How did European countries set health priorities in response to the COVID-19 threat?:A comparative document analysis of 24 pandemic preparedness plans across the EURO region

The COVID-19 pandemic has forced governments across the world to consider how to prioritise the allocation of scarce resources. There are many tools and frameworks that have been designed to assist with the challenges of priority setting in health care. The purpose of this study was to examine the extent to which formal priority setting was evident in the pandemic plans produced by countries in the World Health Organisation's EURO region, during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. This compliments analysis of similar plans produced in other regions of the world. Twenty four pandemic preparedness plans were obtained that had been published between March and September 2020. For data extraction, we applied a framework for identifying and assessing the elements of good priority setting to each plan, before conducting comparative analysis across the sample. Our findings suggest that while some pre-requisites for effective priority setting were present in many cases - including political commitment and a recognition of the need for allocation decisions - many other hallmarks were less evident, such as explicit ethical criteria, decision making frameworks, and engagement processes. This study provides a unique insight into the role of priority setting in the European response to the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic.</p

Implementing community-based health program in conflict settings: documenting experiences from the Central African Republic and South Sudan

Abstract Background The delivery of quality healthcare for women and children in conflict-affected settings remains a challenge that cannot be mitigated unless global health policymakers and implementers find an effective modality in these contexts. The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and the Canadian Red Cross (CRC) used an integrated public health approach to pilot a program for delivering community-based health services in the Central African Republic (CAR) and South Sudan in partnership with National Red Cross Societies in both countries. This study explored the feasibility, barriers, and strategies for context-specific agile programming in armed conflict affected settings. Methods A qualitative study design with key informant interviews and focus group discussions using purposive sampling was used for this study. Focus groups with community health workers/volunteers, community elders, men, women, and adolescents in the community and key informant interviews with program implementers were conducted in CAR and South Sudan. Data were analyzed by two independent researchers using a content analysis approach. Results In total, 15 focus groups and 16 key informant interviews were conducted, and a total of 169 people participated in the study. The feasibility of service delivery in armed conflict settings depends on well-defined and clear messaging, community inclusiveness and a localized plan for delivery of services. Security and knowledge gaps, including language barriers and gaps in literacy negatively impacted service delivery. Empowering women and adolescents and providing context-specific resources can mitigate some barriers. Community engagement, collaboration and negotiating safe passage, comprehensive delivery of services and continued training were key strategies identified for agile programming in conflict settings. Conclusion Using an integrative community-based approach to health service delivery in CAR and South Sudan is feasible for humanitarian organizations operating in conflict-affected areas. For agile, and responsive implementation of health services in conflict-affected settings, decision-makers should focus on effectively engaging communities, bridge inequities through the engagement of vulnerable groups, collaborate and negotiate for safe passage for delivery of services, keep logistical and resource constraints in consideration and contextualize service delivery with the support of local actors

Priority setting during the COVID-19 pandemic: going beyond vaccines

n/aFunding Agencies|intramural program at the US National Institutes of HealthUnited States Department of Health &amp; Human ServicesNational Institutes of Health (NIH) - USA</p

Priority setting and equity in COVID-19 pandemic plans : a comparative analysis of 18 African countries

Priority setting represents an even bigger challenge during public health emergencies than routine times. This is because such emergencies compete with routine programmes for the available health resources, strain health systems and shift health-care attention and resources towards containing the spread of the epidemic and treating those that fall seriously ill. This paper is part of a larger global study, the aim of which is to evaluate the degree to which national COVID-19 preparedness and response plans incorporated priority setting concepts. It provides important insights into what and how priority decisions were made in the context of a pandemic. Specifically, with a focus on a sample of 18 African countries pandemic plans, the paper aims to: (1) explore the degree to which the documented priority setting processes adhere to established quality indicators of effective priority setting and (2) examine if there is a relationship between the number of quality indicators present in the pandemic plans and the countrys economic context, health system and prior experiences with disease outbreaks. All the reviewed plans contained some aspects of expected priority setting processes but none of the national plans addressed all quality parameters. Most of the parameters were mentioned by less than 10 of the 18 country plans reviewed, and several plans identified one or two aspects of fair priority setting processes. Very few plans identified equity as a criterion for priority setting. Since the parameters are relevant to the quality of priority setting that is implemented during public health emergencies and most of the countries have pre-existing pandemic plans; it would be advisable that, for the future (if not already happening), countries consider priority setting as a critical part of their routine health emergency and disease outbreak plans. Such an approach would ensure that priority setting is integral to pandemic planning, response and recovery.Funding Agencies|McMaster University COVID-19 research fund</p

Priority setting and equity in COVID-19 pandemic plans: a comparative analysis of 18 African countries

riority setting represents an even bigger challenge during public health emergencies than routine times. This is because such emergencies compete with routine programmes for the available health resources, strain health systems and shift health-care attention and resources towards containing the spread of the epidemic and treating those that fall seriously ill. This paper is part of a larger global study, the aim of which is to evaluate the degree to which national COVID-19 preparedness and response plans incorporated priority setting concepts. It provides important insights into what and how priority decisions were made in the context of a pandemic. Specifically, with a focus on a sample of 18 African countries’ pandemic plans, the paper aims to: (1) explore the degree to which the documented priority setting processes adhere to established quality indicators of effective priority setting and (2) examine if there is a relationship between the number of quality indicators present in the pandemic plans and the country’s economic context, health system and prior experiences with disease outbreaks. All the reviewed plans contained some aspects of expected priority setting processes but none of the national plans addressed all quality parameters. Most of the parameters were mentioned by less than 10 of the 18 country plans reviewed, and several plans identified one or two aspects of fair priority setting processes. Very few plans identified equity as a criterion for priority setting. Since the parameters are relevant to the quality of priority setting that is implemented during public health emergencies and most of the countries have pre-existing pandemic plans; it would be advisable that, for the future (if not already happening), countries consider priority setting as a critical part of their routine health emergency and disease outbreak plans. Such an approach would ensure that priority setting is integral to pandemic planning, response and recovery