National COVID-19 preparedness and response plans: a global review from the perspective of services for maternal, newborn, child and adolescent health and older people.

INTRODUCTION: Infectious disease outbreaks have historically led to widespread disruptions in routine essential health services. Disruptions due to COVID-19 responses led to excess deaths, including among women and children. This review builds on earlier reviews of essential health services in national COVID-19 response and preparedness plans, focusing specifically on maternal, newborn, child, adolescent and ageing health (MNCAAH) in the context of renewed global emphasis on monitoring, recovering and strengthening these services. METHODS: Using Google searches, we identified publicly available COVID-19 response and preparedness plans authored by a national government body or Public Health Institute from any country, territory and/or area, published between January 2020 and December 2022. We assessed whether each plan considered maintenance of MNCAAH services with related activities, costing or monitoring plans, and whether these considerations were integrated into the national incident management system for COVID-19. RESULTS: We identified plans from 110 countries, representing 56% of our sample, in 10 languages. Most plans came from low-income and middle-income countries. Three quarters of dated documents were published between February and April 2020. 22% of plans referenced the impact of COVID-19 on MNCAAH, but only 13% included a planned activity for monitoring or mitigating this impact and less than 5% included relevant indicators, costing or integration of services in the incident management system. CONCLUSION: We propose that unless content specifically related to the services and needs of these populations is integrated, these services will suffer in a future disruptive event. The COVID-19 response demonstrated the need for an interdisciplinary response to address the unforeseen impacts that arose, yet plans continue to have a narrow focus and a generic approach which may be limiting.

Multisectoral action towards sustainable development goal 3.d and building health systems resilience during and beyond COVID-19: Findings from an INTOSAI development initiative and World Health Organization collaboration.

This article is part of the Research Topic 'Health Systems Recovery in the Context of COVID-19 and Protracted Conflict'. As the world faces global health crises such as pandemics, epidemics, climate change and evolving disease burdens and population demographics, building strong and resilient public health systems is of critical importance. The need for an integrated approach to building health system resilience; the widening of inequalities; and fears of vulnerable populations being left behind are critical issues that require Supreme Audit Institutions (SAIs) enquiry as independent public oversight bodies. Each country has a Supreme Audit Institution with a remit to audit public funds as an effective, accountable, and inclusive institution. Government audits are key components of effective public financial management and Good Governance. SAIs contribute to the quality of government engagement and better state-society relations through their work. As SAIs provide independent external oversight and contribute to follow up and review of national targets linked to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in their respective countries, they can play an important role in national recovery efforts. WHO and INTOSAI Development Initiative (IDI) have been collaborating in facilitating SAIs' audits of strong and resilient national public health systems linked to the national target of SDG 3.d in 40 countries across Africa, Americas, Asia and Oceania between 2021 and 2022. This paper aims to convey key lessons learned from the joint multisectoral collaboration for facilitating the 3.d audits that can contribute to building health systems resilience in ongoing recovery efforts. The collaboration included facilitation of the audits through professional education and audit support using a health systems resilience framework. The 3.d audits are performance audits and follow IDI's SDG Audit Model (ISAM). Following the ISAM implies that the SAI should focus on a whole-of-government approach, policy coherence and integration, and assess both government efforts at 'leaving no one behind' and multi-stakeholder engagement in implementing the chosen national SDG target linked to 3.d. WHO's Health Systems Resilience team has supported IDI and SAIs by delivering training sessions and reviewing working papers and draft reports of the SAIs from a health systems resilience perspective. IDI has provided the technical expertise on performance audits through its technical team and through in-kind contributions from mentors from many SAIs in the regions participating in the audit. In the 3.d audit, SAIs can ask how governments are acting to enhance capacity in some or all of the following, depending on their own national context and risk: forecasting, preventing and preparing for public health emergencies (PHEs) and threatsadapting, absorbing and responding to PHEs and threatsmaintaining essential health services in all contexts (including during emergencies/crises). The audits are expected to highlight current capacities of health systems resilience; the extent to which a whole-of-government approach and policy coherence have been utilised; and government efforts related to multistakeholder engagement and leaving no one behind in building health systems resilience related to progressing towards achieving the national target linked to 3.d by 2030. An overall positive achievement noted was that undertaking a complex health audit in the middle of a pandemic is possible and can contribute to building health systems resilience and recovery efforts. In their review of audit plans, draft summaries, and other work by the SAIs, both WHO and IDI have observed that SAIs have used the training and supplementary materials and applied various parts of it in their audits. This collaboration also demonstrates key considerations needed for successful partnership across multisectoral partners at global, regional and national levels. Such considerations can be applied in different contexts, including socioeconomic and health system recovery, to ensure whole-of-society and whole-of-government action in building health systems resilience and monitoring and evaluation to maintain and accelerate progress towards the national target linked to SDG3.d, health security and universal health coverage (UHC), as well as broader socioeconomic development.

Building back better children's surgical services toward universal health coverage: Perspectives from Bangladesh and Zimbabwe.

Introduction: This article is part of the Research Topic 'Health Systems Recovery in the Context of COVID-19 and Protracted Conflict'. Children's surgical services are crucial, yet underappreciated, for children's health and must be sufficiently addressed to make and sustain progress toward universal health coverage (UHC). Despite their considerable burden and socioeconomic cost, surgical diseases have been relatively neglected in favor of communicable diseases living up to their inauspicious moniker: 'the neglected stepchild of global health'. This article aims to raise awareness around children's surgical diseases and offers perspectives from two prototypical LMICs on strengthening surgical services in the context of health systems recovery following the COVID-19 experience to make and sustain progress toward UHC. Approach: We used a focused literature review supplemented by the perspectives of local experts and the 6-components framework for surgical systems planning to present two case studies of Bangladesh and Zimbabwe. The lived experiences of the authors are used to describe the impact of COVID-19 on respective surgical systems and offer perspectives on building back the health system and recovering essential health services for sustainability and resilience. Findings: We found that limited high-level policy and planning instruments, an overburdened and under-resourced health and allied workforce, underdeveloped surgical infrastructure (from key utilities to essential medical products), lack of locally generated research, and the specter of prohibitively high out-of-pocket costs for children's surgery are common challenges in both countries that have been exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic. Discussion: Continued chronic underinvestment and inattention to children's surgical diseases coupled with the devastating effect of the COVID-19 pandemic threaten progress toward key global health objectives. Urgent attention and investment in the context of health systems recovery is needed from policy to practice levels to improve infrastructure; attract, retain and train the surgical and allied health workforce; and improve service delivery access with equity considerations to meet the 2030 Lancet Commission goals, and make and sustain progress toward UHC and the SDGs.

Corrigendum: A novel approach to utilizing the essential public health functions in Ireland's health system recovery and reform.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2023.1074356.].

A novel approach to utilizing the essential public health functions in Ireland's health system recovery and reform.

This article is part of the Research Topic 'Health Systems Recovery in the Context of COVID-19 and Protracted Conflict.' The COVID-19 pandemic presented a challenge to health systems and exposed weaknesses in public health capacities globally. As Ireland looks to recovery, strengthening public health capacities to support health systems resilience has been identified as a priority. The Essential Public Health Functions (EPHFs) provide an integrated approach to health systems strengthening with allied sectors and their operationalization supports health systems and multi-sectoral engagement to meet population needs and anticipate evolving demands. The Health Systems Resilience team (World Health Organization, HQ) in collaboration with the Department of Health (Ireland) developed a novel approach to the assessment of the EPHFs in Ireland. The approach involved a strategic and focused review of the delivery and consideration of EPHFs in relation to policy and planning, infrastructure, service delivery, coordination and integration, monitoring and evaluation and learning. Informed by a literature review and key document search, key stakeholder mapping and key informant interviews, lessons learned from experience with COVID-19 nationally and internationally, strengths as well as potential areas of improvement to optimize delivery of EPHFs were identified. Mapping of the EPHFs in Ireland revealed that there is evidence of delivery of all 12 EPHFs to varying degrees; however a number of challenges were identified, as well as numerous strengths and opportunities. Recommendations to optimize the delivery of EPHFs in Ireland include to integrate and coordinate EPHFs, increase the visibility of the public health agenda, leverage existing mechanisms, recognize and develop the workforce, and address issues with the Health Information System. There is a public health reform process currently underway in Ireland, with some of these recommendations already being addressed. The findings of this process can help further inform and support the reform process. Given the current focus on strengthening public health capacities globally, the findings in Ireland have applicability and relevance in other WHO regions and member states for health systems recovery and building back better, fairer and more resilient health systems.

Developing technical support and strategic dialogue at the country level to achieve Primary Health Care-based health systems beyond the COVID-19 era.

This article is part of the Research Topic 'Health Systems Recovery in the Context of COVID-19 and Protracted Conflict'. Pursuing the objectives of the Declaration of Alma-Ata for Primary Health Care (PHC), the World Health Organization (WHO) and global health partners are supporting national authorities to improve governance to build resilient and integrated health systems, including recovery from public health stressors, through the long-term deployment of WHO country senior health policy advisers under the Universal Health Coverage Partnership (UHC Partnership). For over a decade, the UHC Partnership has progressively reinforced, via a flexible and bottom-up approach, the WHO's strategic and technical leadership on Universal Health Coverage, with more than 130 health policy advisers deployed in WHO Country and Regional Offices. This workforce has been described as a crucial asset by WHO Regional and Country Offices in the integration of health systems to enhance their resilience, enabling the WHO offices to strengthen their support of PHC and Universal Health Coverage to Ministries of Health and other national authorities as well as global health partners. Health policy advisers aim to build the technical capacities of national authorities, in order to lead health policy cycles and generate political commitment, evidence, and dialogue for policy-making processes, while creating synergies and harmonization between stakeholders. The policy dialogue at the country level has been instrumental in ensuring a whole-of-society and whole-of-government approach, beyond the health sector, through community engagement and multisectoral actions. Relying on the lessons learned during the 2014-2016 Ebola outbreak in West Africa and in fragile, conflict-affected, and vulnerable settings, health policy advisers played a key role during the COVID-19 pandemic to support countries in health systems response and early recovery. They brought together technical resources to contribute to the COVID-19 response and to ensure the continuity of essential health services, through a PHC approach in health emergencies. This policy and practice review, including from the following country experiences: Colombia, Islamic Republic of Iran, Lao PDR, South Sudan, Timor-Leste, and Ukraine, provides operational and inner perspectives on strategic and technical leadership provided by WHO to assist Member States in strengthening PHC and essential public health functions for resilient health systems. It aims to demonstrate and advise lessons and good practices for other countries in strengthening their health systems.

A synthesis of concepts of resilience to inform operationalization of health systems resilience in recovery from disruptive public health events including COVID-19.

This article is part of the Research Topic 'Health Systems Recovery in the Context of COVID-19 and Protracted Conflict' Health systems resilience has become a ubiquitous concept as countries respond to and recover from crises such as the COVID-19 pandemic, war and conflict, natural disasters, and economic stressors inter alia. However, the operational scope and definition of health systems resilience to inform health systems recovery and the building back better agenda have not been elaborated in the literature and discourse to date. When widely used terms and their operational definitions appear nebulous or are not consistently used, it can perpetuate misalignment between stakeholders and investments. This can hinder progress in integrated approaches such as strengthening primary health care (PHC) and the essential public health functions (EPHFs) in health and allied sectors as well as hinder progress toward key global objectives such as recovering and sustaining progress toward universal health coverage (UHC), health security, healthier populations, and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). This paper represents a conceptual synthesis based on 45 documents drawn from peer-reviewed papers and gray literature sources and supplemented by unpublished data drawn from the extensive operational experience of the co-authors in the application of health systems resilience at country level. The results present a synthesis of global understanding of the concept of resilience in the context of health systems. We report on different aspects of health systems resilience and conclude by proposing a clear operational definition of health systems resilience that can be readily applied by different stakeholders to inform current global recovery and beyond.

COVID-19 Preparedness and Response Plans from 106 countries: a review from a health systems resilience perspective.

Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) has exposed long-standing fragmentation in health systems strengthening efforts for health security and universal health coverage while these objectives are largely interdependent and complementary. In this prevailing background, we reviewed countries' COVID-19 Preparedness and Response Plans (CPRPs) to assess the extent of integration of non-COVID-19 essential health service continuity considerations alongside emergency response activities. We searched for COVID-19 planning documents from governments and ministries of health, World Health Organization (WHO) country offices and United Nations (UN) country teams. We developed document review protocols using global guidance from the WHO and UN and the health systems resilience literature. After screening, we analysed 154 CPRPs from 106 countries. The majority of plans had a high degree of alignment with pillars of emergency response such as surveillance (99%), laboratory systems (96%) and COVID-19-specific case management (97%). Less than half considered maintaining essential health services (47%); 41% designated a mechanism for health system-wide participation in emergency planning; 34% considered subnational service delivery; 95% contained infection prevention and control (IPC) activities and 29% considered quality of care; and 24% were budgeted for and 7% contained monitoring and evaluation of essential health services. To improve, ongoing and future emergency planning should proactively include proportionate activities, resources and monitoring for essential health services to reduce excess mortality and morbidity. Specifically, this entails strengthening subnational health services with local stakeholder engagement in planning; ensuring a dedicated focus in emergency operations structures to maintain health systems resilience for non-emergency health services; considering all domains of quality in health services along with IPC; and building resilient monitoring capacity for timely and reliable tracking of health systems functionality including service utilization and health outcomes. An integrated approach to planning should be pursued as health systems recover from COVID-19 disruptions and take actions to build back better.

Towards applying the essential public health functions for building health systems resilience: A renewed list and key enablers for operationalization.

The COVID-19 pandemic, climate change-related events, protracted conflicts, economic stressors and other health challenges, call for strong public health orientation and leadership in health system strengthening and policies. Applying the essential public health functions (EPHFs) represents a holistic operational approach to public health, which is considered to be an integrated, sustainable, and cost-effective means for supporting universal health coverage, health security and improved population health and wellbeing. As a core component of the Primary Health Care (PHC) Operational Framework, EPHFs also support the continuum of health services from health promotion and protection, disease prevention to treatment, rehabilitation, and palliative services. Comprehensive delivery of EPHFs through PHC-oriented health systems with multisectoral participation is therefore vital to meet population health needs, tackle public health threats and build resilience. In this perspective, we present a renewed EPHF list consisting of twelve functions as a reference to foster country-level operationalisation, based on available authoritative lists and global practices. EPHFs are presented as a conceptual bridge between prevailing siloed efforts in health systems and allied sectors. We also highlight key enablers to support effective implementation of EPHFs, including high-level political commitment, clear national structures for institutional stewardship on EPHFs, multisectoral accountability and systematic assessment. As countries seek to transform health systems in the context of recovery from COVID-19 and other public health emergencies, the renewed EPHF list and enablers can inform public health reform, PHC strengthening, and more integrated recovery efforts to build resilient health systems capable of managing complex health challenges for all people.

Building the evidence base for global health policy: the need to strengthen institutional networks, geographical representation and global collaboration.

National public health institutes and WHO collaborating centres, and their global networks, are a key resource to support public health system strengthening with essential public health functions and generate evidence for health policy central to national health and socioeconomic development. The COVID-19 pandemic has laid bare global inequities in public health capacities, made urgent the need to examine sources of global knowledge and understand how to better invest in and use public health institutes and their capacities. This analysis paper incorporates experiences and perspectives from the WHO and International Association of Public Health Associations including the ongoing pandemic and work conducted in the UK-WHO 'Tackling Deadly Diseases in Africa Programme'. We acknowledge geographical disparities in public health capacities both within and across countries and regions, provide examples of novel ways of working for global health actors, and define the challenging environment in which public health authorities operate. We identify four incentives for all countries to invest in public health and strengthen institutions: (1) transparency and trust; (2) socioeconomic dividends; (3) collective health protection and (4) knowledge sharing and equity. By pursuing shared priorities; enabling voices from low-resource settings to be more equitably heard; facilitating collaboration and learning within and across regions, we articulate actionable next steps to develop and better harness public health institutes and international networks.