The rise of India’s global health diplomacy amid COVID-19 pandemic

The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the importance of global health diplomacy (GHD), with India emerging as a key player. India’s commitment to GHD is demonstrated by its active participation in regional and multilateral projects, pharmaceutical expertise, and large-scale manufacturing capabilities, which include the production and distribution of COVID-19 vaccines and essential medicines. India has supported nations in need through bilateral and multilateral platforms, providing vaccines to countries experiencing shortages and offering technical assistance and capacity-building programs to improve healthcare infrastructure and response capabilities. India’s unique approach to GHD, rooted in humanitarian diplomacy, emphasized collaboration and empathy and stressed the well-being of humanity by embracing the philosophy of "Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam," which translates to "the world is one family." Against this background, this paper’s main focus is to analyze the rise of India’s GHD amidst the COVID-19 pandemic and its leadership in addressing various global challenges. India has demonstrated its commitment to global solidarity by offering medical supplies, equipment, and expertise to more than 100 countries. India’s rising global leadership can be attributed to its proactive approach, humanitarian diplomacy, and significant contributions to global health initiatives

Practical recommendations for the evaluation of improvement initiatives

Abstract A lack of clear guidance for funders, evaluators and improvers on what to include in evaluation proposals can lead to evaluation designs that do not answer the questions stakeholders want to know. These evaluation designs may not match the iterative nature of improvement and may be imposed onto an initiative in a way that is impractical from the perspective of improvers and the communities with whom they work. Consequently, the results of evaluations are often controversial, and attribution remains poorly understood. Improvement initiatives are iterative, adaptive and context-specific. Evaluation approaches and designs must align with these features, specifically in their ability to consider complexity, to evolve as the initiative adapts over time and to understand the interaction with local context. Improvement initiatives often identify broadly defined change concepts and provide tools for care teams to tailor these in more detail to local conditions. Correspondingly, recommendations for evaluation are best provided as broad guidance, to be tailored to the specifics of the initiative. In this paper, we provide practical guidance and recommendations that funders and evaluators can use when developing an evaluation plan for improvement initiatives that seeks to: identify the questions stakeholders want to address; develop the initial program theory of the initiative; identify high-priority areas to measure progress over time; describe the context the initiative will be applied within; and identify experimental or observational designs that will address attribution

Practical recommendations for the evaluation of improvement initiatives

Abstract A lack of clear guidance for funders, evaluators and improvers on what to include in evaluation proposals can lead to evaluation designs that do not answer the questions stakeholders want to know. These evaluation designs may not match the iterative nature of improvement and may be imposed onto an initiative in a way that is impractical from the perspective of improvers and the communities with whom they work. Consequently, the results of evaluations are often controversial, and attribution remains poorly understood. Improvement initiatives are iterative, adaptive and context-specific. Evaluation approaches and designs must align with these features, specifically in their ability to consider complexity, to evolve as the initiative adapts over time and to understand the interaction with local context. Improvement initiatives often identify broadly defined change concepts and provide tools for care teams to tailor these in more detail to local conditions. Correspondingly, recommendations for evaluation are best provided as broad guidance, to be tailored to the specifics of the initiative. In this paper, we provide practical guidance and recommendations that funders and evaluators can use when developing an evaluation plan for improvement initiatives that seeks to: identify the questions stakeholders want to address; develop the initial program theory of the initiative; identify high-priority areas to measure progress over time; describe the context the initiative will be applied within; and identify experimental or observational designs that will address attribution

Telemedicine across the globe-position paper from the COVID-19 pandemic health system resilience PROGRAM (REPROGRAM) international consortium (Part 1)

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has accelerated the adoption of telemedicine globally. The current consortium critically examines the telemedicine frameworks, identifies gaps in its implementation and investigates the changes in telemedicine framework/s during COVID-19 across the globe. Streamlining of global public health preparedness framework that is interoperable and allow for collaboration and sharing of resources, in which telemedicine is an integral part of the public health response during outbreaks such as COVID-19, should be pursued. With adequate reinforcement, telemedicine has the potential to act as the “safety-net” of our public health response to an outbreak. Our focus on telemedicine must shift to the developing and under-developing nations, which carry a disproportionate burden of vulnerable communities who are at risk due to COVID-19

Global, regional, and national burden of osteoarthritis, 1990–2020 and projections to 2050: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2021

Background Osteoarthritis is the most common form of arthritis in adults, characterised by chronic pain and loss of mobility. Osteoarthritis most frequently occurs after age 40 years and prevalence increases steeply with age. WHO has designated 2021–30 the decade of healthy ageing, which highlights the need to address diseases such as osteoarthritis, which strongly affect functional ability and quality of life. Osteoarthritis can coexist with, and negatively effect, other chronic conditions. Here we estimate the burden of hand, hip, knee, and other sites of osteoarthritis across geographies, age, sex, and time, with forecasts of prevalence to 2050. Methods In this systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study, osteoarthritis prevalence in 204 countries and territories from 1990 to 2020 was estimated using data from population-based surveys from 26 countries for knee osteoarthritis, 23 countries for hip osteoarthritis, 42 countries for hand osteoarthritis, and US insurance claims for all of the osteoarthritis sites, including the other types of osteoarthritis category. The reference case definition was symptomatic, radiographically confirmed osteoarthritis. Studies using alternative definitions from the reference case definition (for example self-reported osteoarthritis) were adjusted to reference using regression models. Osteoarthritis severity distribution was obtained from a pooled meta-analysis of sources using the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index. Final prevalence estimates were multiplied by disability weights to calculate years lived with disability (YLDs). Prevalence was forecast to 2050 using a mixed-effects model. Findings Globally, 595 million (95% uncertainty interval 535–656) people had osteoarthritis in 2020, equal to 7·6% (95% UI 6·8–8·4) of the global population, and an increase of 132·2% (130·3–134·1) in total cases since 1990. Compared with 2020, cases of osteoarthritis are projected to increase 74·9% (59·4–89·9) for knee, 48·6% (35·9–67·1) for hand, 78·6% (57·7–105·3) for hip, and 95·1% (68·1–135·0) for other types of osteoarthritis by 2050. The global age-standardised rate of YLDs for total osteoarthritis was 255·0 YLDs (119·7–557·2) per 100 000 in 2020, a 9·5% (8·6–10·1) increase from 1990 (233·0 YLDs per 100 000, 109·3–510·8). For adults aged 70 years and older, osteoarthritis was the seventh ranked cause of YLDs. Age-standardised prevalence in 2020 was more than 5·5% in all world regions, ranging from 5677·4 (5029·8–6318·1) per 100 000 in southeast Asia to 8632·7 (7852·0–9469·1) per 100 000 in high-income Asia Pacific. Knee was the most common site for osteoarthritis. High BMI contributed to 20·4% (95% UI –1·7 to 36·6) of osteoarthritis. Potentially modifiable risk factors for osteoarthritis such as recreational injury prevention and occupational hazards have not yet been explored in GBD modelling. Interpretation Age-standardised YLDs attributable to osteoarthritis are continuing to rise and will lead to substantial increases in case numbers because of population growth and ageing, and because there is no effective cure for osteoarthritis. The demand on health systems for care of patients with osteoarthritis, including joint replacements, which are highly effective for late stage osteoarthritis in hips and knees, will rise in all regions, but might be out of reach and lead to further health inequity for individuals and countries unable to afford them. Much more can and should be done to prevent people getting to that late stage

Subnational mapping of HIV incidence and mortality among individuals aged 15–49 years in sub-Saharan Africa, 2000–18 : a modelling study

Background: High-resolution estimates of HIV burden across space and time provide an important tool for tracking and monitoring the progress of prevention and control efforts and assist with improving the precision and efficiency of targeting efforts. We aimed to assess HIV incidence and HIV mortality for all second-level administrative units across sub-Saharan Africa. Methods: In this modelling study, we developed a framework that used the geographically specific HIV prevalence data collected in seroprevalence surveys and antenatal care clinics to train a model that estimates HIV incidence and mortality among individuals aged 15–49 years. We used a model-based geostatistical framework to estimate HIV prevalence at the second administrative level in 44 countries in sub-Saharan Africa for 2000–18 and sought data on the number of individuals on antiretroviral therapy (ART) by second-level administrative unit. We then modified the Estimation and Projection Package (EPP) to use these HIV prevalence and treatment estimates to estimate HIV incidence and mortality by second-level administrative unit. Findings: The estimates suggest substantial variation in HIV incidence and mortality rates both between and within countries in sub-Saharan Africa, with 15 countries having a ten-times or greater difference in estimated HIV incidence between the second-level administrative units with the lowest and highest estimated incidence levels. Across all 44 countries in 2018, HIV incidence ranged from 2 ·8 (95% uncertainty interval 2·1–3·8) in Mauritania to 1585·9 (1369·4–1824·8) cases per 100 000 people in Lesotho and HIV mortality ranged from 0·8 (0·7–0·9) in Mauritania to 676· 5 (513· 6–888·0) deaths per 100 000 people in Lesotho. Variation in both incidence and mortality was substantially greater at the subnational level than at the national level and the highest estimated rates were accordingly higher. Among second-level administrative units, Guijá District, Gaza Province, Mozambique, had the highest estimated HIV incidence (4661·7 [2544·8–8120·3]) cases per 100000 people in 2018 and Inhassunge District, Zambezia Province, Mozambique, had the highest estimated HIV mortality rate (1163·0 [679·0–1866·8]) deaths per 100 000 people. Further, the rate of reduction in HIV incidence and mortality from 2000 to 2018, as well as the ratio of new infections to the number of people living with HIV was highly variable. Although most second-level administrative units had declines in the number of new cases (3316 [81· 1%] of 4087 units) and number of deaths (3325 [81·4%]), nearly all appeared well short of the targeted 75% reduction in new cases and deaths between 2010 and 2020. Interpretation: Our estimates suggest that most second-level administrative units in sub-Saharan Africa are falling short of the targeted 75% reduction in new cases and deaths by 2020, which is further compounded by substantial within-country variability. These estimates will help decision makers and programme implementers expand access to ART and better target health resources to higher burden subnational areas

Measuring the availability of human resources for health and its relationship to universal health coverage for 204 countries and territories from 1990 to 2019: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019

Background: Human resources for health (HRH) include a range of occupations that aim to promote or improve human health. The UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and the WHO Health Workforce 2030 strategy have drawn attention to the importance of HRH for achieving policy priorities such as universal health coverage (UHC). Although previous research has found substantial global disparities in HRH, the absence of comparable cross-national estimates of existing workforces has hindered efforts to quantify workforce requirements to meet health system goals. We aimed to use comparable and standardised data sources to estimate HRH densities globally, and to examine the relationship between a subset of HRH cadres and UHC effective coverage performance. Methods: Through the International Labour Organization and Global Health Data Exchange databases, we identified 1404 country-years of data from labour force surveys and 69 country-years of census data, with detailed microdata on health-related employment. From the WHO National Health Workforce Accounts, we identified 2950 country-years of data. We mapped data from all occupational coding systems to the International Standard Classification of Occupations 1988 (ISCO-88), allowing for standardised estimation of densities for 16 categories of health workers across the full time series. Using data from 1990 to 2019 for 196 of 204 countries and territories, covering seven Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD) super-regions and 21 regions, we applied spatiotemporal Gaussian process regression (ST-GPR) to model HRH densities from 1990 to 2019 for all countries and territories. We used stochastic frontier meta-regression to model the relationship between the UHC effective coverage index and densities for the four categories of health workers enumerated in SDG indicator 3.c.1 pertaining to HRH: physicians, nurses and midwives, dentistry personnel, and pharmaceutical personnel. We identified minimum workforce density thresholds required to meet a specified target of 80 out of 100 on the UHC effective coverage index, and quantified national shortages with respect to those minimum thresholds. Findings: We estimated that, in 2019, the world had 104·0 million (95% uncertainty interval 83·5–128·0) health workers, including 12·8 million (9·7–16·6) physicians, 29·8 million (23·3–37·7) nurses and midwives, 4·6 million (3·6–6·0) dentistry personnel, and 5·2 million (4·0–6·7) pharmaceutical personnel. We calculated a global physician density of 16·7 (12·6–21·6) per 10 000 population, and a nurse and midwife density of 38·6 (30·1–48·8) per 10 000 population. We found the GBD super-regions of sub-Saharan Africa, south Asia, and north Africa and the Middle East had the lowest HRH densities. To reach 80 out of 100 on the UHC effective coverage index, we estimated that, per 10 000 population, at least 20·7 physicians, 70·6 nurses and midwives, 8·2 dentistry personnel, and 9·4 pharmaceutical personnel would be needed. In total, the 2019 national health workforces fell short of these minimum thresholds by 6·4 million physicians, 30·6 million nurses and midwives, 3·3 million dentistry personnel, and 2·9 million pharmaceutical personnel. Interpretation: Considerable expansion of the world's health workforce is needed to achieve high levels of UHC effective coverage. The largest shortages are in low-income settings, highlighting the need for increased financing and coordination to train, employ, and retain human resources in the health sector. Actual HRH shortages might be larger than estimated because minimum thresholds for each cadre of health workers are benchmarked on health systems that most efficiently translate human resources into UHC attainment

Estimating global injuries morbidity and mortality : methods and data used in the Global Burden of Disease 2017 study

Background: While there is a long history of measuring death and disability from injuries, modern research methods must account for the wide spectrum of disability that can occur in an injury, and must provide estimates with sufficient demographic, geographical and temporal detail to be useful for policy makers. The Global Burden of Disease (GBD) 2017 study used methods to provide highly detailed estimates of global injury burden that meet these criteria. Methods: In this study, we report and discuss the methods used in GBD 2017 for injury morbidity and mortality burden estimation. In summary, these methods included estimating cause-specific mortality for every cause of injury, and then estimating incidence for every cause of injury. Non-fatal disability for each cause is then calculated based on the probabilities of suffering from different types of bodily injury experienced. Results: GBD 2017 produced morbidity and mortality estimates for 38 causes of injury. Estimates were produced in terms of incidence, prevalence, years lived with disability, cause-specific mortality, years of life lost and disability-adjusted life-years for a 28-year period for 22 age groups, 195 countries and both sexes. Conclusions: GBD 2017 demonstrated a complex and sophisticated series of analytical steps using the largest known database of morbidity and mortality data on injuries. GBD 2017 results should be used to help inform injury prevention policy making and resource allocation. We also identify important avenues for improving injury burden estimation in the future

Mapping geographical inequalities in access to drinking water and sanitation facilities in low-income and middle-income countries, 2000-17

Background: Universal access to safe drinking water and sanitation facilities is an essential human right, recognised in the Sustainable Development Goals as crucial for preventing disease and improving human wellbeing. Comprehensive, high-resolution estimates are important to inform progress towards achieving this goal. We aimed to produce high-resolution geospatial estimates of access to drinking water and sanitation facilities. Methods: We used a Bayesian geostatistical model and data from 600 sources across more than 88 low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) to estimate access to drinking water and sanitation facilities on continuous continent-wide surfaces from 2000 to 2017, and aggregated results to policy-relevant administrative units. We estimated mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive subcategories of facilities for drinking water (piped water on or off premises, other improved facilities, unimproved, and surface water) and sanitation facilities (septic or sewer sanitation, other improved, unimproved, and open defecation) with use of ordinal regression. We also estimated the number of diarrhoeal deaths in children younger than 5 years attributed to unsafe facilities and estimated deaths that were averted by increased access to safe facilities in 2017, and analysed geographical inequality in access within LMICs. Findings: Across LMICs, access to both piped water and improved water overall increased between 2000 and 2017, with progress varying spatially. For piped water, the safest water facility type, access increased from 40·0% (95% uncertainty interval [UI] 39·4–40·7) to 50·3% (50·0–50·5), but was lowest in sub-Saharan Africa, where access to piped water was mostly concentrated in urban centres. Access to both sewer or septic sanitation and improved sanitation overall also increased across all LMICs during the study period. For sewer or septic sanitation, access was 46·3% (95% UI 46·1–46·5) in 2017, compared with 28·7% (28·5–29·0) in 2000. Although some units improved access to the safest drinking water or sanitation facilities since 2000, a large absolute number of people continued to not have access in several units with high access to such facilities (>80%) in 2017. More than 253 000 people did not have access to sewer or septic sanitation facilities in the city of Harare, Zimbabwe, despite 88·6% (95% UI 87·2–89·7) access overall. Many units were able to transition from the least safe facilities in 2000 to safe facilities by 2017; for units in which populations primarily practised open defecation in 2000, 686 (95% UI 664–711) of the 1830 (1797–1863) units transitioned to the use of improved sanitation. Geographical disparities in access to improved water across units decreased in 76·1% (95% UI 71·6–80·7) of countries from 2000 to 2017, and in 53·9% (50·6–59·6) of countries for access to improved sanitation, but remained evident subnationally in most countries in 2017. Interpretation: Our estimates, combined with geospatial trends in diarrhoeal burden, identify where efforts to increase access to safe drinking water and sanitation facilities are most needed. By highlighting areas with successful approaches or in need of targeted interventions, our estimates can enable precision public health to effectively progress towards universal access to safe water and sanitation

Estimates, trends, and drivers of the global burden of type 2 diabetes attributable to PM2.5 air pollution, 1990-2019 : an analysis of data from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019

Background Experimental and epidemiological studies indicate an association between exposure to particulate matter (PM) air pollution and increased risk of type 2 diabetes. In view of the high and increasing prevalence of diabetes, we aimed to quantify the burden of type 2 diabetes attributable to PM2.5 originating from ambient and household air pollution.Methods We systematically compiled all relevant cohort and case-control studies assessing the effect of exposure to household and ambient fine particulate matter (PM2.5) air pollution on type 2 diabetes incidence and mortality. We derived an exposure-response curve from the extracted relative risk estimates using the MR-BRT (meta-regression-Bayesian, regularised, trimmed) tool. The estimated curve was linked to ambient and household PM2.5 exposures from the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study 2019, and estimates of the attributable burden (population attributable fractions and rates per 100 000 population of deaths and disability-adjusted life-years) for 204 countries from 1990 to 2019 were calculated. We also assessed the role of changes in exposure, population size, age, and type 2 diabetes incidence in the observed trend in PM2.5-attributable type 2 diabetes burden. All estimates are presented with 95% uncertainty intervals.Findings In 2019, approximately a fifth of the global burden of type 2 diabetes was attributable to PM2.5 exposure, with an estimated 3.78 (95% uncertainty interval 2.68-4.83) deaths per 100 000 population and 167 (117-223) disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) per 100 000 population. Approximately 13.4% (9.49-17.5) of deaths and 13.6% (9.73-17.9) of DALYs due to type 2 diabetes were contributed by ambient PM2.5, and 6.50% (4.22-9.53) of deaths and 5.92% (3.81-8.64) of DALYs by household air pollution. High burdens, in terms of numbers as well as rates, were estimated in Asia, sub-Saharan Africa, and South America. Since 1990, the attributable burden has increased by 50%, driven largely by population growth and ageing. Globally, the impact of reductions in household air pollution was largely offset by increased ambient PM2.5.Interpretation Air pollution is a major risk factor for diabetes. We estimated that about a fifth of the global burden of type 2 diabetes is attributable PM2.5 pollution. Air pollution mitigation therefore might have an essential role in reducing the global disease burden resulting from type 2 diabetes. Copyright (C) 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.Peer reviewe