The emergence and regression of political priority for refugee integration into the Jordanian health system: an analysis using the Kingdon's multiple streams model.

BACKGROUND: The prolonged presence of Syrian refugees in Jordan has highlighted the need for sustainable health service delivery models for refugees. In 2012, the Jordanian government adopted a policy that granted Syrian refugees access, free of charge, to the national health system. However since 2012, successive policy revisions have limited refugee access. This paper seeks to understand factors that initially put refugee integration into the health system on the policy agenda, as well as how these same factors later affected commitment to sustain the policy. METHODS: This paper draws on data from a document review of 197 peer-reviewed and grey literature publications, a media analysis of newspaper articles retrieved from four officially recognized newspapers in Jordan, and 33 semi-structured key informant interviews. We used Kingdon's Multiple Streams Model - a well-established tool for analyzing policy adoption - to understand how political priority developed for integration of refugees into the health system. RESULTS: We find that several factors helped bring attention to the issue, namely concerns over infectious disease transmission to host communities, high rates of chronic conditions among the refugee population and the increasingly urban and dispersed nature of refugees. At the outset of the conflict, the national mood was receptive to refugees. Politicians and government officials quickly recognized the crisis as an opportunity to secure material and technical support from the international humanitarian community. At the same time, global pressures for integrating refugees into national health systems helped move the integration agenda forward in Jordan and the region more broadly. Since 2012, there were several modifications to the policy that signal profound changes in national views around the continued presence of Syrian refugees in the country, as well as reduced external financial support which has undermined the sustainability of the policy. CONCLUSION: This case study underscores the dynamic nature of policymaking and the challenge of sustaining government commitment to the right to health among refugees. Our analysis has important implications for advocates seeking to advance and maintain momentum for the integration of refugees into national health systems.

How integration of refugees into national health systems became a global priority: a qualitative policy analysis.

BACKGROUND: Despite a long history of political discourse around refugee integration, it wasn't until 2016 that this issue emerged as a global political priority. Limited research has examined the evolution of policies of global actors around health service provision to refugees and how refugee integration into health systems came onto the global agenda. This study seeks to fill this gap. METHODS: Drawing on a document review of 20 peer-reviewed articles, 46 global policies and reports, and 18 semi-structured interviews with actors representing various bilateral, multilateral and non-governmental organizations involved with refugee health policy and funding, we analyze factors that have shaped the global policy priority of integration. We use the Shiffman and Smith Policy Framework on determinants of political priority to organize our findings. RESULTS: Several important factors generated global priority for refugee integration into national health systems. Employing the above-mentioned framework, actor power increased due to network expansion through collaborations between humanitarian and development actors. Ideas took hold through the framing of integration as a human rights and responsibility sharing. While political context was influenced through several global movements, it was ultimately the influx of Syrian refugees into Europe and the increasing securitization of the refugee crisis that led to key policies, and critically, global funding to support integration within refugee hosting nations. Finally, issue characteristics, namely the magnitude of the global refugee crisis, its protractedness and the increasing urbanicity of refugee inflows, led integration to emerge as a manageable solution. CONCLUSION: The past decade has seen a substantial reframing of refugee integration, along with increased financing sources and increased collaboration, explains this shift towards their integration into health systems. However, despite the emergence of integration as a global political priority, the extent to which efforts around integration have translated into action at the national level remains uncertain.

Effectiveness of a multi-country implementation-focused network on quality of care: Delivery of interventions and processes for improved maternal, newborn and child health outcomes.

The Network for Improving Quality of Care for Maternal, Newborn and Child Health (QCN) aims to work through learning, action, leadership and accountability. We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of QCN in these four areas at the global level and in four QCN countries: Bangladesh, Ethiopia, Malawi and Uganda. This mixed method evaluation comprised 2-4 iterative rounds of data collection between 2019-2022, involving stakeholder interviews, hospital observations, QCN members survey, and document review. Qualitative data was analysed using a coding framework developed from underlying theories on network effectiveness, behaviour change, and QCN proposed theory of change. Survey data capturing respondents' perception of QCN was analysed with descriptive statistics. The QCN global level, led by the WHO secretariat, was effective in bringing together network countries' governments and global actors via providing online and in-person platforms for communication and learning. In-country, various interventions were delivered in 'learning districts', however often separately by different partners in different locations, and pandemic-disrupted. Governance structures for quality of care were set-up, some preceding QCN, and were found to be stronger and better (though often externally) resourced at national than local levels. Awareness of operational plans and network activities differed between countries, was lower at local than national levels, but increased from 2019 to 2022. Engagement with, and value of, QCN was perceived to be higher in Uganda and Bangladesh than in Malawi or Ethiopia. Capacity building efforts were implemented in all countries-yet often dependent on implementing partners and donors. QCN stakeholders agreed 15 core monitoring indicators though data collection was challenging, especially for indicators requiring new or parallel systems. Accountability initiatives remained nascent in 2022. Global and national leadership elements of QCN have been most effective to date, with action, learning and accountability more challenging, partner or donor dependent, remaining to be scaled-up, and pandemic-disrupted.

The Health Justice Policy Tracker: COVID-19 Policies To Advance Health Justice For Vulnerable Populations.

The rapid spread of COVID-19 throughout the world in early 2020 created unprecedented challenges for national governments. Policies developed during the early months of the pandemic, before the first mRNA vaccines were authorized for emergency use, provide a window into national governments' prioritization of populations that were particularly vulnerable. We developed the COVID-19 Health Justice Policy Tracker to capture and categorize these policies using a health justice lens. In this article we present the results of a preliminary analysis of the tracker data. The tracker focuses on policies for six population groups: children, the elderly, people with disabilities, migrant workers, incarcerated people, and people who were refugees or were seeking political asylum. It includes 610 policies, most targeting children and the elderly and providing financial support. National governments also prioritized measures such as policies to ensure access to mental health care and social services, digital and teleservices, continuity of children's education, and food security. The tracker provides a resource for researchers and policy makers seeking model language and tested policy approaches to advance health justice during future crises.

Influences on policy-formulation, decision-making, organisation and management for maternal, newborn and child health in Bangladesh, Ethiopia, Malawi and Uganda: The roles and legitimacy of a multi-country network.

The Network for Improving Quality of Care for Maternal, Newborn and Child Health (QCN) is intended to facilitate learning, action, leadership and accountability for improving quality of care in member countries. This requires legitimacy-a network's right to exert power within national contexts. This is reflected, for example, in a government's buy-in and perceived ownership of the work of the network. During 2019-2022 we conducted iterative rounds of stakeholder interviews, observations of meetings, document review, and hospital observations in Bangladesh, Ethiopia, Malawi, Uganda and at the global level. We developed a framework drawing on three models: Tallberg and Zurn which conceptualizes legitimacy of international organisations dependent on their features, the legitimation process and beliefs of audiences; Nasiritousi and Faber, which looks at legitimacy in terms of problem, purpose, procedure, and performance of institutions; Sanderink and Nasiritousi, to characterize networks in terms of political, normative and cognitive interactions. We used thematic analysis to characterize, compare and contrast institutional interactions in a cross-case synthesis to determine salient features. Political and normative interactions were favourable within and between countries and at global level since collective decisions, collaborative efforts, and commitment to QCN goals were observed at all levels. Sharing resources and common principles were not common between network countries, indicating limits of the network. Cognitive interactions-those related to information sharing and transfer of ideas-were more challenging, with the bi-directional transfer, synthesis and harmonization of concepts and methods, being largely absent among and within countries. These may be required for increasing government ownership of QCN work, the embeddedness of the network, and its legitimacy. While we find evidence supporting the legitimacy of QCN from the perspective of country governments, further work and time are required for governments to own and embed the work of QCN in routine care.

Global priority for the care of orphans and other vulnerable children: transcending problem definition challenges.

BACKGROUND: Tens of millions of children lack adequate care, many having been separated from or lost one or both parents. Despite the problem's severity and its impact on a child's lifelong health and wellbeing, the care of vulnerable children-which includes strengthening the care of children within families, preventing unnecessary family separation, and ensuring quality care alternatives when reunification with the biological parents is not possible or appropriate-is a low global priority. This analysis investigates factors shaping the inadequate global prioritization of the care of vulnerable children. Specifically, the analysis focuses on factors internal to the global policy community addressing children's care, including how they understand, govern, and communicate the problem. METHODS: Drawing on agenda setting scholarship, we triangulated among several sources of data, including 32 interviews with experts, as well as documents including peer-reviewed literature and organizational reports. We undertook a thematic analysis of the data, using these to create a historical narrative on efforts to address children's care, and specifically childcare reform. RESULTS: Divisive disagreements on the definition and legitimacy of deinstitutionalization-a care reform strategy that replaces institution-based care with family-based care-may be hindering priority for children's care. Multiple factors have shaped these disagreements: a contradictory evidence base on the scope of the problem and solutions, divergent experiences between former Soviet bloc and other countries, socio-cultural and legal challenges in introducing formal alternative care arrangements, commercial interests that perpetuate support for residential facilities, as well as the sometimes conflicting views of impacted children, families, and the disability community. These disagreements have led to considerable governance and positioning difficulties, which have complicated efforts to coordinate initiatives, precluded the emergence of leadership that proponents universally trust, hampered the engagement of potential allies, and challenged efforts to secure funding and convince policymakers to act. CONCLUSION: In order to potentially become a more potent force for advancing global priority, children's care proponents within international organizations, donor agencies, and non-governmental agencies working across countries will need to better manage their disagreements around deinstitutionalization as a care reform strategy.

Opportunities to sustain a multi-country quality of care network: Lessons on the actions of four countries Bangladesh, Ethiopia, Malawi, and Uganda.

The Quality of Care Network (QCN) is a global initiative that was established in 2017 under the leadership of WHO in 11 low-and- middle income countries to improve maternal, newborn, and child health. The vision was that the Quality of Care Network would be embedded within member countries and continued beyond the initial implementation period: that the Network would be sustained. This paper investigated the experience of actions taken to sustain QCN in four Network countries (Bangladesh, Ethiopia, Malawi, and Uganda) and reports on lessons learned. Multiple iterative rounds of data collection were conducted through qualitative interviews with global and national stakeholders, and non-participatory observation of health facilities and meetings. A total of 241 interviews, 42 facility and four meeting observations were carried out. We conducted a thematic analysis of all data using a framework approach that defined six critical actions that can be taken to promote sustainability. The analysis revealed that these critical actions were present with varying degrees in each of the four countries. Although vulnerabilities were observed, there was good evidence to support that actions were taken to institutionalize the innovation within the health system, to motivate micro-level actors, plan opportunities for reflection and adaptation from the outset, and to support strong government ownership. Two actions were largely absent and weakened confidence in future sustainability: managing financial uncertainties and fostering community ownership. Evidence from four countries suggested that the QCN model would not be sustained in its original format, largely because of financial vulnerability and insufficient time to embed the innovation at the sub-national level. But especially the efforts made to institutionalize the innovation in existing systems meant that some characteristics of QCN may be carried forward within broader government quality improvement initiatives.

Prioritizing rehabilitation in low- and middle-income country national health systems: a qualitative thematic synthesis and development of a policy framework.

BACKGROUND: There is a large and growing unmet need for rehabilitation - a diverse category of services that aim to improve functioning across the life course - particularly in low- and middle-income countries. Yet despite urgent calls to increase political commitment, many low- and middle-income country governments have dedicated little attention to expanding rehabilitation services. Existing policy scholarship explains how and why health issues reach the policy agenda and offers applicable evidence to advance access to physical, medical, psychosocial, and other types of rehabilitation services. Drawing from this scholarship and empirical data on rehabilitation, this paper proposes a policy framework to understand national-level prioritization of rehabilitation in low- and middle-income countries. METHODS: We conducted key informant interviews with rehabilitation stakeholders in 47 countries, complemented by a purposeful review of peer-reviewed and gray literature to achieve thematic saturation. We analyzed the data abductively using a thematic synthesis methodology. Rehabilitation-specific findings were triangulated with policy theory and empirical case studies on the prioritization of other health issues to develop the framework. RESULTS: The novel policy framework includes three components which shape the prioritization of rehabilitation on low- and middle-income countries' national government's health agendas. First, rehabilitation lacks a consistent problem definition, undermining the development of consensus-driven solutions which could advance the issue on policy agendas. Second, governance arrangements are fragmented within and across government ministries, between the government and its citizens, and across national and transnational actors engaged in rehabilitation service provision. Third, national legacies - particularly from civil conflict - and weaknesses in the existing health system influences both rehabilitation needs and implementation feasibility. CONCLUSIONS: This framework can support stakeholders in identifying the key components impeding prioritization for rehabilitation across different national contexts. This is a crucial step for ultimately better advancing the issue on national policy agendas and improving equity in access to rehabilitation services.

Why 'elevating country voice' is not decolonizing global health: A frame analysis of in-depth interviews.

Recent calls for global health decolonization suggest that addressing the problems of global health may require more than 'elevating country voice'. We employed a frame analysis of the diagnostic, prognostic, and motivational framings of both discourses and analyzed the implications of convergence or divergence of these frames for global health practice and scholarship. We used two major sources of data-a review of literature and in-depth interviews with actors in global health practice and shapers of discourse around elevating country voice and decolonizing global health. Using NVivo 12, a deductive analysis approach was applied to the literature and interview transcripts using diagnostic, prognostic and motivational framings as themes. We found that calls for elevating country voice consider suppressed low- and middle-income country (LMIC) voice in global health agenda-setting and lack of country ownership of health initiatives as major problems; advancing better LMIC representation in decision making positions, and local ownership of development initiatives as solutions. The rationale for action is greater aid impact. In contrast, calls for decolonizing global health characterize colonialityas the problem. Its prognostic framing, though still in a formative stage, includes greater acceptance of diversity in approaches to knowledge creation and health systems, and a structural transformation of global health governance. Its motivational framing is justice. Conceptually and in terms of possible outcomes, the frames underlying these discourses differ. Actors' origin and nature of involvement with global health work are markers of the frames they align with. In response to calls for country voice elevation, global health institutions working in LMICs may prioritize country representation in rooms near or where power resides, but this falls short of expectations of decolonizing global health advocates. Whether governments, organizations, and communities will sufficiently invest in public health to achieve decolonization remains unknown and will determine the future of the call for decolonization and global health practice at large.

Understanding resilience, self-reliance and increasing country voice: a clash of ideologies in global health.

BACKGROUND: 'Resilience', 'self-reliance' and 'increasing country voice' are widely used terms in global health. However, the terms are understood in diverse ways by various global health actors. We analyse how these terms are understood and why differences in understanding exist. METHODS: Drawing on scholarship concerning ideology, framing and power, we employ a case study of a USAID-sponsored suite of awards called MOMENTUM. Applying a meta-ethnographic approach, we triangulate data from peer-reviewed and grey literature, as well as 27 key informant interviews with actors at the forefront of shaping these discourses and those associated with MOMENTUM, working in development agencies, implementing organisations, low-income and middle-income country governments, and academia. RESULTS: The lack of common understanding of these three terms is in part a result of differences in two perspectives in global health-reformist and transformational-which are animated by fundamentally different ideologies. Reformists, reflecting neoliberal and liberal democratic ideologies, largely take a technocratic approach to understanding health problems and advance incremental solutions, working within existing global and local health systems to effect change. Transformationalists, reflecting threads of neo-Marxist ideology, see the problems as inherently political and seek to overhaul national and global systems and power relations. These ideologies shape differences in how actors define the problem, its solutions and attribute responsibility, resulting in nuanced differences among global health actors in their understanding of resilience, self-reliance and increasing country voice. CONCLUSIONS: Differences in how these terms are employed and framed are not just linguistic; the language that is used is reflective of underlying ideological differences among global health actors, with implications for the way programmes are designed and implemented, the knowledge that is produced and engagement with stakeholders. Laying these distinct ideologies bare may be crucial for managing actor differences and advancing more productive discussions and actions towards achieving global health equity.

Power dynamics and health initiative design as determinants of peacebuilding: a case study of the Syrian conflict.

Peace-through-health has emerged as a promising concept but with variable evidence of success. Cooptation of health initiatives in conflict is believed to be a major challenge undermining peacebuilding potential. We examine the role that existing power structures and health initiative characteristics play at various levels of a conflict in peacebuilding outcomes. Using the Syrian conflict as a case study, we assess healthcare initiatives' characteristics and their peacebuilding tendencies accounting for power dynamics at the (1) state citizen, (2) interbelligerents and (3) intercommunity conflict levels, drawing on the WHO's framework for health and peace initiatives. Healthcare interventions at state citizen and interbelligerent levels generally addressed combat-related and material-dependent health needs, relied on large-scale international funding and centralised governance structures, and bestowed credit to specific agencies with political implications. These characteristics made such initiatives prone to cooptation in conflict with limited peacebuilding capacity. Healthcare initiatives at the community level addressed more basic, service-dependent needs, had smaller budgets, relied on local organisations and distributed credit across stakeholders, making them less amenable to cooptation in the conflict with more propeace potential. A pilot peacebuilding health initiative designed to leverage these propeace attributes navigated the political environment, minimised cooptation and fostered community collaboration, resulting in peacebuilding potential. In summary, peacebuilding health initiatives are more likely to materialise at the community as compared with higher political levels. Further studies, accounting for conflict power structures, are needed to examine the effectiveness of such initiatives and identify methods that maximise their peacebuilding outcomes.

Factors shaping the global political priority of addressing elder abuse: a qualitative policy analysis.

Background: Globally, 1 in 6 people aged 60 years and older experience elder abuse in the community annually, with potentially severe physical and mental health, financial, and social consequences. Yet, elder abuse remains a low global priority. We aimed to identify the factors accounting for the low global political priority of elder abuse. Methods: We systematically searched relevant peer-reviewed literature and organisational reports in multiple databases and interviewed 26 key informants in the field of elder abuse. We used policy frameworks developed by previous research into the determinants of the priority of global health issues, and a qualitative methodology to thematically analyse the literature and interviews through triangulation of the data. Findings: The main factors identified were related to the nature of the issue (the inherent complexity of elder abuse, pervasive ageism, insufficient awareness and doubts about prevalence estimates, and the intractability of the issue), the policy environment (the restricted ability in the field of elder abuse to capitalise on policy windows and processes), and the capabilities of the proponents of prevention of elder abuse (disagreements over the nature of the problem and solutions, challenges in individual and organisational leadership, and an absence of alliances with other issues). Interpretation: Around 25 years ago, elder abuse started to register on the global agenda. Since then, the global priority for prevention of elder abuse has barely increased. This study identifies several inter-related factors that account for the issue's low priority and opportunities for overcoming these challenges. Chief among these opportunities is the UN Decade of Healthy Ageing 2021-2030, a unique 10-year-long policy window to increase the political priority of the prevention of elder abuse. Funding: World Health Organization.

Framing and the formation of global health priorities.

Health issues vary in the amount of attention and resources they receive from global health organisations and national governments. How issues are framed could shape differences in levels of priority. We reviewed scholarship on global health policy making to examine the role of framing in shaping global health priorities. The review provides evidence of the influence of three framing processes-securitisation, moralisation, and technification. Securitisation refers to an issue's framing as an existential threat, moralisation as an ethical imperative, and technification as a wise investment that science can solve. These framing processes concern more than how issues are portrayed publicly. They are socio-political processes, characterised by contestation among actors in civil society, government, international organisations, foundations, and research institutions. These actors deploy various forms of power to advance particular frames as a means of securing attention and resources for the issues that concern them. The ascription of an issue as a security concern, an ethical imperative, or a wise investment is historically contingent: it is not inevitable that any given issue will be framed in one or more of these ways. A health issue's inherent characteristics-such as the lethality of a pathogen that causes it-also shape these ascriptions, but do not fully determine them. Although commonly facing resistance, global health elites often determine which frames prevail, raising questions about the legitimacy of priority-setting processes. We draw on the review to offer ideas on how to make these processes fairer than they are at present, including a call for democratic representation even as necessary space is preserved for elite expertise.

The emergence of political priority for addressing child sexual abuse in the United Kingdom.

BACKGROUND: Child sexual abuse (CSA) is widespread. Few countries, however, prioritize the issue. The United Kingdom is an exception, ranked first in its response to the issue in a 2019 country comparison. In 2015, Prime Minister David Cameron designated the issue one of three national threats. Funding commitments and policies to address CSA followed. OBJECTIVE: To investigate how CSA emerged as a national political priority in the United Kingdom, and to identify insights for proponents seeking to advance priority for addressing the issue. PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING: Documents were analyzed and semi-structured interviews conducted with actors in the United Kingdom central to CSA advocacy, research, and/or programming, as well as with policymakers. METHODS: Drawing on the multiple streams public policy model, a thematic analysis was conducted on collected documents (n = 160) and 21 interview transcripts. RESULTS: Our analysis delineates three critical developments that led to national prioritization for addressing CSA. First, high-profile scandals and the re-framing of CSA survivors as deserving of support raised public awareness of the problem. Second, champions concerned with CSA developed evidence-based and politically-feasible solutions. Third, the Prime Minister's concern and other political developments opened a policy window. CONCLUSIONS: The case provides insights for proponents on generating political priority for addressing CSA. Proponents need to (1) ensure survivors are not seen as culpable but rather as deserving of support, (2) be ready with solutions and (3) cultivate high-level political support, so that when policy windows open they can jump to push the issue onto the national agenda.

Interrogating the World Bank's role in global health knowledge production, governance, and finance.

BACKGROUND: In the nearly half century since it began lending for population projects, the World Bank has become one of the largest financiers of global health projects and programs, a powerful voice in shaping health agendas in global governance spaces, and a mass producer of evidentiary knowledge for its preferred global health interventions. How can social scientists interrogate the role of the World Bank in shaping 'global health' in the current era? MAIN BODY: As a group of historians, social scientists, and public health officials with experience studying the effects of the institution's investment in health, we identify three challenges to this research. First, a future research agenda requires recognizing that the Bank is not a monolith, but rather has distinct inter-organizational groups that have shaped investment and discourse in complicated, and sometimes contradictory, ways. Second, we must consider how its influence on health policy and investment has changed significantly over time. Third, we must analyze its modes of engagement with other institutions within the global health landscape, and with the private sector. The unique relationships between Bank entities and countries that shape health policy, and the Bank's position as a center of research, permit it to have a formative influence on health economics as applied to international development. Addressing these challenges, we propose a future research agenda for the Bank's influence on global health through three overlapping objects of and domains for study: knowledge-based (shaping health policy knowledge), governance-based (shaping health governance), and finance-based (shaping health financing). We provide a review of case studies in each of these categories to inform this research agenda. CONCLUSIONS: As the COVID-19 pandemic continues to rage, and as state and non-state actors work to build more inclusive and robust health systems around the world, it is more important than ever to consider how to best document and analyze the impacts of Bank's financial and technical investments in the Global South.

A global priority: addressing violence against children.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the reasons for the lack of priority given to addressing violence against children, and to identify the challenges that proponents must address to improve prioritization of this issue. METHODS: We reviewed relevant literature to identify experts to interview. We carried out a thematic analysis of the literature and interview transcripts. We iteratively developed data coding on the many characteristics of violence against children, on the framing of the issue by proponents, and on the problem of governance - that is, how proponents organize themselves for collective action. FINDINGS: The analysis of our data sources reveals many obstacles for global prioritization of addressing violence against children, including the forms of violence considered, inadequate data to describe prevalence and a lack of evidence of the effectiveness of proposed solutions. There exists fundamental disagreement among proponents on the recently introduced frame of violence against children, including differences in the types of violence that should be prioritized and in the proposed solutions (e.g. prevention or remediation). On governance, competition between networks focused on specific forms of violence is hampering efforts to create strong governing institutions. CONCLUSION: Despite the complex challenges identified, proponents have made some progress in global prioritization of addressing violence against children. To improve this prioritization further, proponents must resolve framing tensions and strengthen governance mechanisms to promote shared goals, while ensuring that networks focused on particular forms of violence are able to maintain their distinct identities.

The rise and fall of global health issues: an arenas model applied to the COVID-19 pandemic shock.

BACKGROUND: The global health agenda is ill-defined as an analytical construct, complicating attempts by scholars and proponents to make claims about the agenda status of issues. We draw on Kingdon's definition of the agenda and Hilgartner and Bosk's public arenas model to conceptualize the global health agenda as those subjects or problems to which collectivities of actors operating nationally and globally are paying serious attention at any given time. We propose an arenas model for global health agenda setting and illustrate its potential utility by assessing priority indicators in five arenas, including international aid, pharmaceutical industry, scientific research, news media and civil society. We then apply the model to illustrate how the status of established (HIV/AIDS), emergent (diabetes) and rising (Alzheimer's disease) issues might be measured, compared and change in light of a pandemic shock (COVID-19). RESULTS: Coronavirus priority indicators rose precipitously in all five arenas in 2020, reflecting the kind of punctuation often caused by focusing events. The magnitude of change varied somewhat by arena, with the most pronounced shift in the global news media arena. Priority indicators for the other issues showed decreases of up to 21% and increases of up to 41% between 2019 and 2020, with increases suggesting that the agenda for global health issues expanded in some arenas in 2020- COVID-19 did not consistently displace priority for HIV/AIDS, diabetes or Alzheimer's disease, though it might have for other issues. CONCLUSIONS: We advance an arenas model as a novel means of addressing conceptual and measurement challenges that often undermine the validity of claims concerning the global health agenda status of problems and contributing causal factors. Our presentation of the model and illustrative analysis lays the groundwork for more systematic investigation of trends in global health agenda setting. Further specification of the model is needed to ensure accurate representation of vital national and transnational arenas and their interactions, applicability to a range of disease-specific, health systems, governance and policy issues, and sensitivity to subtler influences on global health agenda setting than pandemic shocks.