Search results

ABSTRACT The COVID-19 syndemic has disproportionately affected socially vulnerable populations, such as low-income individuals, Indigenous peoples, and riverine communities. Social Determinants of Health (SDH) have played a crucial role in the state of Amazonas, where unique geography and social disparities pose significant challenges to health access and equity. This article examines whether and how SDH were considered during COVID-19 testing planning in Amazonas. For this analysis, we conducted a qualitative case study through document analysis and semi-structured interviews with key stakeholders involved in testing planning and implementation. Official documents were systematized using TIDieR-PHP, and data were analyzed using the REFLEX-ISS tool. SDH were not considered in testing planning in Amazonas. The respondents could not all agree on the importance of considering SDH in intervention planning. Testing was limited to patients with severe symptoms and specific categories of essential workers. Health policymakers need to understand the relevance of considering SDH in planning population interventions to ensure equitable policy implementation.

RESUMO A sindemia da covid-19 afetou desproporcionalmente populações mais vulneráveis do ponto de vista social, como pessoas de baixa renda, populações indígenas e ribeirinhas. No estado do Amazonas, onde a geografia única e as disparidades sociais apresentam desafios significativos para o acesso e a equidade em saúde, os Determinantes Sociais da Saúde (DSS) desempenham um papel crucial. Este artigo analisa se e como os DSS foram considerados durante o planejamento de testes para a covid-19 no Amazonas. Para tal análise, realizou-se um estudo de caso qualitativo por meio de análise documental e entrevistas semiestruturadas com atores-chave envolvidos no planejamento e na implementação da testagem. Os documentos oficiais foram sistematizados usando TIDieR-PHP. Os dados foram analisados empregando a ferramenta REFLEX-ISS. Os DSS não foram considerados no planejamento de testes no Amazonas. Não houve consenso entre os entrevistados sobre a importância de considerar os DSS no planejamento da intervenção. Os testes foram restritos a pacientes com sintomas graves e a algumas categorias de trabalhadores em serviços considerados essenciais. Faz-se necessário, aos gestores de políticas de saúde, conhecimento sobre a importância de considerar os DSS no planejamento em intervenções populacionais para realizar uma política equânime.

The COVID-19 pandemic is a global public health threat of serious concern, especially in conflict settings that face fragility and lack adequate resources and capacities. Gaza suffers from a blockade imposed by the Israeli occupation, environmental deterioration, confiscation of lands, demolition of houses and hospitals, restrictions on movement, lack of control over natural resources, and financial constraints. Gaza's population is consequently living in a poor humanitarian situation with high unemployment rates, poverty, over-crowdedness, and a weak health system. This makes Gaza incredibly fragile and affects its ability to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic effectively. The pandemic is expected to deepen Gaza's systems' fragility, which is already overstretched beyond their limits. This will hinder its capacity to deal with the pandemic, and other pre-existing pressing humanitarian needs. Therefore, in this review, we comprehensively explored Gaza's policy failures and successes related to the COVID-19 preparedness and response by state and non-state actors and recommend potential solutions and alternatives. We have addressed critical issues including the health system, water, sanitation, hygiene, socio-economic, education, food security, and others. In Gaza, effectiveness in combating the COVID-19 pandemic can only come from committed political will, transparency from all regulators, strategic dialogue, comprehensive planning, and active international support.

While One Health initiatives are gaining in popularity, it is unclear if and how they are evaluated when implementation at scale is intended. The main purpose of this scoping review was to describe how One Health initiatives targeting infectious diseases and antimicrobial resistance at a large scale are evaluated. Secondary objectives included identifying the main facilitators and barriers to the implementation and success of these initiatives, and how their impacts were assessed. Twenty-three studies evaluating One Health initiatives were eligible. Most studies included the human (n = 22) and animal (n = 15) sectors; only four included the environment sector. The types of evaluated initiative (non-exclusive) included governance (n = 5), knowledge (n = 6), protection (n = 17), promotion (n = 16), prevention (n = 9), care (n = 8), advocacy (n = 10) and capacity (n = 10). Studies used normative (n = 4) and evaluative (n = 20) approaches to assess the One Health initiatives, the latter including impact (n = 19), implementation (n = 8), and performance (n = 7) analyses. Structural and economic, social, political, communication and coordination-related factors, as well as ontological factors, were identified as both facilitators and barriers for successful One Health initiatives. These results identified a wide range of evaluation methods and indicators used to demonstrate One Health's added values, strengths, and limitations: the inherent complexity of the One Health approach leads to the use of multiple types of evaluation. The strengths and remaining gaps in the evaluation of such initiative highlight the relevance of comprehensive, mixed-method, context-sensitive evaluation frameworks to inform and support the implementation of One Health initiatives by stakeholders in different governance settings.