How should we prioritise global surgery? A capabilities approach argument for the place of surgery within every health system.

In the rapidly evolving landscape of global health issues and policy, surgery has historically been sidelined due to concerns about high cost, complexity and other concerns including quantitatively less surgical disease burden in comparison to infectious disease or other health conditions. Now, in the context of pandemics, climate change, shrinking health budgets and other global health security concerns, the hard-won progress in raising the profile of surgical care is at risk, and a reconceptualisation is needed to maintain its position in global healthcare agendas. We challenge the long-standing ethical frameworks that underlie healthcare priority setting, namely cost-effectiveness analysis and human rights, that have contributed to surgery being sidelined for decades. They incompletely account for improvements to life quality and well-being that are possible through surgical healthcare systems. We argue for the Capabilities Approach as an alternative normative framework because it emphasises the moral importance of supporting every person's abilities to be and to do the things they value. Through this framework, we can produce a more comprehensive conception of healthcare that goes beyond biomedical health, and surgical healthcare would ultimately gain a higher priority in valuation of healthcare and non-healthcare interventions.

The Capability Approach and the WHO healthy ageing framework (for the UN Decade of Healthy Ageing).

This commentary discusses the WHO definition of health ageing in terms of functional abilities, and the problem definition and evidence-based public health response framework outlined in the 2015 WHO Report on Ageing and Health. After identifying the neglect of older people in health policy at national and global levels, some data are presented on the majority of COVID-19 deaths being older people. The discussion then focuses on the underlying ethical and analytical framework of functional abilities provided by the Capability Approach. The approach is presented as distinguishing between achievement and capability, the ethical significance of recognising both, and its inclusion of surrounding social conditions from local to global in assessing wellbeing of older people's functional abilities. Measurement of functional abilities, informed by the Capabilities Approach, is stated to be an enormous and crucial task in establishing a global baseline, and making progress in improving the health and wellbeing of older people.

From health inequalities to health justice in 50 years.

In the following discussion, we present a quick conceptual history of healthy equity and health justice, some plausible outcomes from the Covid-19 pandemic for the public's understanding of these concepts, and some recent and relevant learnings for realizing equity and justice that could be useful for dental public health and beyond.

Developing a global practice-based framework of person-centred care from primary data: a cross-national qualitative study with patients, caregivers and healthcare professionals.

INTRODUCTION: Person-centred care (PCC) is internationally recognised as a critical component of high-quality healthcare. However, PCC evolved in a few high-income countries and there are limited data exploring this concept across the vast majority of countries which are low- and middle-income. This study aimed to appraise and adapt a PCC model across three serious physical conditions in three middle-income countries and generate an evidence-based framework and recommendations for globally relevant PCC. METHODS: Cross-national, cross-sectional qualitative study. In depth, semistructured interviews conducted with: advanced cancer patients in Jordan (n=50), their caregivers (n=20) and healthcare professionals (HCPs) (n=20); chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients in South Africa (n=22), their caregivers (n=19) and HCPs (n=22); heart failure patients in Thailand (n=14), their caregivers (n=10) and HCPs (n=12). Data were analysed using framework analysis. Santana et al's PCC model (2018) and Giusti et al's systematic review (2020) were used to construct an a priori coding frame for deductive analysis, with additional inductive coding for coding that did not fit the frame. RESULTS: The findings both reveal specific practical actions that contribute towards delivering PCC and highlight new cross-national domains of person-centredness: interdependency and collectivism; bringing care into the home and community; equity and non-discrimination; addressing health and illness within the context of limited resources; and workforce well-being. CONCLUSION: The data suggest that PCC requires particular structural features of the healthcare system to be in place, such as professional education in PCC values and partnerships with community-based workers. These structures may better enable PCC processes, including tailored information sharing and providing genuine opportunities for patients to do the things that matter to them, such as making informed care decisions and sustaining social relationships. PCC must also accommodate a collectivist perspective and support the well-being of the workforce.

A systematic review of impact of person-centred interventions for serious physical illness in terms of outcomes and costs.

BACKGROUND: Person-centred care (PCC) is being internationally recognised as a critical attribute of high-quality healthcare. The International Alliance of Patients Organisations defines PCC as care that is focused and organised around people, rather than disease. Focusing on delivery, we aimed to review and evaluate the evidence from interventions that aimed to deliver PCC for people with serious physical illness and identify models of PCC interventions. METHODS: Systematic review of literature using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. We searched AMED, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Embase, Medline, PsycINFO, using the following key concepts: patient/person-centred care, family centred care, family based care, individualised care, holistic care, serious illness, chronic illness, long-term conditions from inception to April 2022. Due to heterogeneity of interventions and populations studied, narrative synthesis was conducted. Study quality was appraised using the Joanna Briggs checklist. RESULTS: We screened n=6156 papers. Seventy-two papers (reporting n=55 different studies) were retained in the review. Most of these studies (n=47) were randomised controlled trials. Our search yielded two main types of interventions: (1) studies with self-management components and (2) technology-based interventions. We synthesised findings across these two models:Self-management component: the interventions consisted of training of patients and/or caregivers or staff. Some studies reported that interventions had effect in reduction hospital admissions, improving quality of life and reducing costs of care.Technology-based interventions: consisted of mobile phone, mobile app, tablet/computer and video. Although some interventions showed improvements for self-efficacy, hospitalisations and length of stay, quality of life did not improve across most studies. DISCUSSION: PCC interventions using self-management have some effects in reducing costs of care and improving quality of life. Technology-based interventions improves self-efficacy but has no effect on quality of life. However, very few studies used self-management and technology approaches. Further work is needed to identify how self-management and technology approaches can be used to manage serious illness. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42018108302.

A living WHO guideline on drugs to prevent COVID-19

Clinical question What is the role of drugs in preventing covid-19? Why does this matter?There is widespread interest in whether drug interventions can be used for the prevention of covid-19, but there is uncertainty about which drugs, if any, are effective. The first version of this living guideline focuses on the evidence for hydroxychloroquine. Subsequent updates will cover other drugs being investigated for their role in the prevention of covid-19. The guideline development panel made a strong recommendation against the use of hydroxychloroquine for individuals who do not have covid-19 (high certainty). How this guideline was created This living guideline is from the World Health Organization (WHO) and provides up to date covid-19 guidance to inform policy and practice worldwide. Magic Evidence Ecosystem Foundation (MAGIC) provided methodological support. A living systematic review with network analysis informed the recommendations. An international guideline development panel of content experts, clinicians, patients, an ethicist and methodologists produced recommendations following standards for trustworthy guideline development using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Understanding the new recommendation The linked systematic review and network meta-analysis (6 trials and 6059 participants) found that hydroxychloroquine had a small or no effect on mortality and admission to hospital (high certainty evidence). There was a small or no effect on laboratory confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection (moderate certainty evidence) but probably increased adverse events leading to discontinuation (moderate certainty evidence). The panel judged that almost all people would not consider this drug worthwhile. In addition, the panel decided that contextual factors such as resources, feasibility, acceptability, and equity for countries and healthcare systems were unlikely to alter the recommendation. The panel considers that this drug is no longer a research priority and that resources should rather be oriented to evaluate other more promising drugs to prevent covid-19. Updates This is a living guideline. New recommendations will be published in this article and signposted by update notices to this guideline.

Contextual equipoise: a novel concept to inform ethical implications for implementation research in low-income and middle-income countries.

The call for universal health coverage requires the urgent implementation and scale-up of interventions that are known to be effective, in resource-poor settings. Achieving this objective requires high-quality implementation research (IR) that evaluates the complex phenomenon of the influence of context on the ability to effectively deliver evidence-based practice. Nevertheless, IR for global health is failing to apply a robust, theoretically driven approach, leading to ethical concerns associated with research that is not methodologically sound.Inappropriate methods are often used in IR to address and report on context. This may result in a lack in understanding of how to effectively adapt the intervention to the new setting and a lack of clarity in conceptualising whether there is sufficient evidence to generalise findings from previous IR to a new setting, or if a randomised controlled trial (RCT) is needed. Some of the ethical issues arising from this shortcoming include poor-quality research that may needlessly expose vulnerable participants to research that has not been adapted to suit local needs and priorities, and the inappropriate use of RCTs that denies participants in the control arm access to treatment that is effective within the local context.To address these concerns, we propose a complementary approach to clinical equipoise for IR, known as contextual equipoise We discuss challenges in the evaluation of context and also with assessing the certainty of evidence to justify an RCT. Finally, we describe methods that can be applied to improve the evaluation and reporting of context and to help understand if contextual equipoise can be justified or if significant adaptations are required. We hope our analysis offers helpful insight to better understand and ensure that the ethical principle of beneficence is upheld in the real-world contexts of IR in low-resource settings.

Health Research and Social Justice Philosophy.

Situating medical and scientific research within a framework or theory of social justice is long overdue. Attempting to extend principles of research ethics beyond the clinic and lab to other affected people or consequences tolerates or obfuscates injustice. While it must be done, the timescales, methodologies, and commitment to real-world impact are quite different in research ethics versus political philosophy.

The empirical evidence underpinning the concept and practice of person-centred care for serious illness: a systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Person-centred care has become internationally recognised as a critical attribute of high-quality healthcare. However, the concept has been criticised for being poorly theorised and operationalised. Serious illness is especially aligned with the need for person-centredness, usually necessitating involvement of significant others, management of clinical uncertainty, high-quality communication and joint decision-making to deliver care concordant with patient preferences. This review aimed to identify and appraise the empirical evidence underpinning conceptualisations of 'person-centredness' for serious illness. METHODS: Search strategy conducted in May 2020. Databases: CINAHL, Embase, PubMed, Ovid Global Health, MEDLINE and PsycINFO. Free text search terms related to (1) person-centredness, (2) serious illness and (3) concept/practice. Tabulation, textual description and narrative synthesis were performed, and quality appraisal conducted using QualSyst tools. Santana et al's person-centred care model (2018) was used to structure analysis. RESULTS: PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) flow data: n=12,446 studies screened by title/abstract, n=144 full articles assessed for eligibility, n=18 studies retained. All studies (n=18) are from high-income countries, and are largely of high quality (median score 0.82). The findings suggest that person-centred care encompasses the patient and family being respected, given complete information, involved in decision-making and supported in their physical, psychological, social and existential needs. The studies highlight the importance of involving and supporting family/friends, promoting continuation of normality and self-identity, and structuring service organisation to enable care continuity. CONCLUSION: Person-centred healthcare must value the social network of patients, promote quality of life and reform structurally to improve patients' experience interacting with the healthcare system. Staff must be supported to flexibly adapt skills, communication, routines or environments for individual patients. There remains a need for primary data investigating the meaning and practice of PCC in a greater diversity of diagnostic groups and settings, and a need to ground potential components of PCC within broader universal values and ethical theory.

A living WHO guideline on drugs for COVID-19

What is the role of drug interventions in the treatment of patients with covid-19? The latest version of this WHO living guidance focuses on remdesivir, following the 15 October 2020 preprint publication of results from the WHO SOLIDARITY trial. It contains a weak or conditional recommendation against the use of remdesivir in hospitalised patients with covid-19 The first version on this living guidance focused on corticosteroids. The strong recommendation for systemic corticosteroids in patients with severe and critical covid-19, and a weak or conditional recommendation against systemic corticosteroids in patients with non-severe covid-19 are unchanged.

Grounding the right to live in the community (CRPD Article 19) in the capabilities approach to social justice.

For advocates of the rights of persons with disabilities, particularly persons with mental disabilities, the human right to live in the community as an equal member is seen to be central and, often, even as the basis for all other human rights. Yet, despite its articulation in human rights law in the Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities (CRPD), foundational issues about the right remain undertheorized and unclear. This paper brings to bear the capabilities approach, a normative framework about human well-being, social development and social justice, to this central concern in disability rights, mental health ethics, and international human rights law: protecting and respecting a person's right to live in a community as an equal. We argue that this human and moral right is best conceptualized as a capability to live in the community as an equal member. The capabilities approach provides this capability with a strong ethical framework and conceptual resources to guide reasoning and its practical realization.

Prioritarian principles for digital health in low resource settings.

This theoretical paper argues for prioritarianism as an ethical underpinning for digital health in contexts of extreme disadvantage. In support of this claim, the paper develops three prioritarian principles for making ethical decisions for digital health programme design, grounded in the normative position that the greater the need (of the marginalised), the stronger the moral claim. The principles are positioned as an alternative view to the prevailing utilitarian approach to digital health, which the paper argues is not sufficient to address the needs of the worst off. As researchers of digital health, we must ensure that the most globally marginalised are not overlooked by overtly technocentric implementation practices. Consequently, the paper concludes by advocating for use of the three principles to support stronger critical reflection on the ethics involved in the design and implementation of digital health programmes.

Towards a Multi-Dimensional Index of Child Growth to Combat the Double Burden of Malnutrition.

BACKGROUND: There is growing awareness in the field of public health that combatting the double burden of malnutrition requires approaches that address its multi-dimensional origin, rather than focusing primarily on the biomedical domain. Current frameworks of malnutrition like the UNICEF conceptual framework, and the Lancet Series 2013 framework have been instrumental in understanding the determinants of malnutrition and developing appropriate interventions. However, these frameworks fail to explicitly address issues of agency, that is, about being able to pursue one's goal. The capability approach as originally developed by Amartya Sen includes agency in the causal chain. Summary and key Messages: In the past 5 years, the International Union of Nutritional Sciences Task Force "Towards a multi-dimensional index for child growth and development" has developed a capability framework for child growth, and conducted empirical research applying this framework. The working group discussed what would be needed to further develop the approach and explained the added value to international organisations and policy makers. We suggest developing an index of advantage that will be a proxy for a child's agency. We hypothesise that such an index will explain much of the variance in studying inequalities in child nutrition and thus call for action to improve this focal point.

Correction to: Are Quality-Adjusted Life Years a Good Proxy Measure of Individual Capabilities?

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0International License.