Explore the vast range of titles available.

To estimate the economic impact likely to be achieved by efforts to vaccinate against 10 vaccine-preventable diseases between 2001 and 2020 in 73 low- and middle-income countries largely supported by Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance. We used health impact models to estimate the economic impact of achieving forecasted coverages for vaccination against type b, hepatitis B, human papillomavirus, Japanese encephalitis, measles, serogroup A, rotavirus, rubella, and yellow fever. In comparison with no vaccination, we modelled the costs - expressed in 2010 United States dollars (US$) - of averted treatment, transportation costs, productivity losses of caregivers and productivity losses due to disability and death. We used the value-of-a-life-year method to estimate the broader economic and social value of living longer, in better health, as a result of immunization. We estimated that, in the 73 countries, vaccinations given between 2001 and 2020 will avert over 20 million deaths and save US$ 350 billion in cost of illness. The deaths and disability prevented by vaccinations given during the two decades will result in estimated lifelong productivity gains totalling US$ 330 billion and US$ 9 billion, respectively. Over the lifetimes of the vaccinated cohorts, the same vaccinations will save an estimated US$ 5 billion in treatment costs. The broader economic and social value of these vaccinations is estimated at US$ 820 billion. By preventing significant costs and potentially increasing economic productivity among some of the world's poorest countries, the impact of immunization goes well beyond health.

•Important differences remain in vaccination coverage and inequalities across countries.•This study investigates country-level factors associated with vaccination coverage and equity.•Political stability, gender equality and smaller land areas were important predictors.•Low out-of-pocket spending & high external resources were associated with improved equity.•Higher government spending & low linguistic fractionalization were consistent with better vaccination outcomes. Important inequalities in childhood vaccination coverage persist between countries and population groups. Understanding why some countries achieve higher and more equitable levels of coverage is crucial to redress these inequalities. In this study, we explored the country-level determinants of (1) coverage of the third dose of diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis- (DTP3) containing vaccine and (2) within-country inequalities in DTP3 coverage in 45 countries supported by Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance. We used data from the most recent Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS) conducted between 2005 and 2014. We measured national DTP3 coverage and the slope index of inequality in DTP3 coverage with respect to household wealth, maternal education, and multidimensional poverty. We collated data on country health systems, health financing, governance and geographic and sociocultural contexts from published sources. We used meta-regressions to assess the relationship between these country-level factors and variations in DTP3 coverage and inequalities. To validate our findings, we repeated these analyses for coverage with measles-containing vaccine (MCV). We found considerable heterogeneity in DTP3 coverage and in the magnitude of inequalities across countries. Results for MCV were consistent with those from DTP3. Political stability, gender equality and smaller land surface were important predictors of higher and more equitable levels of DTP3 coverage. Inequalities in DTP3 coverage were also lower in countries receiving more external resources for health, with lower rates of out-of-pocket spending and with higher national coverage. Greater government spending on heath and lower linguistic fractionalization were also consistent with better vaccination outcomes. Improving vaccination coverage and reducing inequalities requires that policies and programs address critical social determinants of health including geographic and social exclusion, gender inequality and the availability of financial protection for health. Further research should investigate the mechanisms contributing to these associations.

Health facility assessments provide important data to measure the quality of health services delivered to populations. These assessments are comprehensive, resource intensive, and periodic to inform medium- to-longer-term policies. However, in absence of other reliable data sources, country decision makers often rely on outdated data to address service delivery challenges that change more frequently. High-frequency phone surveys are a potential option to improve the efficiency and timeliness of collecting time-sensitive service delivery indicators in-between comprehensive in-person assessments. The objectives of this study are to assess the reliability, concurrent criterion validity, and non-response rates in a rapid phone-based health facility assessment developed by the Global Financing Facility’s FASTR initiative compared to a comprehensive in-person health facility assessment developed by the World Bank’s Service Delivery Indicators Health Program. The in-person survey and corresponding in-person item verification will serve as the gold standard. Both surveys will be administered to an identical sample of 500 health facilities in Tajikistan using the same data collection entity. To assess reliability, percent agreement, Cohens Kappa, and prevalence and bias adjusted Kappa will be calculated. To assess concurrent criterion validity, sensitivity and specificity will be calculated, with a cut-off of.7 used for adequate validity. The study will further compare response rates and dropout rates of both surveys using simple t-tests and balance tests to identify if the characteristics of the phone-based and in-person survey samples are similar after accounting for any differences in survey response rates. The results of this study will provide important insights into the reliability and validity of phone-based data collection approaches for health facility assessments. This is critical as Ministries of Health seek to establish and sustain more continuous data collection, analysis, and use of health facility-level data to complement periodic in-person assessments to improve the quality of services provided to their populations.

Vaccine hesitancy remains a critical barrier in mitigating the effects of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. The willingness of health care workers (HCWs) to be vaccinated, and, in turn, recommend the COVID-19 vaccine for their patient population is an important strategy. This study aims to understand the uptake of COVID-19 vaccines and the reasoning for vaccine hesitancy among facility-based health care workers (HCWs) in LMICs. We conducted nationally representative phone-based rapid-cycle surveys across facilities in six LMICs to better understand COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. We gathered data on vaccine uptake among facility managers, their perceptions of vaccine uptake and hesitancy among the HCWs operating in their facilities, and their perception of vaccine hesitancy among the patient population served by the facility. 1,148 unique public health facilities participated in the study, with vaccines being almost universally offered to facility-based respondents across five out of six countries. Among facility respondents who have been offered the vaccine, more than 9 in 10 survey respondents had already been vaccinated at the time of data collection. Vaccine uptake among other HCWs at the facility was similarly high. Over 90% of facilities in Bangladesh, Liberia, Malawi, and Nigeria reported that all or most staff had already received the COVID-19 vaccine when the survey was conducted. Concerns about side effects predominantly drive vaccine hesitancy in both HCWs and the patient population. Our findings indicate that the opportunity to get vaccinated in participating public facilities is almost universal. We find vaccine hesitancy among facility-based HCWs, as reported by respondents, to be very low. This suggests that a potentially effective effort to increase vaccine uptake equitably would be to channel promotional activities through health facilities and HCWs.However, reasons for hesitancy, even if limited, are far from uniform across countries, highlighting the need for audience-specific messaging.

IntroductionThe SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) pandemic overwhelmed some primary health care (PHC) systems, while others adapted and recovered. In Nigeria, large, within-state variations existed in the ability to maintain PHC service volumes. Identifying characteristics of high-performing local government areas (LGAs) can improve understanding of subnational health systems resilience.MethodsEmploying a sequential explanatory mixed-methods design, we quantitatively identified ‘positive deviant’ LGAs based on their speed of recovery of outpatient and antenatal care services to prepandemic levels using service volume data from Nigeria’s health management information system and matched them to comparators with similar baseline characteristics and slower recoveries. 70 semistructured interviews were conducted with LGA officials, facility officers and community leaders in sampled LGAs to analyse comparisons based on Kruk’s resilience framework.ResultsA total of 57 LGAs were identified as positive deviants out of 490 eligible LGAs that experienced a temporary decrease in PHC-level outpatient and antenatal care service volumes. Positive deviants had an average of 8.6% higher outpatient service volume than expected, and comparators had 27.1% lower outpatient volume than expected after the initial disruption to services. Informants in 12 positive deviants described health systems that were more integrated, aware and self-regulating than comparator LGAs. Positive deviants were more likely to employ demand-side adaptations, whereas comparators primarily focused on supply-side adaptations. Barriers included long-standing financing and PHC workforce gaps.ConclusionSufficient flexible financing, adequate PHC staffing and local leadership enabled health systems to recover service volumes during COVID-19. Resilient PHC requires simultaneous attention to bottom-up and top-down capabilities connected by strong leadership.

Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest is a leading cause of death worldwide. Establishing vascular access is critical for administering guideline-recommended drugs during cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Both the intraosseous route and the intravenous route are used routinely, but their comparative effectiveness remains unclear. We conducted a randomized clinical trial to compare the effectiveness of initial attempts at intraosseous or intravenous vascular access in adults who had nontraumatic out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. The primary outcome was a sustained return of spontaneous circulation. Key secondary outcomes were survival at 30 days and survival at 30 days with a favorable neurologic outcome, defined by a score of 0 to 3 on the modified Rankin scale (scores range from 0 to 6, with higher scores indicating greater disability). Among 1506 patients who underwent randomization, 1479 were included in the primary analysis (731 in the intraosseous-access group and 748 in the intravenous-access group). The successful establishment of vascular access within two attempts occurred in 669 patients (92%) assigned to the intraosseous-access group and in 595 patients (80%) assigned to the intravenous-access group. Sustained return of spontaneous circulation occurred in 221 patients (30%) in the intraosseous-access group and in 214 patients (29%) in the intravenous-access group (risk ratio, 1.06; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.90 to 1.24; P = 0.49). At 30 days, 85 patients (12%) in the intraosseous-access group and 75 patients (10%) in the intravenous-access group were alive (risk ratio, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.87 to 1.56); a favorable neurologic outcome at 30 days occurred in 67 patients (9%) and 59 patients (8%), respectively (risk ratio, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.62). Prespecified adverse events were uncommon. There was no significant difference in sustained return of spontaneous circulation between initial intraosseous and intravenous vascular access in adults who had out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. (Funded by the Novo Nordisk Foundation and others; IVIO EU Clinical Trials Register number, 2022-500744-38-00; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT05205031.).

Background: During and after the SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) pandemic, many countries experienced declines in immunization that have not fully recovered to pre-pandemic levels. This study uses routine health facility immunization data to estimate variability between and within countries in post-pandemic immunization service recovery for BCG, DPT1, and DPT3. Methods: After adjusting for data reporting completeness and outliers, interrupted time series regression was used to estimate the expected immunization service volume for each subnational unit, using an interruption point of March 2020. We assessed and compared the percent deviation of observed immunizations from the expected service volume for March 2020 between and within countries. Results: Six countries experienced significant service volume declines for at least one vaccine as of October 2022. The shortfall in BCG service volume was ~6% (95% CI −1.2%, −9.8%) in Guinea and ~19% (95% CI −16%, 22%) in Liberia. Significant cumulative shortfalls in DPT1 service volume are observed in Afghanistan (−4%, 95% CI −1%, −7%), Ghana (−3%, 95% CI −1%, −5%), Haiti (−7%, 95% CI −1%, −12%), and Kenya (−3%, 95% CI −1%, −4%). Afghanistan has the highest percentage of subnational units reporting a shortfall of 5% or higher in DPT1 service volume (85% in 2021 Q1 and 79% in 2020 Q4), followed by Bangladesh (2020 Q1, 83%), Haiti (80% in 2020 Q2), and Ghana (2022 Q2, 75%). All subnational units in Bangladesh experienced a 5% or higher shortfall in DPT3 service volume in the second quarter of 2020. In Haiti, 80% of the subnational units experienced a 5% or higher reduction in DPT3 service volume in the second quarter of 2020 and the third quarter of 2022. Conclusions: At least one region in every country has a significantly lower-than-expected post-pandemic cumulative volume for at least one of the three vaccines. Subnational monitoring of immunization service volumes using disaggregated routine health facility information data should be conducted routinely to target the limited vaccination resources to subnational units with the highest inequities.

Global health initiatives are multistakeholder partnerships that mobilize and disburse resources to address global health challenges, often by supporting implementation of health programmes in low-and middle-income countries.1 These initiatives have made enormous contributions to saving lives and improving health globally, and are vital to the realization of sustainable development goal (SDG) 3 to ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages.1,2 However, some members of the global health community have criticized the ways these initiatives work, notably in relation to power imbalances between donor and implementing partners in priority-setting and decision-making.1 These imbalances can translate into questions of whose knowledge, vision and voice drive organizational direction.We are writing as representatives of the evaluation units and evaluation advisory bodies of three prominent global health initiatives, to reflect on challenges and solutions to strengthening health equity via improved evaluation. As part of its mission to save lives and protect people's health by increasing equitable and sustainable use of vaccines, Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, helps vaccinate almost half the world's children against deadly and debilitating infectious diseases.3 To ensure that all women, children and adolescents can survive and thrive, the Global Financing Facility for Women, Children and Adolescents, a multistakeholder global partnership housed at the World Bank, supports 36 low- and lower-middle-income countries with financing and technical assistance to develop and implement prioritized national health plans to scale up access to affordable, quality care.4 The Global Fund, a worldwide partnership to defeat human immunodeficiency virus, tuberculosis and malaria, and ensure a healthier, safer, more equitable future for all, works to fight the deadliest infectious diseases, challenge the injustices that fuel them and strengthen health systems in more than 100 countries. 5 In 2019, our organizations collectively raised and invested in excess of 6 billion United States dollars (US $), representing approximately 14% of all development assistance for health.6 In 2021, to strengthen the global response to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID- 19) pandemic, donors entrusted our organizations with more than US$14 billion, representing roughly 21% of all development assistance for health.6A core strategic focus for the global initiatives for health has been to improve access to essential vaccines, medicines and technologies for priority conditions. 1 The goal of Transforming our world: the 2030 agenda for sustainable development drives us also to advance through transformative policies with the potential to reshape underlying socioeconomic and political structures.7 Here we discuss how reshaping organizational evaluation processes can enable us to deliver better on our mandates and on the SDGs.

There was no global guidance or agreement regarding when a country has an adequate system to report on the service packages among human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) key populations. This article describes an approach to categorizing the system in a country for reporting the service package among HIV key populations. The approach consists of four dimensions, namely the epidemiological significance, comprehensiveness of the service packages, geographic coverage of services, and adequacy of the monitoring system. The proposed categorization approach utilizes available information and can inform the improvement of the service delivery and monitoring systems among HIV key populations.

•We measured inequalities in child vaccination coverage in 45 low- and middle-income countries.•We explored how different measurement approaches may affect estimates and country comparisons.•Wealth, education and multidimensional poverty revealed the largest inequalities.•The slope and relative indices of inequality produced more reliable country comparisons.•Our findings have helped Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance refine its equity monitoring strategy. (1) To conduct a systematic analysis of inequalities in childhood vaccination coverage in Gavi-supported countries; (2) to comparatively assess alternative measurement approaches and how they may affect cross-country comparisons of the level of inequalities. Using the most recent Demographic and Health Surveys (2005–2014) in 45 Gavi-supported countries, we measured inequalities in vaccination coverage across seven dimensions of social stratification and of vulnerability to poor health outcomes. We quantified inequalities using pairwise comparisons (risk differences and ratios) and whole spectrum measures (slope and relative indices of inequality). To contrast measurement approaches, we pooled the estimates using random-effects meta-analyses, ranked countries by the magnitude of inequality and compared agreement in country ranks. At the aggregate level, maternal education, multidimensional poverty, and wealth index poverty were the dimensions associated with the largest inequalities. In 36 out of 45 countries, inequalities were substantial, with a difference in coverage of 10 percentage points or more between the top and bottom of at least one of these social dimensions. Important inequalities by child sex, child malnutrition and urban/rural residence were also found in a smaller set of countries. The magnitude of inequality and ranking of countries differed across dimension and depending on the measure used. Pairwise comparisons could not be estimated in certain countries. The slope and relative indices of inequality were estimated in all countries and produced more stable country rankings, and should thus facilitate more reliable international comparisons. Inequalities in vaccination coverage persist in a large majority of Gavi-supported countries. Inequalities should be monitored across multiple dimensions of vulnerability. Using whole spectrum measures to quantify inequality across multiple ordered social groups has important advantages. We illustrate these findings using an equity dashboard designed to support decision-making in the Sustainable Development Goals period.