Generation of political priority for global surgery: a qualitative policy analysis

Background Despite the high burden of surgical conditions, the provision of surgical services has been a low global health priority. We examined factors that have shaped priority for global surgical care. Methods We undertook semi-structured interviews by telephone with members of global surgical networks and ministries of health to explore the challenges and opportunities surgeons, anaesthesiologists, and other proponents face in increasing global priority for surgery. We did a literature review and collected information from reports from organisations involved in surgery. We used a policy framework consisting of four categories—actor power, ideas, political contexts, and characteristics of the issue itself—to analyse factors that have shaped global political priority for surgery. We did a thematic analysis on the collected information. Findings Several factors hinder the acquisition of attention and resources for global surgery. With respect to actor power, the global surgery community is fragmented, does not have unifying leadership, and is missing guiding institutions. Regarding ideas, community members disagree on how to address and publicly position the problem. With respect to political contexts, the community has made insuffi cient eff orts to capitalise on political opportunities such as the Millennium Development Goals. Regarding issue characteristics, data on the burden of surgical diseases are limited and public misperceptions surrounding the cost and complexity of surgery are widespread. However, the community has several strengths that portend well for the acquisition of political support. These include the existence of networks deeply committed to the cause, the potential to link with global health priorities, and emerging research on the cost-eff ectiveness of some procedures. Interpretation To improve global priority for surgery, proponents will need to create an eff ective governance structure that facilitates achievement of collective goals, generate consensus on solutions, and fi nd an eff ective public positioning of the issue that attracts political support

Stillbirths: why they matter

In this first paper of The Lancet's Stillbirths Series we explore the present status of stillbirths in the world from global health policy to a survey of community perceptions in 135 countries. Our findings highlight the need for a strong call for action. In times of global focus on motherhood, the mother's own aspiration of a liveborn baby is not recognised on the world's health agenda. Millions of deaths are not counted; stillbirths are not in the Global Burden of Disease, nor in disability-adjusted life-years lost, and they are not part of the UN Millennium Development Goals. The grief of mothers might be aggravated by social stigma, blame, and marginalisation in regions where most deaths occur. Most stillborn babies are disposed of without any recognition or ritual, such as naming, funeral rites, or the mother holding or dressing the baby. Beliefs in the mother's sins and evil spirits as causes of stillbirth are rife, and stillbirth is widely believed to be a natural selection of babies never meant to live. Stillbirth prevention is closely linked with prevention of maternal and neonatal deaths. Knowledge of causes and feasible solutions for prevention is key to health professionals' priorities, to which this Stillbirths Series paper aims to contribute