BMJ Global Health

The COVID-19 pandemic had large impacts on mental health; however, most existing evidence is focused on the initial lockdown period and high-income contexts. By assessing trajectories of mental health symptoms in India over 2 years, we aim to understand the effect of later time periods and pandemic characteristics on mental health in a lower-middle income context.

We used data from the Real-Time Insights of COVID-19 in India cohort study (N=3709). We used covariate-adjusted linear regression models with generalised estimating equations to assess associations between mental health (Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-4) score; range 0–12) and pandemic periods as well as pandemic characteristics (COVID-19 cases and deaths, government stringency, self-reported financial impact, COVID-19 infection in the household) and explored effect modification by age, gender and rural/urban residence.

Mental health symptoms dropped immediately following the lockdown period but rose again during the delta and omicron waves. Associations between mental health and later pandemic stages were stronger for adults 45 years of age and older (p<0.001). PHQ-4 scores were significantly associated with all pandemic characteristics considered, including estimated COVID-19 deaths (PHQ-4 difference of 0.10 units; 95% CI 0.06 to 0.13), government stringency index (0.14 units; 95% CI 0.11 to 0.18), self-reported major financial impacts (1.20 units; 95% CI 1.09 to 1.32) and COVID-19 infection in the household (0.36 units; 95% CI 0.23 to 0.50).

While the lockdown period and associated financial stress had the largest mental health impacts on Indian adults, the effects of the pandemic on mental health persisted over time, especially among middle-aged and older adults. Results highlight the importance of investments in mental health supports and services to address the consequences of cyclical waves of infections and disease burden due to COVID-19 or other emerging pandemics.

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in Australia face disparities in accessing culturally safe and appropriate health services. While current cultural safety and responsiveness frameworks set standards for improving healthcare practices, ensuring accountability and sustainability of changes, necessitates robust mechanisms for auditing and monitoring progress. This study examined existing cultural safety audit tools, and facilitators and barriers to implementation, in the context of providing culturally safe and responsive healthcare services with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. This will assist organisations, interested in developing tools, to assess culturally responsive practice. A scoping review was undertaken using Medline, Scopus, CINAHL, Informit and PsychInfo databases. Articles were included if they described an audit tool used for healthcare practices with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. Selected tools were evaluated based on alignment with the six capabilities of the Indigenous Allied Health Australia (IAHA) Cultural Responsiveness in Action Framework. Implementation barriers and facilitators were identified. 15 papers were included. Audit tools varied in length, terminology, domains assessed and whether they had been validated or evaluated. Seven papers reported strong reliability and validity of the tools, and one reported tool evaluation. Implementation facilitators included: tool comprehensiveness and structure; effective communication; clear organisational responsibility for implementation; commitment to prioritising cultural competence; and established accountability mechanisms. Barriers included: the tool being time-consuming and inflexible; responsibility for implementation falling on a small team or single staff member; deprioritising tool use; and lack of accountability for implementation. Two of the six IAHA capabilities (respect for the centrality of cultures and inclusive engagement) were strongly reflected in the tools. The limited tool evaluation highlights the need for further research to determine implementation effectiveness and sustainability. Action-oriented tools, which comprehensively reflect all cultural responsiveness capabilities, are lacking and further research is needed to progress meaningful change within the healthcare system.

Less than 1% of all clinical trials are conducted in Africa. In 2019, only six of 26 oncology clinical trials conducted in Africa were conducted in countries with subjects of African ancestry. There are multiple barriers that hinder the conduct of cancer clinical trials in Africa. Time to trial activation (TTA) is the administrative and regulatory process required before a study can be activated—an important metric and often a major barrier for site selection. In Kenya, TTA involves review by Institutional Review Board (IRB), Pharmacy and Poisons Board, National Commission for Science, Technology and Innovation and Ministry of Health, all in a sequential fashion. We performed a prospective review of TTA for all clinical trials initiated and began enrolment at the Aga Khan University-Clinical Research Unit between June 2020 and November 2022. TTA was defined as total time from submission of study documents (to regulatory bodies) to site activation by the sponsor. A total of 12 studies were submitted for regulatory review. Eleven (nine industry sponsored and two investigator initiated) were approved for activation. Three were COVID-19-related studies and eight were non-COVID-19-related studies. Mean TTA for COVID-related studies was 80 days (range 40–120). Mean TTA for non-COVID-related studies was 259 days (range 190–399). This TTA difference was statistically significant (p=0.02). TTA remains a significant barrier to the efficient regulatory approval of and subsequent conduct of clinical trials in Africa. COVID-19 pandemic revealed that parallel processing and expedited review of clinical trials allows efficient TTA without compromising human subject safety or data integrity. These lessons need to be applied to all clinical trials in order for African sites to become competitive and contribute data from African patients to global knowledge.

People living with multimorbidity (PLWMM) have multiple needs and require long-term personalised care, which necessitates an integrated people-centred approach to healthcare. However, people-centred care may risk being a buzzword in global health and cannot be achieved unless we consider and prioritise the lived experience of the people themselves. This study captures the lived experiences of PLWMM in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) by exploring their perspectives, experiences, and aspirations.

We analysed 50 semi-structured interview responses from 10 LMICs across three regions—South Asia, Latin America, and Western Africa—using an interpretative phenomenological analysis approach.

The bodily, social, and system experiences of illness by respondents were multidirectional and interactive, and largely captured the complexity of living with multimorbidity. Despite expensive treatments, many experienced little improvements in their conditions and felt that healthcare was not tailored to their needs. Disease management involved multiple and fragmented healthcare providers with lack of guidance, resulting in repetitive procedures, loss of time, confusion, and frustration. Financial burden was exacerbated by lost productivity and extreme finance coping strategies, creating a vicious cycle. Against the backdrop of uncertainty and disruption due to illness, many demonstrated an ability to cope with their conditions and navigate the healthcare system. Respondents’ priorities were reflective of their desire to return to a pre-illness way of life—resuming work, caring for family, and maintaining a sense of independence and normalcy despite illness. Respondents had a wide range of needs that required financial, health education, integrated care, and mental health support.

In discussion with respondents on outcomes, it appeared that many have complementary views about what is important and relevant, which may differ from the outcomes established by clinicians and researchers. This knowledge needs to complement and be incorporated into existing research and treatment models to ensure healthcare remains focused on the human and our evolving needs.

Sexually transmitted infections (STIs) are a significant public health challenge, but there is a perceived lack of political priority in addressing STIs as a global health issue. Our study aimed to understand the determinants of global political priority for STIs since the 1980s and to discern implications for future prioritisation.

Through semistructured interviews from July 2021 to February 2022, we engaged 20 key stakeholders (8 women, 12 men) from academia, United Nations agencies, international non-governmental organisations, philanthropic organisations and national public health agencies. A published policy framework was employed for thematic analysis, and findings triangulated with relevant literature and policy documents. We examined issue characteristics, prevailing ideas, actor power dynamics and political contexts.

A contrast in perspectives before and after the year 2000 emerged. STI control was high on the global health agenda during the late 1980s and 1990s, as a means to control HIV. A strong policy community agreed on evidence about the high burden of STIs and that STI management could reduce the incidence of HIV. The level of importance decreased when further research evidence did not find an impact of STI control interventions on HIV incidence. Since 2000, cohesion in the STI community has decreased. New framing for broad STI control has not emerged. Interventions that have been funded, such as human papillomavirus vaccination and congenital syphilis elimination have been framed as cancer control or improving newborn survival, rather than as STI control.

Globally, the perceived decline in STI control priority might stem from discrepancies between investment choices and experts’ views on STI priorities. Addressing STIs requires understanding the intertwined nature of politics and empirical evidence in resource allocation. The ascent of universal health coverage presents an opportunity for integrated STI strategies but high-quality care, sustainable funding and strategic coordination are essential.

The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the persistent fragmentation of health systems and has amplified the necessity for integration. This issue is particularly pronounced in decentralise settings, where fragmentation is evident with poor coordination that impedes timely information sharing, efficient resource allocation and effective response to health threats. It is within this context that the Philippine Universal Health Care law introduced reforms focusing on equitable access and resilient health systems through intermunicipal cooperation, enhancing primary care networks and harnessing digital health technologies—efforts that underline the demand for a comprehensively integrated healthcare system. The WHO and the global community have long called for integration as a strategy to optimise healthcare delivery. The authors contend that at the core of health system integration lies the need to synchronise public health and primary care interventions to enhance individual and population health. Drawing lessons from the implementation of a pilot project in the Philippines which demonstrates an integrated approach to delivering COVID-19 vaccination, family planning and primary care services, this paper examines the crucial role of local health officers in the process, offering insights and practical lessons for engaging these key actors to advance health system integration. These lessons may hold relevance for other low-ncome and middle-income economies pursuing similar reforms, providing a path forward towards achieving universal health coverage.

Rising facility births in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) mask inequalities in higher-level emergency care—typically in hospitals. Limited research has addressed hospital use in women at risk of or with complications, such as high parity, linked to poverty and rurality, for whom hospital care is essential. We aimed to address this gap, by comparatively assessing hospital use in rural SSA by wealth and parity.

Countries in SSA with a Demographic and Health Survey since 2015 were included. We assessed rural hospital childbirth stratifying by wealth (wealthier/poorer) and parity (nulliparity/high parity≥5), and their combination. We computed percentages, 95% CIs and percentage-point differences, by stratifier level. To compare hospital use across countries, we produced a composite index, including six utilisation and equality indicators.

This cross-sectional study included 18 countries. In all, a minority of rural women used hospitals for childbirth (2%–29%). There were disparities by wealth and parity, and poorer, high-parity women used hospitals least. The poorer/wealthier difference in utilisation among high-parity women ranged between 1.3% (Mali) and 13.2% (Rwanda). We found use and equality of hospitals in rural settings were greater in Malawi and Liberia, followed by Zimbabwe, the Gambia and Rwanda.

Inequalities identified across 18 countries in rural SSA indicate poor, higher-risk women of high parity had lower use of hospitals for childbirth. Specific policy attention is urgently needed for this group where disadvantage accumulates.

The WHO neglected tropical disease (NTD) roadmap stresses the importance of integrating NTDs requiring case management (CM) within the health system. The NTDs programme of Liberia is among the first to implement an integrated approach and evaluate its impact.

A retrospective study of three of five CM-NTD-endemic counties that implemented the integrated approach was compared with cluster-matched counties with non-integrated CM-NTD. We compared trends in CM-NTD integrated versus non-integrated county clusters. We conducted a pre-post comparison of WHO high-level outcomes using data collected during intervention years compared with baseline in control counties. Changes in health outcomes, effect sizes for different diseases and rate ratios with statistically significant differences were determined. Complementary qualitative research explored CM-NTD stakeholders’ perceptions, analysed through the framework approach, which is a transparent, multistage approach for qualitative thematic interdisciplinary data analysis.

The detection rates for all diseases combined improved significantly in the intervention compared with the control clusters. Besides leprosy, detection rates improved with large effects, over fourfold increase with statistically significant effects for individual diseases (p<0.000; 95% CI 3.5 to 5.4). Access to CM-NTD services increased in integrated counties by 71 facilities, compared with three facilities in non-integrated counties. Qualitative findings highlight training and supervision as inputs underpinning increases in case detection, but challenges with refresher training, medicine supply and incentives negatively impact quality, equity and access.

Integrating CM-NTDs improves case detection, accessibility and availability of CM-NTD services, promoting universal health coverage. Early case detection and the quality of care need further strengthening.

Globally, resources for health spending, including HIV and tuberculosis (TB), are constrained, and a substantial gap exists between spending and estimated needs. Optima is an allocative efficiency modelling tool that has been used since 2010 in over 50 settings to generate evidence for country-level HIV and TB resource allocation decisions. This evaluation assessed the utilisation of modelling to inform financing priorities from the perspective of country stakeholders and their international partners.

In October to December 2021, the World Bank and Burnet Institute led 16 semi-structured small-group virtual interviews with 54 representatives from national governments and international health and funding organisations. Interviews probed participants’ roles and satisfaction with Optima analyses and how model findings have had been used and impacted resource allocation. Interviewed stakeholders represented nine countries and 11 different disease programme-country contexts with prior Optima modelling analyses. Interview notes were thematically analysed to assess factors influencing the utilisation of modelling evidence in health policy and outcomes.

Common influences on utilisation of Optima findings encompassed the perceived validity of findings, health system financing mechanisms, the extent of stakeholder participation in the modelling process–including engagement of funding organisations, sociopolitical context and timeliness of the analysis. Using workshops can facilitate effective stakeholder engagement and collaboration. Model findings were often used conceptually to localise global evidence and facilitate discussion. Secondary outputs included informing strategic and financial planning, funding advocacy, grant proposals and influencing investment shifts.

Allocative efficiency modelling has supported evidence-informed decision-making in numerous contexts and enhanced the conceptual and practical understanding of allocative efficiency. Most immediately, greater involvement of country stakeholders in modelling studies and timing studies to key strategic and financial planning decisions may increase the impact on decision-making. Better consideration for integrated disease modelling, equity goals and financing constraints may improve relevance and utilisation of modelling findings.

Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is an urgent and growing global health concern, and a clear understanding of existing capacities to address AMR, particularly in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs), is needed to inform national priorities, investment targets and development activities. Across LMICs, there are limited data regarding existing mechanisms to address AMR, including national AMR policies, current infection prevention and antimicrobial prescribing practices, antimicrobial use in animals, and microbiological testing capacity for AMR. Despite the development of numerous individual tools designed to inform policy formulation and implementation or surveillance interventions to address AMR, there is an unmet need for easy-to-use instruments that together provide a detailed overview of AMR policy, practice and capacity. This paper describes the development of a framework comprising five assessment tools which provide a detailed assessment of country capacity to address AMR within both the human and animal health sectors. The framework is flexible to meet the needs of implementers, as tools can be used separately to assess the capacity of individual institutions or as a whole to align priority-setting and capacity-building with AMR National Action Plans (NAPs) or national policies. Development of the tools was conducted by a multidisciplinary team across three phases: (1) review of existing tools; (2) adaptation of existing tools; and (3) piloting, refinement and finalisation. The framework may be best used by projects which aim to build capacity and foster cross-sectoral collaborations towards the surveillance of AMR, and by LMICs wishing to conduct their own assessments to better understand capacity and capabilities to inform future investments or the implementation of NAPs for AMR.

Universal access to insulin remains a global public health challenge mainly due to its high price. After unsuccessful healthcare reforms attempting to lower insulin prices over the past several decades, the novel pooled procurement—also known as the national volume-based procurement (NVBP)was initiated exclusively for insulin in China. The NVBP exclusively for insulin represents a unique approach to conquering the challenges in the pooled procurement many low-income and middle-income countries face. In this paper, we described how the pooled procurement mechanism was implemented for insulin in China. Forty-two insulin products from 11 companies were procured, with a median price reduction of 42.08%. The procurement price ranged from US$0.35 to US$1.63 (¥2.35–¥10.97) per defined daily dose (DDD). The median procurement price per DDD was US$$0.54 (¥3.63) for human insulins and US$0.92 (¥6.18) for analogue insulin (p<0.001), respectively. A total of 32 000 medical facilities participated in the procurement, and the pooled demand for insulin was 1.61 billion daily doses, with an estimated saving of US$2.85 billion (¥19 billion) for the first year of the procurement agreement. Insulin affordability and accessibility improved substantially. This study reveals that the NVBP exclusively for insulin could effectively reduce insulin prices and improve access to this essential medicine. Even though the pooled procurement option looks efficient, its long-term impacts on the healthcare system should be closely monitored.