Explore the vast range of titles available.

Achieving universal health coverage (UHC) involves all people receiving the health services they need, of high quality, without experiencing financial hardship. Making progress towards UHC is a policy priority for both countries and global institutions, as highlighted by the agenda of the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and WHO's Thirteenth General Programme of Work (GPW13). Measuring effective coverage at the health-system level is important for understanding whether health services are aligned with countries' health profiles and are of sufficient quality to produce health gains for populations of all ages. Based on the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD) 2019, we assessed UHC effective coverage for 204 countries and territories from 1990 to 2019. Drawing from a measurement framework developed through WHO's GPW13 consultation, we mapped 23 effective coverage indicators to a matrix representing health service types (eg, promotion, prevention, and treatment) and five population-age groups spanning from reproductive and newborn to older adults (≥65 years). Effective coverage indicators were based on intervention coverage or outcome-based measures such as mortality-to-incidence ratios to approximate access to quality care; outcome-based measures were transformed to values on a scale of 0–100 based on the 2·5th and 97·5th percentile of location-year values. We constructed the UHC effective coverage index by weighting each effective coverage indicator relative to its associated potential health gains, as measured by disability-adjusted life-years for each location-year and population-age group. For three tests of validity (content, known-groups, and convergent), UHC effective coverage index performance was generally better than that of other UHC service coverage indices from WHO (ie, the current metric for SDG indicator 3.8.1 on UHC service coverage), the World Bank, and GBD 2017. We quantified frontiers of UHC effective coverage performance on the basis of pooled health spending per capita, representing UHC effective coverage index levels achieved in 2019 relative to country-level government health spending, prepaid private expenditures, and development assistance for health. To assess current trajectories towards the GPW13 UHC billion target—1 billion more people benefiting from UHC by 2023—we estimated additional population equivalents with UHC effective coverage from 2018 to 2023. Globally, performance on the UHC effective coverage index improved from 45·8 (95% uncertainty interval 44·2–47·5) in 1990 to 60·3 (58·7–61·9) in 2019, yet country-level UHC effective coverage in 2019 still spanned from 95 or higher in Japan and Iceland to lower than 25 in Somalia and the Central African Republic. Since 2010, sub-Saharan Africa showed accelerated gains on the UHC effective coverage index (at an average increase of 2·6% [1·9–3·3] per year up to 2019); by contrast, most other GBD super-regions had slowed rates of progress in 2010–2019 relative to 1990–2010. Many countries showed lagging performance on effective coverage indicators for non-communicable diseases relative to those for communicable diseases and maternal and child health, despite non-communicable diseases accounting for a greater proportion of potential health gains in 2019, suggesting that many health systems are not keeping pace with the rising non-communicable disease burden and associated population health needs. In 2019, the UHC effective coverage index was associated with pooled health spending per capita (r=0·79), although countries across the development spectrum had much lower UHC effective coverage than is potentially achievable relative to their health spending. Under maximum efficiency of translating health spending into UHC effective coverage performance, countries would need to reach $1398 pooled health spending per capita (US$ adjusted for purchasing power parity) in order to achieve 80 on the UHC effective coverage index. From 2018 to 2023, an estimated 388·9 million (358·6–421·3) more population equivalents would have UHC effective coverage, falling well short of the GPW13 target of 1 billion more people benefiting from UHC during this time. Current projections point to an estimated 3·1 billion (3·0–3·2) population equivalents still lacking UHC effective coverage in 2023, with nearly a third (968·1 million [903·5–1040·3]) residing in south Asia. The present study demonstrates the utility of measuring effective coverage and its role in supporting improved health outcomes for all people—the ultimate goal of UHC and its achievement. Global ambitions to accelerate progress on UHC service coverage are increasingly unlikely unless concerted action on non-communicable diseases occurs and countries can better translate health spending into improved performance. Focusing on effective coverage and accounting for the world's evolving health needs lays the groundwork for better understanding how close—or how far—all populations are in benefiting from UHC. Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

The classification of neuroendocrine neoplasms (NENs) differs between organ systems and currently causes considerable confusion. A uniform classification framework for NENs at any anatomical location may reduce inconsistencies and contradictions among the various systems currently in use. The classification suggested here is intended to allow pathologists and clinicians to manage their patients with NENs consistently, while acknowledging organ-specific differences in classification criteria, tumor biology, and prognostic factors. The classification suggested is based on a consensus conference held at the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) in November 2017 and subsequent discussion with additional experts. The key feature of the new classification is a distinction between differentiated neuroendocrine tumors (NETs), also designated carcinoid tumors in some systems, and poorly differentiated NECs, as they both share common expression of neuroendocrine markers. This dichotomous morphological subdivision into NETs and NECs is supported by genetic evidence at specific anatomic sites as well as clinical, epidemiologic, histologic, and prognostic differences. In many organ systems, NETs are graded as G1, G2, or G3 based on mitotic count and/or Ki-67 labeling index, and/or the presence of necrosis; NECs are considered high grade by definition. We believe this conceptual approach can form the basis for the next generation of NEN classifications and will allow more consistent taxonomy to understand how neoplasms from different organ systems inter-relate clinically and genetically.

The COVID-19 pandemic has affected the world in different ways. Not only are people’s lives and livelihoods affected, but the virus has also affected people’s lifestyles. In the research sector, there have been significant changes, and new research is coming very strongly in the related fields of virology and epidemiology. Similar trends were observed after the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus (SARS-CoV) and Middle East Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus (MERS-CoV) episodes of 2003 and 2012, respectively. Analyzing 20 years of published scientific papers, this article points out the highlights of coronavirus-related research. Significant progress is observed in the past research related to virology, epidemiology, infectious diseases among others. However, in research linked to public health, its governance, technology, and risk communication there seem to be gap areas. Although the World Health Organization (WHO) global research road map has identified social science-related research as a priority area, more focus needs to be given in the upcoming days for multi, cross and trans-disciplinary research related to public health and disaster risk reduction.

The term “global health” is rapidly replacing the older terminology of “international health.” We describe the role of the World Health Organization (WHO) in both international and global health and in the transition from one to the other. We suggest that the term “global health” emerged as part of larger political and historical processes, in which WHO found its dominant role challenged and began to reposition itself within a shifting set of power alliances. Between 1948 and 1998, WHO moved from being the unquestioned leader of international health to being an organization in crisis, facing budget shortfalls and diminished status, especially given the growing influence of new and powerful players. We argue that WHO began to refashion itself as the coordinator, strategic planner, and leader of global health initiatives as a strategy of survival in response to this transformed international political context.

To determine antimicrobial susceptibility of Neisseria gonorrhoeae, we analyzed phenotypes and genomes of 72 isolates collected in Cambodia in 2023. Of those, 9/72 (12.5%) were extensively drug resistant, a 3-fold increase from 2022. Genomic analysis confirmed expansion of newly emerging resistant clones and ongoing resistance emergence across new phylogenetic backbones.

The World Health Organization’s (WHO’s) leadership challenges can be traced to its first decades of existence. Central to its governance and practice is regionalization: the division of its member countries into regions, each representing 1 geographical or cultural area. The particular composition of each region has varied over time—reflecting political divisions and especially decolonization. Currently, the 194 member countries belong to 6 regions: the Americas (35 countries), Europe (53 countries), the Eastern Mediterranean (21 countries), South-East Asia (11 countries), the Western Pacific (27 countries), and Africa (47 countries). The regions have considerable autonomy with their own leadership, budget, and priorities. This regional organization has been controversial since its beginnings in the first days of WHO, when representatives of the European countries believed that each country should have a direct relationship with the headquarters in Geneva, Switzerland, whereas others (especially the United States) argued in favor of the regionalization plan. Over time, regional directors have inevitably challenged the WHO directors-general over their degree of autonomy, responsibilities and duties, budgets, and national composition; similar tensions have occurred within regions. This article traces the historical roots of these challenges.

Global Health for All trains a critical lens on global health to share the stories that global health’s practices and logics tell about 20th and 21st century configurations of science and power. An ethnography on multiple scales, the book focuses on global health’s key epistemic and therapeutic practices like localization, measurement, triage, markets, technology, care, and regulation. Its roving approach traverses policy centers, sites of intervention, and innumerable spaces in between to consider what happens when globalized logics, circulations, and actors work to imagine, modify, and manage health. By resting in these in-between places, Global Health for All simultaneously examines global health as a coherent system and as a dynamic, unpredictable collection of modular parts.

As global health experts, politicians, civil society organizations, and six of the G7 leaders rally to support the World Health Organization (WHO; https:// bit.ly/3gP9Dyj) and counter the US administration's discrediting of the agency and suspension of funding, a moment of reflection is warranted. Undoubtedly, WHO is a crucial player (https://bit.ly/ 2U9s7Qh) in steering us through the COVID-19 pandemic, cooperating with member countries in developing pandemic preparedness plans (including for subsequent waves of the disease); gathering, analyzing, and disseminating critical epidemiological data; conveying sound, scientifically grounded policies and advice; establishing guidelines around testing, physical distancing, and other public health measures; setting norms on data collection and information sharing; and supporting research on drugs and vaccines. Ifproperly funded and granted the power by member countries, WHO has the potential to amp up its transport ofpersonal protective equipment and other essential supplies to protect frontline workers and serve as an international coordinator for the ethical and equitable distribution of diagnostics, vaccines, therapeutics, and equipment. As per the International Health Regulations, WHO is empowered to declare a public health emergency of international concern, as it did on January 30 regarding COVID-19 (https://bit.ly/2XvtQkU), and make a \"real-time\" response.

Occupational health and safety is poorly served by United Nations agencies designated to protect workers: the World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Labor Organization (ILO). The neoliberal programs initially adopted by the United Nations supported institutions of social protection and regulation and expanded worker protections and union growth. Neoliberalism later became synonymous with globalism and shared in its international success. The fundamental change under neoliberalism was the exchange and accumulation of capital. The major beneficiaries of neoliberalism, at the expense of workers, were large transnational corporations and wealthy investors. During this period, WHO and ILO activities in support of workers declined. As neoliberalism ultimately became neoconservatism, occupational health and safety was purposely ignored, and labor was treated with hostility. Neoliberalism had evolved into a harsh economic system detrimental to labor and labor rights. The United Nations is now in decline, taking with it the trivial WHO and ILO programs. Replacements for the WHO and ILO programs must be developed. It is not enough to call for renewed funding, given the United Nations’ failure to direct the global effort to protect workers. A new direction must be found.

Tuberculosis can be treated, prevented, and cured. Rapid, sustained declines in tuberculosis deaths in many countries during the past 50 years provide compelling evidence that ending the pandemic is feasible. Yet this disease—which has plagued humanity since before recorded history and has killed hundreds of millions of people over the past two centuries—remains a relentless scourge. In 2017, 1·6 million people died from tuberculosis, including 300 000 people with HIV, representing more deaths than any other infectious disease. Moreover, in many parts of the world, drugresistant forms of tuberculosis threaten struggling control efforts. The world can no longer ignore the enormous pall cast by the tuberculosis epidemic. Going forward, the global tuberculosis response must be an inclusive, comprehensive response within the broader sustainable development agenda. No one-size-fits-all approach can succeed.