Who is "anti-science"?

Objectives: "Anti-science" accusations are common in medicine and public health, sometimes to discredit scientists who hold opposing views. However, there is no such thing as "one science". Epistemology recognizes that any "science" is sociologically embedded, and therefore contextual and intersubjective. In this paper, we reflect on how "science" needs to adopt various perspectives to give a comprehensive and nuanced understanding of a phenomenon. Study design: Opinion paper. Methods: Based on a targeted literature survey, we first clarify the known limits of traditional scientific methods and then reflect on how the scientific reporting about Covid-19 mRNA vaccines has evolved. Results: The first reports of the Covid-19 mRNA vaccines randomised controlled trial results showed impressive efficacy. Nevertheless, an abundant literature has since depicted a far more nuanced picture of the effectiveness and safety of those vaccines over the medium-term. We organise them around five themes: (i) differentiating between relative and absolute reduction; (ii) taking account of time in reporting effectiveness; (iii) taking account of all outcomes, including adverse effects; (iv) stratifying effectiveness and considering other decision criteria (efficiency, equity, and acceptance); (v) changing the outcome of concern and assessing vaccines' effectiveness on mortality. Conclusions: Science offers a wide range of perspectives on a given study object. Only the process of deliberation amongst scientists and other stakeholders can result in accepted new knowledge useful to support decision-making. Unfortunately, by trying to reduce "science" to simple messages set in stone, scientists can become the worse enemies of science.

Mental health interventions for individuals with serious mental illness in the criminal legal system: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Globally, individuals with mental illness get in contact with the law at a greater rate than the general population. The goal of this review was to identify and describe: (1) effectiveness of mental health interventions for individuals with serious mental illness (SMI) who have criminal legal involvement; (2) additional outcomes targeted by these interventions; (3) settings/contexts where interventions were delivered; and (4) barriers and facilitating factors for implementing these interventions. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted to summarize the mental health treatment literature for individuals with serious mental illness with criminal legal involvement (i.e., bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, major depressive disorder). Searches were conducted using PsychINFO, Embase, ProQuest, PubMed, and Web of Science. Articles were eligible if they were intervention studies among criminal legal involved populations with a mental health primary outcome and provided description of the intervention. RESULTS: A total of 13 eligible studies were identified. Tested interventions were categorized as cognitive/behavioral, community-based, interpersonal (IPT), psychoeducational, or court-based. Studies that used IPT-based interventions reported clinically significant improvements in mental health symptoms and were also feasible and acceptable. Other interventions demonstrated positive trends favoring the mental health outcomes but did not show statistically and clinically significant changes. All studies reported treatment outcomes, with only 8 studies reporting both treatment and implementation outcomes. CONCLUSION: Our findings highlight a need for more mental health research in this population. Studies with randomized design, larger sample size and studies that utilize non-clinicians are needed.

Challenges in international health financing and implications for the new pandemic fund.

BACKGROUND: The failures of the international COVID-19 response highlighted key gaps in pandemic preparedness and response (PPR). The G20 and WHO have called for additional funding of $10.5 billion per year to adequately strengthen the global PPR architecture. In response to these calls, in 2022 the World Bank announced the launch of a new Financial Intermediary Fund (The Pandemic Fund) to catalyse this additional funding. However, there is considerable unclarity regarding the governance makeup and financial modalities of the Pandemic Fund, and divergence of opinion about whether the Fund has been successfully designed to respond to key challenges in global health financing. METHODS/RESULTS: The article outlines eight challenges associated with global health financing instruments and development aid for health within the global health literature. These include misaligned aid allocation; accountability; multistakeholder representation and participation; country ownership; donor coherency and fragmentation; transparency; power dynamics, and; anti-corruption. Using available information about the Pandemic Fund, the article positions the Pandemic Fund against these challenges to determine in what ways the financing instrument recognizes, addresses, partially addresses, or ignores them. The assessment argues that although the Pandemic Fund has adopted a few measures to recognise and address some of the challenges, overall, the Pandemic Fund has unclear policies in response to most of the challenges while leaving many unaddressed. CONCLUSION: It remains unclear how the Pandemic Fund is explicitly addressing challenges widely recognized in the global health financing literature. Moreover, there is evidence that the Pandemic Fund might be exacerbating these global financing challenges, thus raising questions about its potential efficacy, suitability, and chances of success. In response, this article offers four sets of policy recommendations for how the Pandemic Fund and the PPR financing architecture might respond more effectively to the identified challenges.

The Dynamics of Power Flow From the Global Health Financing Comment on "Power Dynamics Among Health Professionals in Nigeria: A Case Study of the Global Fund Policy Process".

This article agrees with Lassa et al that biomedical paradigms and medical professionals are a dominating force within the policy dynamics of the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria (GFATM) and that there needs to be greater community involvement in how global health initiatives (GHIs) are adopted, designed, implemented and evaluated. However, we argue that many of the conditions identified are entrenched and perpetuated by how GHIs are financed and the financing modalities employed in Development Aid for Health (DAH), particularly in low resource settings. As a result, the dynamics of power not only flow from traditionally entrenched epistemic authorities but are disproportionally sustained by global health financing modalities that favour particular GHIs over others. As we argue, these DAH modalities can exert forms of power with problematic effects on policy-making.

COVAX - Time to reconsider the strategy and its target.

COVAX, the international initiative supporting COVID-19 vaccination campaigns globally, is budgeted to be the costliest public health initiative in low- and middle-income countries, with over 16 billion US dollars already committed. While some claim that the target of vaccinating 70% of people worldwide is justified on equity grounds, we argue that this rationale is wrong for two reasons. First, mass COVID-19 vaccination campaigns do not meet standard public health requirements for clear expected benefit, based on costs, disease burden and intervention effectiveness. Second, it constitutes a diversion of resources from more cost-effective and impactful public health programmes, thus reducing health equity. We conclude that the COVAX initiative warrants urgent review.

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.

Taking Systems Thinking to the Global Level: Using the WHO Building Blocks to Describe and Appraise the Global Health System in Relation to COVID-19.

Adequately preparing for and containing global shocks, such as COVID-19, is a key challenge facing health systems globally. COVID-19 highlights that health systems are multilevel systems, a continuum from local to global. Goals and monitoring indicators have been key to strengthening national health systems but are missing at the supranational level. A framework to strengthen the global system-the global health actors and the governance, finance, and delivery arrangements within which they operate-is urgently needed. In this article, we illustrate how the World Health Organization Building Blocks framework, which has been used to monitor the performance of national health systems, can be applied to describe and appraise the global health system and its response to COVID-19, and identify potential reforms. Key weaknesses in the global response included: fragmented and voluntary financing; non-transparent pricing of medicines and supplies, poor quality standards, and inequities in procurement and distribution; and weak leadership and governance. We also identify positive achievements and identify potential reforms of the global health system for greater resilience to future shocks. We discuss the limitations of the Building Blocks framework and future research directions and reflect on political economy challenges to reform.

Who is paid in pay-for-performance? Inequalities in the distribution of financial bonuses amongst health centres in Zimbabwe.

Although pay-for-performance (P4P) schemes have been implemented across low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), little is known about their distributional consequences. A key concern is that financial bonuses are primarily captured by providers who are already better able to perform (for example, those in wealthier areas), P4P could exacerbate existing inequalities within the health system. We examine inequalities in the distribution of pay-outs in Zimbabwe's national P4P scheme (2014-2016) using quantitative data on bonus payments and facility characteristics and findings from a thematic policy review and 28 semi-structured interviews with stakeholders at all system levels. We found that in Zimbabwe, facilities with better baseline access to guidelines, more staff, higher consultation volumes and wealthier and less remote target populations earned significantly higher P4P bonuses throughout the programme. For instance, facilities that were 1 SD above the mean in terms of access to guidelines, earned 90 USD more per quarter than those that were 1 SD below the mean. Differences in bonus pay-outs for facilities that were 1 SD above and below the mean in terms of the number of staff and consultation volumes are even more pronounced at 348 USD and 445 USD per quarter. Similarly, facilities with villages in the poorest wealth quintile in their vicinity earned less than all others-and 752 USD less per quarter than those serving villages in the richest quintile. Qualitative data confirm these findings. Respondents identified facility baseline structural quality, leadership, catchment population size and remoteness as affecting performance in the scheme. Unequal distribution of P4P pay-outs was identified as having negative consequences on staff retention, absenteeism and motivation. Based on our findings and previous work, we provide some guidance to policymakers on how to design more equitable P4P schemes.

Surfing Corona waves - instead of breaking them: Rethinking the role of natural immunity in COVID-19 policy.

In the first two years of the pandemic, COVID-19 response policies have aimed to break Corona waves through non-pharmaceutical interventions and mass vaccination. However, for long-term strategies to be effective and efficient, and to avoid massive disruption and social harms, it is crucial to introduce the role of natural immunity in our thinking about COVID-19  (or future "Disease-X") control and prevention. We argue that any Corona or similar virus control policy must appropriately balance five key elements simultaneously: balancing the various fundamental interests of the nation, as well as the various interventions within the health sector; tailoring the prevention measures and treatments to individual needs; limiting social interaction restrictions; and balancing the role of vaccinations against the role of naturally induced immunity. Given the high infectivity of SARS-CoV-2 and its differential impact on population segments, we examine this last element in more detail and argue that an important aspect of 'living with the virus' will be to better understand the role of naturally induced immunity in our overall COVID-19 policy response. In our eyes, a policy approach that factors natural immunity should be considered for persons without major comorbidities and those having 'encountered' the antigen in the past.

Viewing the global health system as a complex adaptive system - implications for research and practice.

The global health system (GHS) is ill-equipped to deal with the increasing number of transnational challenges. The GHS needs reform to enhance global resilience to future risks to health. In this article we argue that the starting point for any reform must be conceptualizing and studying the GHS as a complex adaptive system (CAS) with a large and escalating number of interconnected global health actors that learn and adapt their behaviours in response to each other and changes in their environment. The GHS can be viewed as a multi-scalar, nested health system comprising all national health systems together with the global health architecture, in which behaviours are influenced by cross-scale interactions. However, current methods cannot adequately capture the dynamism or complexity of the GHS or quantify the effects of challenges or potential reform options. We provide an overview of a selection of systems thinking and complexity science methods available to researchers and highlight the numerous policy insights their application could yield.   We also discuss the challenges for researchers of applying these methods and for policy makers of digesting and acting upon them. We encourage application of a CAS approach to GHS research and policy making to help bolster resilience to future risks that transcend national boundaries and system scales.

The danger of the single storyline obfuscating the complexities of managing SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19.

Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie showed how a single story is limited and thereby distorts the true nature of an issue. During this COVID-19 pandemic there have been, at least, three consecutive single stories-the 'lethal threat' story, followed by the 'economic threat' story, and finally the 'vaccine miracle' story. None of these single stories can convincingly and permanently capture the dynamics of the pandemic. This is because countries experienced different morbidity and mortality patterns, different socioeconomic disadvantage, age and vulnerability of population, timing and level of lockdown with economic variability, and, despite heavy promotion, vaccines were beset with a significant and variable degree of hesitancy. Lack of transparency, coherence and consistency of pandemic management-arising from holding on to single storylines-showed the global deficiency of public health policy and planning, an underfunding of (public) health and social services, and a growing distrust in governments' ability to manage crises effectively. Indeed, the global management has increased already large inequities, and little has been learnt to address the growing crises of more infectious and potentially more lethal virus mutations. Holding onto single stories prevents the necessary learnings to understand and manage the complexities of 'wicked' problems, whereas listening to the many stories provides insights and pathways to do so effectively as well as efficiently.

Stressful life events among incarcerated women and men: Association with depression, loneliness, hopelessness, and suicidality.

BACKGROUND: Justice-involved populations report a higher than average number of pre-incarceration stressful life events. However, few studies have described stressful life events which occur during incarceration, explored gender differences in these events, or evaluated the effect of these events on well-being. METHOD: This study draws from a sample of male and female adults incarcerated in 6 prison facilities across two states (n = 160) to identify the number and type of stressful life events they experienced during incarceration, gender differences in stressful events, and the relationship between stressful life events and markers of well-being (i.e., depression, hopelessness, loneliness, suicidality). We also examined whether perceived social support would buffer the relationship between stressful events and well-being outcomes. RESULTS: Participants on average reported experiencing 4 stressful life events during their current incarceration, the most common being relocation to another cell and being made fun of/insulted by someone in the prison. There were few gender differences in types of events experienced. Regression analyses showed that stressful life events were associated with more loneliness, as well as suicidality, but only when participants had low perceived social support. CONCLUSIONS: Stressful life events, and drawing on social support networks to cope with stress, should be addressed in the context of correctional treatments to reduce suicide risk during incarceration.

COVID-19: an 'extraterrestrial' disease?

BACKGROUND: Since the beginning of the pandemic, COVID-19 has been regarded as an exceptional disease. Control measures have exclusively focused on 'the virus', while failing to account for other biological and social factors that determine severe forms of the disease. AIM: We argue that although COVID-19 was initially considered a new challenge, justifying extraordinary response measures, this situation has changed - and so should our response. MAIN ARGUMENTS: We now know that COVID-19 shares many features of common infectious respiratory diseases, and can now ascertain that SARS-CoV-2 has not suddenly presented new problems. Instead, it has exposed and exacerbated existing problems in health systems and the underlying health of the population. COVID-19 is evidently not an 'extraterrestrial' disease. It is a complex zoonotic disease, and it needs to be managed as such, following long-proven principles of medicine and public health. CONCLUSION: A complex disease cannot be solved through a simple, magic-bullet cure or vaccine. The heterogeneity of population profiles susceptible to developing a severe form of COVID-19 suggests the need to adopt varying, targeted measures that are able to address risk profiles in an appropriate way. The critical role of comorbidities in disease severity calls for short-term, virus-targeted interventions to be complemented with medium-term policies aimed at reducing the burden of comorbidities, as well as mitigating the risk of transition from infection to disease. Strategies required include upstream prevention, early treatment, and consolidation of the health system.

Can Results-Based Financing improve health outcomes in resource poor settings? Evidence from Zimbabwe.

Result Based Financing (RBF) has been implemented in health systems across low and middle-income countries (LMICs), with the objective of improving population health. Most evaluations of RBF schemes have focused on average programme effects for incentivised services. There is limited evidence on the potential effect of RBF on health outcomes, as well as on the heterogeneous effects across socio-economic groups and time periods. This study analyses the effect of Zimbabwe's national RBF scheme on neonatal, infant and under five mortality, using Demographic and Health Survey data from 2005, 2010 and 2015. We use a difference in differences design, which exploits the staggered roll-out of the scheme across 60 districts. We examine average programme effects and perform sub-group analyses to assess differences between socio-economic groups. We find that RBF reduced under-five mortality by two percentage points overall, but that this decrease was only significant for children of mothers with above median wealth (2.7 percentage points) and education (2.1 percentage points). RBF increased institutional delivery by seven percentage points - with a statistically significant effect for poorer socio-economic groups and least educated. We also find that RBF reduced c-section rates by three percentage points. We find no detectable effect of RBF on other incentivised services. When considering programme effects over time, we find that effects were only observed during the second phase of the programme (March 2012) with the exception of c-sections, which only reduced in the longer term. Further research is needed to examine whether these findings can be generalised to other settings.

Women Garment Workers Face Huge Inequities in Global Supply Chain Factories Made Worse by COVID-19.

Women make up the large majority of workers in global supply chains, especially factories in the apparel supply chain. These workers face significant inequalities in wages, workplace hazards, and a special burden of gender-based violence and harassment. These "normal" conditions have been compounded by the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, which has exacerbated long-standing structural inequities. Decades of well-financed "corporate social responsibility" programs have failed because they do not address the underlying causes of illegal and abusive working conditions. New initiatives in the past half-decade offer promise in putting the needs and rights of workers front and center. Occupational health and safety professionals can assist in the global effort to improve working and social conditions, and respect for the rights and dignity of women workers, through advocacy and action on the job, in their professional associations, and in society at large.

A realist review to assess for whom, under what conditions and how pay for performance programmes work in low- and middle-income countries.

Pay for performance (P4P) programmes are popular health system-focused interventions aiming to improve health outcomes in low-and middle-income countries (LMICs). This realist review aims to understand how, why and under what circumstance P4P works in LMICs.We systematically searched peer-reviewed and grey literature databases, and examined the mechanisms underpinning P4P effects on: utilisation of services, patient satisfaction, provider productivity and broader health system, and contextual factors moderating these. This evidence was then used to construct a causal loop diagram.We included 112 records (19 grey literature; 93 peer-reviewed articles) assessing P4P schemes in 36 countries. Although we found mixed evidence of P4P's effects on identified outcomes, common pathways to improved outcomes include: community outreach; adherence to clinical guidelines, patient-provider interactions, patient trust, facility improvements, access to drugs and equipment, facility autonomy, and lower user fees. Contextual factors shaping the system response to P4P include: degree of facility autonomy, efficiency of banking, role of user charges in financing public services; staffing levels; staff training and motivation, quality of facility infrastructure and community social norms. Programme design features supporting or impeding health system effects of P4P included: scope of incentivised indicators, fairness and reach of incentives, timely payments and a supportive, robust verification system that does not overburden staff. Facility bonuses are a key element of P4P, but rely on provider autonomy for maximum effect. If health system inputs are vastly underperforming pre-P4P, they are unlikely to improve only due to P4P. This is the first realist review describing how and why P4P initiatives work (or fail) in different LMIC contexts by exploring the underlying mechanisms and contextual and programme design moderators. Future studies should systematically examine health system pathways to outcomes for P4P and other health system strengthening initiatives, and offer more understanding of how programme design shapes mechanisms and effects.