Explore the vast range of titles available.

Human rights, theory, evidence, and common sense all suggest that greater investment in women’s health could be among the “best buys” for broader economic development and societal wellbeing, say Michelle Remme and colleagues

Michelle Remme and colleagues argue that if costs to users are considered and their financing is right, self care interventions for sexual and reproductive health can improve equity and efficiency

Background Addressing the social and other non-biological determinants of health largely depends on policies and programmes implemented outside the health sector. While there is growing evidence on the effectiveness of interventions that tackle these upstream determinants, the health sector does not typically prioritise them. From a health perspective, they may not be cost-effective because their non-health outcomes tend to be ignored. Non-health sectors may, in turn, undervalue interventions with important co-benefits for population health, given their focus on their own sectoral objectives. The societal value of win-win interventions with impacts on multiple development goals may, therefore, be under-valued and under-resourced, as a result of siloed resource allocation mechanisms. Pooling budgets across sectors could ensure the total multi-sectoral value of these interventions is captured, and sectors’ shared goals are achieved more efficiently. Under such a co-financing approach, the cost of interventions with multi-sectoral outcomes would be shared by benefiting sectors, stimulating mutually beneficial cross-sectoral investments. Leveraging funding in other sectors could off-set flat-lining global development assistance for health and optimise public spending. Although there have been experiments with such cross-sectoral co-financing in several settings, there has been limited analysis to examine these models, their performance and their institutional feasibility. Aim This study aimed to identify and characterise cross-sectoral co-financing models, their operational modalities, effectiveness, and institutional enablers and barriers. Methods We conducted a systematic review of peer-reviewed and grey literature, following PRISMA guidelines. Studies were included if data was provided on interventions funded across two or more sectors, or multiple budgets. Extracted data were categorised and qualitatively coded. Results Of 2751 publications screened, 81 cases of co-financing were identified. Most were from high-income countries (93%), but six innovative models were found in Uganda, Brazil, El Salvador, Mozambique, Zambia, and Kenya that also included non-public and international payers. The highest number of cases involved the health (93%), social care (64%) and education (22%) sectors. Co-financing models were most often implemented with the intention of integrating services across sectors for defined target populations, although models were also found aimed at health promotion activities outside the health sector and cross-sectoral financial rewards. Interventions were either implemented and governed by a single sector or delivered in an integrated manner with cross-sectoral accountability. Resource constraints and political relevance emerged as key enablers of co-financing, while lack of clarity around the roles of different sectoral players and the objectives of the pooling were found to be barriers to success. Although rigorous impact or economic evaluations were scarce, positive process measures were frequently reported with some evidence suggesting co-financing contributed to improved outcomes. Conclusion Co-financing remains in an exploratory phase, with diverse models having been implemented across sectors and settings. By incentivising intersectoral action on structural inequities and barriers to health interventions, such a novel financing mechanism could contribute to more effective engagement of non-health sectors; to efficiency gains in the financing of universal health coverage; and to simultaneously achieving health and other well-being related sustainable development goals.

To synthesize the data available--on costs, efficiency and economies of scale and scope--for the six basic programmes of the UNAIDS Strategic Investment Framework, to inform those planning the scale-up of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) services in low- and middle-income countries. The relevant peer-reviewed and \"grey\" literature from low- and middle-income countries was systematically reviewed. Search and analysis followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines. Of the 82 empirical costing and efficiency studies identified, nine provided data on economies of scale. Scale explained much of the variation in the costs of several HIV services, particularly those of targeted HIV prevention for key populations and HIV testing and treatment. There is some evidence of economies of scope from integrating HIV counselling and testing services with several other services. Cost efficiency may also be improved by reducing input prices, task shifting and improving client adherence. HIV programmes need to optimize the scale of service provision to achieve efficiency. Interventions that may enhance the potential for economies of scale include intensifying demand-creation activities, reducing the costs for service users, expanding existing programmes rather than creating new structures, and reducing attrition of existing service users. Models for integrated service delivery--which is, potentially, more efficient than the implementation of stand-alone services--should be investigated further. Further experimental evidence is required to understand how to best achieve efficiency gains in HIV programmes and assess the cost-effectiveness of each service-delivery model.

Background There is limited evidence on how health care inputs are distributed from the sub-national level down to health facilities and their potential influence on promoting health equity. To address this gap, this paper assesses equity in the distribution of health care inputs across public primary health facilities at the district level in Tanzania. Methods This is a quantitative assessment of equity in the distribution of health care inputs (staff, drugs, medical supplies and equipment) from district to facility level. The study was carried out in three districts (Kinondoni, Singida Rural and Manyoni district) in Tanzania. These districts were selected because they were implementing primary care reforms. We administered 729 exit surveys with patients seeking out-patient care; and health facility surveys at 69 facilities in early 2014. A total of seventeen indices of input availability were constructed with the collected data. The distribution of inputs was considered in relation to (i) the wealth of patients accessing the facilities, which was taken as a proxy for the wealth of the population in the catchment area; and (ii) facility distance from the district headquarters. We assessed equity in the distribution of inputs through the use of equity ratios, concentration indices and curves. Results We found a significant pro-rich distribution of clinical staff and nurses per 1000 population. Facilities with the poorest patients (most remote facilities) have fewer staff per 1000 population than those with the least poor patients (least remote facilities): 0.6 staff per 1000 among the poorest, compared to 0.9 among the least poor; 0.7 staff per 1000 among the most remote facilities compared to 0.9 among the least remote. The negative concentration index for support staff suggests a pro-poor distribution of this cadre but the 45 degree dominated the concentration curve. The distribution of vaccines, antibiotics, anti-diarrhoeal, anti-malarials and medical supplies was approximately proportional (non dominance), whereas the distribution of oxytocics, anti-retroviral therapy (ART) and anti-hypertensive drugs was pro-rich, with the 45 degree line dominating the concentration curve for ART. Conclusion This study has shown there are inequities in the distribution of health care inputs across public primary care facilities. This highlights the need to ensure a better coordinated and equitable distribution of inputs through regular monitoring of the availability of health care inputs and strengthening of reporting systems.

Sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR) are central to overall health and well-being. Advancing women’s gynaecological health is an aspect of SRHR that has been inadequately prioritized. We highlight the costs incurred by women, health systems and societies associated with menstrual health and endometriosis to underscore critical unmet women’s health needs and call for interventions to mitigate society-wide economic repercussions of poor gynaecological health in women.

  Provenance: Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed Summary Points * The financing needs of the HIV response will remain substantial for many years to come, with current commitments becoming increasingly out of line with future fiscal liabilities. * A change in economic approach will be required, drawing on increased domestic funding, improvements in efficiency, and identification of innovative new funding streams. * Organisations providing HIV services must critically examine and justify their costs and priorities, become increasingly involved in broader health systems strengthening, and find ways to simultaneously support good governance and wider development objectives. * There is need for a renewed economic case to now be made for a reinvigorated response and a sustainable, long-term national and global financial commitment to ending AIDS. [...]the same level of innovation that has produced some of the best HIV technologies will now be required to fund and sustain their use.

While the acute and collective crisis from the pandemic is over, an estimated 2.5 million people died from COVID-19 in 2022, tens of millions suffer from long COVID and national economies still reel from multiple deprivations exacerbated by the pandemic. Sex and gender biases deeply mark these evolving experiences of COVID-19, impacting the quality of science and effectiveness of the responses deployed. To galvanise change by strengthening evidence-informed inclusion of sex and gender in COVID-19 practice, we led a virtual collaboration to articulate and prioritise gender and COVID-19 research needs. In addition to standard prioritisation surveys, feminist principles mindful of intersectional power dynamics underpinned how we reviewed research gaps, framed research questions and discussed emergent findings. The collaborative research agenda-setting exercise engaged over 900 participants primarily from low/middle-income countries in varied activities. The top 21 research questions included the importance of the needs of pregnant and lactating women and information systems that enable sex-disaggregated analysis. Gender and intersectional aspects to improving vaccine uptake, access to health services, measures against gender-based violence and integrating gender in health systems were also prioritised. These priorities are shaped by more inclusive ways of working, which are critical for global health as it faces further uncertainties in the aftermath of COVID-19. It remains imperative to address the basics in gender and health (sex-disaggregated data and sex-specific needs) and also advance transformational goals to advance gender justice across health and social policies, including those related to global research.

Introduction Harmful gender norms and inequalities, including gender‐based violence, are important structural barriers to effective HIV programming. We assess current evidence on what forms of gender‐responsive intervention may enhance the effectiveness of basic HIV programmes and be cost‐effective. Methods Effective intervention models were identified from an existing evidence review (“what works for women”). Based on this, we conducted a systematic review of published and grey literature on the costs and cost‐effectiveness of each intervention identified. Where possible, we compared incremental costs and effects. Results Our effectiveness search identified 36 publications, reporting on the effectiveness of 22 HIV interventions with a gender focus. Of these, 11 types of interventions had a corresponding/comparable costing or cost‐effectiveness study. The findings suggest that couple counselling for the prevention of vertical transmission; gender empowerment, community mobilization, and female condom promotion for female sex workers; expanded female condom distribution for the general population; and post‐exposure HIV prophylaxis for rape survivors are cost‐effective HIV interventions. Cash transfers for schoolgirls and school support for orphan girls may also be cost‐effective in generalized epidemic settings. Conclusions There has been limited research to assess the cost‐effectiveness of interventions that seek to address women's needs and transform harmful gender norms. Our review identified several promising, cost‐effective interventions that merit consideration as critical enablers in HIV investment approaches, as well as highlight that broader gender and development interventions can have positive HIV impacts. By no means an exhaustive package, these represent a first set of interventions to be included in the investment framework.