and developing strategies to challenge embedded patriarchal organisational norms and systems.

Priority-setting to integrate sexual and reproductive health into universal health coverage: the case of Malaysia.

Despite increasing calls to integrate and prioritise sexual and reproductive health (SRH) services in universal health coverage (UHC) processes, several SRH services have remained a low priority in countries' UHC plans. This study aims to understand the priority-setting process of SRH interventions in the context of UHC, drawing on the Malaysian experience. A realist evaluation framework was adopted to examine the priority-setting process for three SRH tracer interventions: pregnancy, safe delivery and post-natal care; gender-based violence (GBV) services; and abortion-related services. The study used a qualitative multi-method design, including a literature and document review, and 20 in-depth key informant interviews, to explore the context-mechanism-outcome configurations that influenced and explained the priority-setting process. Four key advocacy strategies were identified for the effective prioritisation of SRH services, namely: (1) generating public demand and social support, (2) linking SRH issues with public agendas or international commitments, (3) engaging champions that are internal and external to the public health sector, and (4) reframing SRH issues as public health issues. While these strategies successfully triggered mechanisms, such as mutual understanding and increased buy-in of policymakers to prioritise SRH services, the level and extent of prioritisation was affected by both inner and outer contextual factors, in particular the socio-cultural and political context. Priority-setting is a political decision-making process that reflects societal values and norms. Efforts to integrate SRH services in UHC processes need both to make technical arguments and to find strategies to overcome barriers related to societal values (including certain socio-cultural and religious norms). This is particularly important for sensitive SRH services, like GBV and safe abortion, and for certain populations.

Prioritising gender, equity, and human rights in a GRADE-based framework to inform future research on self care for sexual and reproductive health and rights.

Introduction: In January 2019, the WHO reviewed evidence to develop global recommendations on self-care interventions for sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR). Identification of research gaps is part of the WHO guidelines development process, but reliable methods to do so are currently lacking with gender, equity and human rights (GER) infrequently prioritised. Methods: We expanded a prior framework based on Grading of Evidence, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) to include GER. The revised framework is applied systematically during the formulation of research questions and comprises: (1) assessment of the GRADE strength and quality rating of recommendations; (2) mandatory inclusion of research questions identified from a global stakeholder survey; and (3) selection of the GER standards and principles most relevant to the question through discussion and consensus. For each question, we articulated: (1) the most appropriate and robust study design; (2) an alternative pragmatic design if the ideal design was not feasible; and (3) the methodological challenges facing researchers through identifying potential biases. Results: We identified 39 research questions, 7 overarching research approaches and 13 discrete feasible study designs. Availability and accessibility were most frequently identified as the GER standards and principles to consider when planning studies, followed by privacy and confidentiality. Selection and detection bias were the primary methodological challenges across mixed methods, quantitative and qualitative studies. A lack of generalisability potentially limits the use of study results with non-participation in research potentially highest in more vulnerable populations. Conclusion: A framework based on GRADE that includes stakeholders' values and identification of core GER standards and principles provides a practical, systematic approach to identifying research questions from a WHO guideline. Clear guidance for future studies will contribute to an anticipated 'living guidelines' approach within WHO. Foregrounding GER as a separate component of the framework is innovative but further elaboration to operationalise appropriate indicators for SRHR self-care interventions is required.

Financing intersectoral action for health: a systematic review of co-financing models.

BACKGROUND: Addressing the social and other non-biological determinants of health largely depends on policies and programmes implemented outside the health sector. While there is growing evidence on the effectiveness of interventions that tackle these upstream determinants, the health sector does not typically prioritise them. From a health perspective, they may not be cost-effective because their non-health outcomes tend to be ignored. Non-health sectors may, in turn, undervalue interventions with important co-benefits for population health, given their focus on their own sectoral objectives. The societal value of win-win interventions with impacts on multiple development goals may, therefore, be under-valued and under-resourced, as a result of siloed resource allocation mechanisms. Pooling budgets across sectors could ensure the total multi-sectoral value of these interventions is captured, and sectors' shared goals are achieved more efficiently. Under such a co-financing approach, the cost of interventions with multi-sectoral outcomes would be shared by benefiting sectors, stimulating mutually beneficial cross-sectoral investments. Leveraging funding in other sectors could off-set flat-lining global development assistance for health and optimise public spending. Although there have been experiments with such cross-sectoral co-financing in several settings, there has been limited analysis to examine these models, their performance and their institutional feasibility. AIM: This study aimed to identify and characterise cross-sectoral co-financing models, their operational modalities, effectiveness, and institutional enablers and barriers. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of peer-reviewed and grey literature, following PRISMA guidelines. Studies were included if data was provided on interventions funded across two or more sectors, or multiple budgets. Extracted data were categorised and qualitatively coded. RESULTS: Of 2751 publications screened, 81 cases of co-financing were identified. Most were from high-income countries (93%), but six innovative models were found in Uganda, Brazil, El Salvador, Mozambique, Zambia, and Kenya that also included non-public and international payers. The highest number of cases involved the health (93%), social care (64%) and education (22%) sectors. Co-financing models were most often implemented with the intention of integrating services across sectors for defined target populations, although models were also found aimed at health promotion activities outside the health sector and cross-sectoral financial rewards. Interventions were either implemented and governed by a single sector or delivered in an integrated manner with cross-sectoral accountability. Resource constraints and political relevance emerged as key enablers of co-financing, while lack of clarity around the roles of different sectoral players and the objectives of the pooling were found to be barriers to success. Although rigorous impact or economic evaluations were scarce, positive process measures were frequently reported with some evidence suggesting co-financing contributed to improved outcomes. CONCLUSION: Co-financing remains in an exploratory phase, with diverse models having been implemented across sectors and settings. By incentivising intersectoral action on structural inequities and barriers to health interventions, such a novel financing mechanism could contribute to more effective engagement of non-health sectors; to efficiency gains in the financing of universal health coverage; and to simultaneously achieving health and other well-being related sustainable development goals.

Bank accounts for public primary health care facilities: Reflections on implementation from three districts in Tanzania.

Health care financing reforms are gaining popularity in a number of African countries to increase financial resources and promote financial autonomy, particularly at peripheral health care facilities. The paper explores the establishment of facility bank accounts at public primary facilities in Tanzania, with the intention of informing other countries embarking on such reform of the lessons learned from its implementation process. A case study approach was used, in which three district councils were purposively sampled. A total of 34 focus group discussions and 14 in-depth interviews were conducted. Thematic content analysis was used during analysis. The study revealed that the main use of bank account revenue was for the purchase of drugs, medical supplies, and minor facility needs. To ensure accountability for funds, health care facilities had to submit monthly reports of expenditures incurred. District managers also undertook quality control of facility infrastructure, which had been renovated using facility resources and purchases of facility needs. Facility autonomy in the use of revenue retained in their accounts would improve the availability of drugs and service delivery. The experienced process of opening facility bank accounts, managing, and using the funds highlights the need to strengthen the capacity of staff and health-governing committees.

An assessment of equity in the distribution of non-financial health care inputs across public primary health care facilities in Tanzania.

BACKGROUND: There is limited evidence on how health care inputs are distributed from the sub-national level down to health facilities and their potential influence on promoting health equity. To address this gap, this paper assesses equity in the distribution of health care inputs across public primary health facilities at the district level in Tanzania. METHODS: This is a quantitative assessment of equity in the distribution of health care inputs (staff, drugs, medical supplies and equipment) from district to facility level. The study was carried out in three districts (Kinondoni, Singida Rural and Manyoni district) in Tanzania. These districts were selected because they were implementing primary care reforms. We administered 729 exit surveys with patients seeking out-patient care; and health facility surveys at 69 facilities in early 2014. A total of seventeen indices of input availability were constructed with the collected data. The distribution of inputs was considered in relation to (i) the wealth of patients accessing the facilities, which was taken as a proxy for the wealth of the population in the catchment area; and (ii) facility distance from the district headquarters. We assessed equity in the distribution of inputs through the use of equity ratios, concentration indices and curves. RESULTS: We found a significant pro-rich distribution of clinical staff and nurses per 1000 population. Facilities with the poorest patients (most remote facilities) have fewer staff per 1000 population than those with the least poor patients (least remote facilities): 0.6 staff per 1000 among the poorest, compared to 0.9 among the least poor; 0.7 staff per 1000 among the most remote facilities compared to 0.9 among the least remote. The negative concentration index for support staff suggests a pro-poor distribution of this cadre but the 45 degree dominated the concentration curve. The distribution of vaccines, antibiotics, anti-diarrhoeal, anti-malarials and medical supplies was approximately proportional (non dominance), whereas the distribution of oxytocics, anti-retroviral therapy (ART) and anti-hypertensive drugs was pro-rich, with the 45 degree line dominating the concentration curve for ART. CONCLUSION: This study has shown there are inequities in the distribution of health care inputs across public primary care facilities. This highlights the need to ensure a better coordinated and equitable distribution of inputs through regular monitoring of the availability of health care inputs and strengthening of reporting systems.

Cost-Effectiveness Thresholds in Global Health: Taking a Multisectoral Perspective.

Good health is a function of a range of biological, environmental, behavioral, and social factors. The consumption of quality health care services is therefore only a part of how good health is produced. Although few would argue with this, the economic framework used to allocate resources to optimize population health is applied in a way that constrains the analyst and the decision maker to health care services. This approach risks missing two critical issues: 1) multiple sectors contribute to health gain and 2) the goods and services produced by the health sector can have multiple benefits besides health. We illustrate how present cost-effectiveness thresholds could result in health losses, particularly when considering health-producing interventions in other sectors or public health interventions with multisectoral outcomes. We then propose a potentially more optimal second best approach, the so-called cofinancing approach, in which the health payer could redistribute part of its budget to other sectors, where specific nonhealth interventions achieved a health gain more efficiently than the health sector's marginal productivity (opportunity cost). Likewise, other sectors would determine how much to contribute toward such an intervention, given the current marginal productivity of their budgets. Further research is certainly required to test and validate different measurement approaches and to assess the efficiency gains from cofinancing after deducting the transaction costs that would come with such cross-sectoral coordination.

Financing the HIV response in sub-Saharan Africa from domestic sources: Moving beyond a normative approach.

Despite optimism about the end of AIDS, the HIV response requires sustained financing into the future. Given flat-lining international aid, countries' willingness and ability to shoulder this responsibility will be central to access to HIV care. This paper examines the potential to expand public HIV financing, and the extent to which governments have been utilising these options. We develop and compare a normative and empirical approach. First, with data from the 14 most HIV-affected countries in sub-Saharan Africa, we estimate the potential increase in public HIV financing from economic growth, increased general revenue generation, greater health and HIV prioritisation, as well as from more unconventional and innovative sources, including borrowing, health-earmarked resources, efficiency gains, and complementary non-HIV investments. We then adopt a novel empirical approach to explore which options are most likely to translate into tangible public financing, based on cross-sectional econometric analyses of 92 low and middle-income country governments' most recent HIV expenditure between 2008 and 2012. If all fiscal sources were simultaneously leveraged in the next five years, public HIV spending in these 14 countries could increase from US$3.04 to US$10.84 billion per year. This could cover resource requirements in South Africa, Botswana, Namibia, Kenya, Nigeria, Ethiopia, and Swaziland, but not even half the requirements in the remaining countries. Our empirical results suggest that, in reality, even less fiscal space could be created (a reduction by over half) and only from more conventional sources. International financing may also crowd in public financing. Most HIV-affected lower-income countries in sub-Saharan Africa will not be able to generate sufficient public resources for HIV in the medium-term, even if they take very bold measures. Considerable international financing will be required for years to come. HIV funders will need to engage with broader health and development financing to improve government revenue-raising and efficiencies.

The cost and cost-effectiveness of gender-responsive interventions for HIV: a systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Harmful gender norms and inequalities, including gender-based violence, are important structural barriers to effective HIV programming. We assess current evidence on what forms of gender-responsive intervention may enhance the effectiveness of basic HIV programmes and be cost-effective. METHODS: Effective intervention models were identified from an existing evidence review ("what works for women"). Based on this, we conducted a systematic review of published and grey literature on the costs and cost-effectiveness of each intervention identified. Where possible, we compared incremental costs and effects. RESULTS: Our effectiveness search identified 36 publications, reporting on the effectiveness of 22 HIV interventions with a gender focus. Of these, 11 types of interventions had a corresponding/comparable costing or cost-effectiveness study. The findings suggest that couple counselling for the prevention of vertical transmission; gender empowerment, community mobilization, and female condom promotion for female sex workers; expanded female condom distribution for the general population; and post-exposure HIV prophylaxis for rape survivors are cost-effective HIV interventions. Cash transfers for schoolgirls and school support for orphan girls may also be cost-effective in generalized epidemic settings. CONCLUSIONS: There has been limited research to assess the cost-effectiveness of interventions that seek to address women's needs and transform harmful gender norms. Our review identified several promising, cost-effective interventions that merit consideration as critical enablers in HIV investment approaches, as well as highlight that broader gender and development interventions can have positive HIV impacts. By no means an exhaustive package, these represent a first set of interventions to be included in the investment framework.

Is there scope for cost savings and efficiency gains in HIV services? A systematic review of the evidence from low- and middle-income countries.

OBJECTIVE: To synthesize the data available--on costs, efficiency and economies of scale and scope--for the six basic programmes of the UNAIDS Strategic Investment Framework, to inform those planning the scale-up of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) services in low- and middle-income countries. METHODS: The relevant peer-reviewed and "grey" literature from low- and middle-income countries was systematically reviewed. Search and analysis followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines. FINDINGS: Of the 82 empirical costing and efficiency studies identified, nine provided data on economies of scale. Scale explained much of the variation in the costs of several HIV services, particularly those of targeted HIV prevention for key populations and HIV testing and treatment. There is some evidence of economies of scope from integrating HIV counselling and testing services with several other services. Cost efficiency may also be improved by reducing input prices, task shifting and improving client adherence. CONCLUSION: HIV programmes need to optimize the scale of service provision to achieve efficiency. Interventions that may enhance the potential for economies of scale include intensifying demand-creation activities, reducing the costs for service users, expanding existing programmes rather than creating new structures, and reducing attrition of existing service users. Models for integrated service delivery--which is, potentially, more efficient than the implementation of stand-alone services--should be investigated further. Further experimental evidence is required to understand how to best achieve efficiency gains in HIV programmes and assess the cost-effectiveness of each service-delivery model.

Health benefits, costs, and cost-effectiveness of earlier eligibility for adult antiretroviral therapy and expanded treatment coverage: a combined analysis of 12 mathematical models.

BACKGROUND: New WHO guidelines recommend initiation of antiretroviral therapy for HIV-positive adults with CD4 counts of 500 cells per µL or less, a higher threshold than was previously recommended. Country decision makers have to decide whether to further expand eligibility for antiretroviral therapy accordingly. We aimed to assess the potential health benefits, costs, and cost-effectiveness of various eligibility criteria for adult antiretroviral therapy and expanded treatment coverage. METHODS: We used several independent mathematical models in four settings-South Africa (generalised epidemic, moderate antiretroviral therapy coverage), Zambia (generalised epidemic, high antiretroviral therapy coverage), India (concentrated epidemic, moderate antiretroviral therapy coverage), and Vietnam (concentrated epidemic, low antiretroviral therapy coverage)-to assess the potential health benefits, costs, and cost-effectiveness of various eligibility criteria for adult antiretroviral therapy under scenarios of existing and expanded treatment coverage, with results projected over 20 years. Analyses assessed the extension of eligibility to include individuals with CD4 counts of 500 cells per µL or less, or all HIV-positive adults, compared with the previous (2010) recommendation of initiation with CD4 counts of 350 cells per µL or less. We assessed costs from a health-system perspective, and calculated the incremental cost (in US$) per disability-adjusted life-year (DALY) averted to compare competing strategies. Strategies were regarded very cost effective if the cost per DALY averted was less than the country's 2012 per-head gross domestic product (GDP; South Africa: $8040; Zambia: $1425; India: $1489; Vietnam: $1407) and cost effective if the cost per DALY averted was less than three times the per-head GDP. FINDINGS: In South Africa, the cost per DALY averted of extending eligibility for antiretroviral therapy to adult patients with CD4 counts of 500 cells per µL or less ranged from $237 to $1691 per DALY averted compared with 2010 guidelines. In Zambia, expansion of eligibility to adults with a CD4 count threshold of 500 cells per µL ranged from improving health outcomes while reducing costs (ie, dominating the previous guidelines) to $749 per DALY averted. In both countries results were similar for expansion of eligibility to all HIV-positive adults, and when substantially expanded treatment coverage was assumed. Expansion of treatment coverage in the general population was also cost effective. In India, the cost for extending eligibility to all HIV-positive adults ranged from $131 to $241 per DALY averted, and in Vietnam extending eligibility to patients with CD4 counts of 500 cells per µL or less cost $290 per DALY averted. In concentrated epidemics, expanded access for key populations was also cost effective. INTERPRETATION: Our estimates suggest that earlier eligibility for antiretroviral therapy is very cost effective in low-income and middle-income settings, although these estimates should be revisited when more data become available. Scaling up antiretroviral therapy through earlier eligibility and expanded coverage should be considered alongside other high-priority health interventions competing for health budgets. FUNDING: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, WHO.