Explore the vast range of titles available.

The framework presented in the World Bank report Open and Inclusive: Fair processes for Financing Universal Health Coverage effectively connects proposed decision-making principles with practical examples that country governments can use to pursue greater fairness. In this commentary, we consider the suggestion that international development partners might use the report's criteria to examine their own processes. We consider what the report's primary Fair Process principles – equality, impartiality and consistency – imply for development partners. Specifically, we address two questions in turn: (i) how relevant the Fair Processes report is to development assistance for health; (ii) if it is deemed relevant, what practical implications does the report have for how aid works? We address the second question by briefly applying the framework to a particular global health initiative, namely the United States President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR). Our analysis suggests that development partners' additional sets of accountabilities, particularly linked to funding sources, may pose more fundamental challenges to impartiality than to equality and consistency in decision-making processes. A question inviting further examination, then, is how development partners can redesign their processes to optimise impartiality given institutional constraints that bind them independently of the populations they purport to serve.

Large-scale epidemics in resource-constrained settings disrupt delivery of core health services, such as routine immunization. Rebuilding and strengthening routine immunization programs following epidemics is an essential step toward improving vaccine equity and averting future outbreaks. We performed a comparative case study analysis of routine immunization program recovery in Liberia and Haiti following the 2014–16 West Africa Ebola epidemic and 2010s cholera epidemic, respectively. First, we triangulated data between the peer-reviewed and grey literature; in-depth key informant interviews with subject matter experts; and quantitative metrics of population health and health system functioning. We used these data to construct thick descriptive narratives for each case. Finally, we performed a cross-case comparison by applying a thematic matrix based on the Essential Public Health Services framework to each case narrative. In Liberia, post-Ebola routine immunization coverage surpassed pre-epidemic levels, a feat attributable to investments in surveillance, comprehensive risk communication, robust political support for and leadership around immunization, and strong public-sector recovery planning. Recovery efforts in Haiti were fragmented across a broad range of non-governmental agencies. Limitations in funding, workforce development, and community engagement further impeded vaccine uptake. Consequently, Haiti reported significant disparities in subnational immunization coverage following the epidemic. This study suggests that embedding in-country expertise within outbreak response structures, respecting governmental autonomy, aligning post-epidemic recovery plans and policies, and integrating outbreak response assets into robust systems of primary care contribute to higher, more equitable levels of routine immunization coverage in resource-constrained settings recovering from epidemics.

Trust in health service providers and facilities is integral to health systems accountability. Understanding determinants of trust, a relational construct, in maternity settings necessitates exploring hierarchical perspectives of users, providers, and influencers in the care environment. We used a theoretically driven qualitative approach to explore trust determinants in a maternity setting across patient-provider, inter-provider, and community-policymaker interactions and relationships in peri-urban Kenya. Focus groups ( n = 8, N = 70) with women who recently gave birth (WRB), pregnant women, and male partners, and in-depth-interviews ( n = 33) with WRB, health care providers and managers, and community health workers (CHWs) were conducted in 2013, soon after the national government's March 2013 introduction of a policy mandate for “Free Maternity Care.” We used thematic coding, memo writing, and cross-perspective triangulation to develop a multi-faceted trust determinants framework. We found that determinants of trust in a maternity setting can be broadly classified into six types of factors, where each type of factor represents a cluster of determinants that may each positively or negatively influence trust: patient, provider, health facility, community, accountability, and structural. Patient factors are prior experiences, perceived risks and harms, childbirth outcomes, and maternal health literacy. Provider factors are empathy and respect, responsiveness, and perceived capability of providers. Health facility factors are “good services” as perceived by patients, physical environment, process navigability, provider collaboration and oversight, discrimination, and corruption. Community factors are facility reputation and history, information channels, and maternal health literacy. Accountability factors are alignment of actions with expectations, adaptations to policy changes, and voice and feedback. Structural factors are institutional hierarchies and policies in the form of professional codes. Trust determinants are complex, nuanced and reflect power dynamics across relationships. Findings offer insight into socio-political maternity norms and demand a more equitable care interface between users and providers.

Background Integrated vaccine delivery – the linkage of routine vaccination with provision of other essential health services – is a hallmark of robust primary care systems that has been linked to equitable improvements in population health outcomes. Methods We gathered longitudinal data relating to routine immunization coverage and vaccination equity in 78 low- and middle-income countries that have ever received support from Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, using multiple imputation to handle missing values. We then estimated several group-based trajectory models to describe the relationship between integrated vaccine delivery and vaccination equity in these countries. Finally, we used multinomial logistic regression to identify predictors of group membership. Results We identified five distinct trajectories of geographic vaccination equity across both the imputed and non-imputed datasets, along with two and four trajectories of socioeconomic vaccination equity in the imputed and non-imputed datasets, respectively. Integration was associated with reductions in the slope index of inequality of measles vaccination in the countries analyzed. Integration was also associated with an increase in the percentage of districts reporting high measles vaccination coverage. Conclusions Integrated vaccine delivery is most strongly associated with improvements in vaccination equity in settings with high baseline levels of inequity. Continued scholarship is needed to further characterize the relationship between integration and health equity, as well as to improve measurement of vaccination coverage and integration.

ObjectivesWhile ethics has been identified as a core component of health technology assessment (HTA), there are few examples of practical, systematic inclusion of ethics analysis in HTA. Some attribute the scarcity of ethics analysis in HTA to debates about appropriate methodology and the need for ethics frameworks that are relevant to local social values. The “South African Values and Ethics for Universal Health Coverage” (SAVE-UHC) project models an approach that countries can use to develop HTA ethics frameworks that are specific to their national contexts.MethodsThe SAVE-UHC approach consisted of two phases. In Phase I, the research team convened and facilitated a national multistakeholder working group to develop a provisional ethics framework through a collaborative, engagement-driven process. In Phase II, the research team refined the model framework by piloting it through three simulated HTA appraisal committee meetings. Each simulated committee reviewed two case studies of sample health interventions: opioid substitution therapy and either a novel contraceptive implant or seasonal influenza immunization for children under five.ResultsThe methodology was fit-for-purpose, resulting in a context-specified ethics framework and producing relevant findings to inform application of the framework for the given HTA context.ConclusionsThe SAVE-UHC approach provides a model for developing, piloting, and refining an ethics framework for health priority-setting that is responsive to national social values. This approach also helps identify key facilitators and challenges for integrating ethics analysis into HTA processes.

BackgroundThe medical research enterprise depends on public recognition of its societal value. In light of evidence indicating public mistrust, especially among minorities, inadequate enrollment as well as diversity of research participants, and poor uptake of findings, medical research seems to fall short of sufficient public regard. Community engagement in medical research, with special attention to minority communities, may help to remedy this shortfall by demonstrating respect for the communities in practical ways.ApproachWe provided 3 case examples that illustrate how specific approaches to community-engaged research can build trust between researchers and communities, encourage participation among underrepresented groups, and enhance the relevance as well as the uptake of research findings.DiscussionA common attribute of the specific approaches discussed here is that they enable the researchers to demonstrate respect by recognizing community values and interests. The demonstration of respect for the communities has intrinsic ethical importance.ConclusionsThe 2 potential outgrowths of demonstrating respect specifically through community engagement are (1) the production of research that is more relevant to the community and (2) the mitigation of asymmetry in the researcher-community relationship. We summarized practical resources available to researchers who seek to incorporate community engagement in their research.

  First and most obviously, facilitating the deployment of medical personnel to affected regions in the near future could make the difference between turning the tide of the epidemic and forfeiting the opportunity to avert regional and even global catastrophe [10]. [...]presently, the number of HCPs willing, able, and qualified to go is small. [...]for many, if not most, hospitals, the burdens encountered would be minor, comparable to those routinely assumed in providing HCPs with family and medical leave.

In making policy decisions with constrained resources, an important consideration is the impact of alternative policy options on social justice. Social justice considers interactions between individuals and society and can be conceptualized across domains of agency, association, and respect. Despite its importance, social justice is rarely considered formally in health policy decision making, partially reflecting challenges in its measurement. We define three criteria for considering social justice in health-related policy decisions: 1) linkage of social justice to a measurable construct; 2) ability to reproducibly and feasibly estimate the impacts of a policy decision on the selected construct; and 3) appropriate presentation to decision makers of the expected social justice implications using that construct. We use preliminary data from qualitative interviews from three groups of respondents in South Africa and Uganda to demonstrate that stigma meets the first of these criteria. We then use the example of policy addressing novel treatment regimens for multidrug-resistant tuberculosis and a validated tuberculosis stigma scale to illustrate how policy effects on stigma could be estimated (criterion 2) and presented to decision makers in the form of justice-enhanced cost-effectiveness analysis (criterion 3). Finally, we provide a point-by-point guide for conducting similar assessments to facilitate consideration of social justice in health-related policy decisions. Our case study and guide for how to make social justice impacts more apparent to decision makers also illustrates the importance of local data and local capacity. Performing social justice assessments alongside more traditional evaluations of cost-effectiveness, budget impact, and burden of disease could help represent data-informed considerations of social justice in health care decision making more broadly.

Background Biomedical research is increasingly globalized with ever more research conducted in low and middle-income countries. This trend raises a host of ethical concerns and critiques. While community engagement (CE) has been proposed as an ethically important practice for global biomedical research, there is no agreement about what these practices contribute to the ethics of research, or when they are needed. Discussion In this paper, we propose an ethical framework for CE. The framework is grounded in the insight that relationships between the researcher and the community extend beyond the normal bounds of the researcher-research participant encounter and are the foundation of meaningful engagement. These relationships create an essential “human infrastructure” – a web of relationships between researchers and the stakeholder community—i.e., the diverse stakeholders who have interests in the conduct and/or outcomes of the research. Through these relationships, researchers are able to address three core ethical responsibilities: (1) identifying and managing non-obvious risks and benefits; (2) expanding respect beyond the individual to the stakeholder community; and (3) building legitimacy for the research project. Summary By recognizing the social and political context of biomedical research, CE offers a promising solution to many seemingly intractable challenges in global health research; however there are increasing concerns about what makes engagement meaningful. We have responded to those concerns by presenting an ethical framework for CE. This framework reflects our belief that the value of CE is realized through relationships between researchers and stakeholders, thereby advancing three distinct ethical goals. Clarity about the aims of researcher-stakeholder relationships helps to make engagement programs more meaningful, and contributes to greater clarity about when CE should be recommended or required.