Beyond MPOWER: a systematic review of population-level factors that affect European tobacco smoking rates.

BACKGROUND: Population-level factors within and beyond the scope of the World Health Organization's (WHO) MPOWER policy package have significant impacts on smoking rates. However, no synthesis of the existing evidence exists. This systematic review identifies population-level factors that influence cigarette smoking rates in European countries. METHODS: We searched the ProQuest database collection for original, peer-reviewed quantitative evaluations that investigated the effects of population-level exposures on smoking rates in European countries. Of the 3122 studies screened, 62 were ultimately included in the review. A standardized data extraction form was used to identify key characteristics of each study including publication year, years evaluated, countries studied, population characteristics, study design, data sources, analytic methods, exposure studied, relevant covariates and effects on tobacco smoking outcomes. RESULTS: One hundred and fifty-five population-level exposures were extracted from the 62 studies included in the review, 99 of which were related to WHO MPOWER measures. An additional 56 exposures fell into eight policy realms: economic crises, education policy, macro-economic factors, non-MPOWER tobacco regulations, population welfare, public policy, sales to minors and unemployment rates. About one-half of the MPOWER exposures affected smoking rates (55/99) and did so in an overwhelmingly positive way (55/55). Over three-quarters of the non-MPOWER exposures were associated with statistically significant changes in smoking outcomes (43/56), with about two-thirds of these exposures leading to a decrease in smoking (29/43). CONCLUSIONS: Population-level factors that fall outside of the WHO's MPOWER measures are an understudied research area. The impacts of these factors on tobacco control should be considered by policymakers.

Exploring Models for an International Legal Agreement on the Global Antimicrobial Commons: Lessons from Climate Agreements.

An international legal agreement governing the global antimicrobial commons would represent the strongest commitment mechanism for achieving collective action on antimicrobial resistance (AMR). Since AMR has important similarities to climate change-both are common pool resource challenges that require massive, long-term political commitments-the first article in this special issue draws lessons from various climate agreements that could be applicable for developing a grand bargain on AMR. We consider the similarities and differences between the Paris Climate Agreement and current governance structures for AMR, and identify the merits and challenges associated with different international forums for developing a long-term international agreement on AMR. To be effective, fair, and feasible, an enduring legal agreement on AMR will require a combination of universal, differentiated, and individualized requirements, nationally determined contributions that are regularly reviewed and ratcheted up in level of ambition, a regular independent scientific stocktake to support evidence informed policymaking, and a concrete global goal to rally support.

Governing the Global Antimicrobial Commons: Introduction to Special Issue.

Antimicrobial resistance is one of the greatest public health crises of our time. The natural biological process that causes microbes to become resistant to antimicrobial drugs presents a complex social challenge requiring more effective and sustainable management of the global antimicrobial commons-the common pool of effective antimicrobials. This special issue of Health Care Analysis explores the potential of two legal approaches-one long-term and one short-term-for managing the antimicrobial commons. The first article explores the lessons for antimicrobial resistance that can be learned from recent climate change agreements, and the second article explores how existing international laws can be adapted to better support global action in the short-term.

Making Use of Existing International Legal Mechanisms to Manage the Global Antimicrobial Commons: Identifying Legal Hooks and Institutional Mandates.

Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is an urgent threat to global public health and development. Mitigating this threat requires substantial short-term action on key AMR priorities. While international legal agreements are the strongest mechanism for ensuring collaboration among countries, negotiating new international agreements can be a slow process. In the second article in this special issue, we consider whether harnessing existing international legal agreements offers an opportunity to increase collective action on AMR goals in the short-term. We highlight ten AMR priorities and several strategies for achieving these goals using existing "legal hooks" that draw on elements of international environmental, trade and health laws governing related matters that could be used as they exist or revised to include AMR. We also consider the institutional mandates of international authorities to highlight areas where additional steps could be taken on AMR without constitutional changes. Overall, we identify 37 possible mechanisms to strengthen AMR governance using the International Health Regulations, the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures, the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade, the International Convention on the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System, and the Basel, Rotterdam, and Stockholm conventions. Although we identify many shorter-term opportunities for addressing AMR using existing legal hooks, none of these options are capable of comprehensively addressing all global governance challenges related to AMR, such that they should be pursued simultaneously with longer-term approaches including a dedicated international legal agreement on AMR.

Governing evidence use in the nutrition policy process: evidence and lessons from the 2020 Canada food guide.

Nutrition guideline development is traditionally seen as a mechanism by which evidence is used to inform policy decisions. However, applying evidence in policy is a decidedly complex and politically embedded process, with no single universally agreed-upon body of evidence on which to base decisions, and multiple social concerns to address. Rather than simply calling for "evidence-based policy," an alternative is to look at the governing features of the evidence use system and reflect on what constitutes improved evidence use from a range of explicitly identified normative concerns. This study evaluated the use of evidence within the Canada Food Guide policy process by applying concepts of the "good governance of evidence" - an approach that incorporates multiple normative principles of scientific and democratic best practice to consider the structure and functioning of evidence advisory systems. The findings indicated that institutionalizing a process for evidence use grounded in democratic and scientific principles can improve evidence use in nutrition policy making.

A Pandemic Instrument Can Start Turning Collective Problems into Collective Solutions by Governing the Common-Pool Resource of Antimicrobial Effectiveness.

To address the complex challenge of global antimicrobial resistance (AMR), a pandemic treaty should include mechanisms that 1) equitably address the access gap for antimicrobials, diagnostic technologies, and alternative therapies; 2) equitably conserve antimicrobials to sustain effectiveness and access across time and space; 3) equitably finance the investment, discovery, development, and distribution of new technologies; and 4) equitably finance and establish greater upstream and midstream infection prevention measures globally. Biodiversity, climate, and nuclear governance offer lessons for addressing these challenges.

Adopting a Global AMR Target within the Pandemic Instrument Will Act as a Catalyst for Action.

Ensuring that life-saving antimicrobials remain available as effective treatment options in the face of rapidly rising levels of antimicrobial resistance will require a massive and coordinated global effort. Setting a collective direction for progress is the first step towards aligning global efforts on AMR. This process would be greatly accelerated by adopting a unifying global target - a well-defined global target that unites all countries and sectors. The proposed pandemic instrument - with its focus on prevention, preparedness and response - represents an ideal opportunity to develop and adopt a unifying global target that catalyzes global action on AMR. We propose three key characteristics of a unifying global target for AMR that - if embedded within the pandemic preparedness instrument - could rally public support, funding, and political commitment commensurate with the scale of the AMR challenge.

A Pandemic Instrument can Optimize the Regime Complex for AMR by Striking a Balance between Centralization and Decentralization.

Global antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is currently governed by a decentralized regime complex composed of multiple institutions with overlapping and sometimes conflicting principles, norms, rules, and procedures. Such a decentralized regime complex provides certain advantages and disadvantages when compared to a centralized regime. A pandemic instrument can optimize the regime complex for AMR by leveraging the strengths of both centralization and decentralization. Existing climate treaties under the UNFCCC offer lessons for achieving this hybrid approach.

A virus unites the world while national border closures divide it: Epidemiologic, legal, and political analysis on border closures during COVID-19.

This article critically examines the use of national border closures at the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic. After explaining why targeted border closures generally do not work and how they violated international law at the time, we examine the unprecedented case of total border closures. Positing that since the current instruments and institutions of global health governance did not anticipate this phenomenon, the legality of total border closures rests on less certain grounds. Then, after asking why nearly every government implemented some form of border closure in March 2020 if neither science nor law provided adequate motivation for their use, we conclude that in the face of a global health emergency, border closures represent an opportunity for political leaders to show determined action, redirect blame to other jurisdictions, and reinforce nationalism. We proceed to argue that both targeted and total border closures have profound legal, epidemiological, and political significance as performances that contradict global realities while undermining notions of global solidarity. Such political theatre means that citizens must weigh these consequences against any perceived benefits of border closures as they would any other politically driven government action, and contest and challenge them appropriately. Citizens must not unduly defer to scientists or lawyers on early COVID-19 border closures because these were primarily political-not scientific or legal-decisions. In this vein, we conclude with some guiding political considerations for scrutinizing government decisions to close borders and observations for the future of global health cooperation during infectious disease outbreaks.

A Global Pandemic Treaty Must Address Antimicrobial Resistance.

Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is one of the defining global health threats of our time, but no international legal instrument currently offers the framework and mechanisms needed to address it. Fortunately, the actions needed to address AMR have considerable overlap with the actions needed to confront other pandemic threats.

Bridging the commitment-compliance gap in global health politics: Lessons from international relations for the global action plan on antimicrobial resistance.

In 2015, 196 countries boldly committed to address global antimicrobial resistance (AMR). Now, five years later, progress reports suggest the implementation of AMR activities is vastly below what was initially promised. The challenge of overcoming the 'commitment-compliance gap' is not unique to AMR and is common in other areas of international politics. Global health policymakers can therefore learn from theories of international relations and experience in other sectors. We reviewed international relations scholarship to generate five hypotheses for why states might comply or not comply with their global commitments. We then conducted a public policy analysis of three past international agreements on biological diversity, climate change, and nuclear weapons to test these hypotheses and identify lessons for encouraging country compliance with global health agreements, with specific application to global AMR policies. To bridge the commitment-compliance gap, international leaders should: (1) frame incentives to maximise interests for action; (2) pursue enforcement mechanisms to induce state behaviour; (3) emphasise building a culture of trust by providing mutual assurance for action; (4) include mechanisms for managing poor performers; and (5) find opportunities for continual social learning. Agreements should be designed with flexibility, data sharing, and dispute settlement mechanisms and provide financial and technical assistance to states with less capacity to deliver.