Suchergebnisse

BACKGROUND: Although enhanced priority-setting for investments in health research for development is essential to tackling inequalities in global health, there is a lack of consensus on an optimal priority-setting process. In light of the current surge in tuberculosis (TB) research investment, we use TB as a case study. METHODS: We investigated two critical aspects of a research prioritisation process, namely the criteria that should be used to rank alternative research options and which stakeholders should be involved in priority-setting. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 24 key informants purposively selected from four distinct groups - academia, funding bodies, international policy or technical agencies, and national disease control programmes. Interview transcripts were analysed verbatim using a framework approach. We also performed a systematic analysis of seven diverse TB research prioritisation processes. RESULTS: There was consensus that well-defined and transparent criteria for assessing research options need to be agreed at the outset of any prioritisation process. It was recommended that criteria should select for research that is likely to have the greatest public health impact in affected countries rather than research that mainly fills scientific knowledge gaps. Some interviewees expressed strong views about the need - and reluctance - to make politically challenging decisions that place some research areas at a lower priority for funding. The importance of taking input from stakeholders from countries with high disease burden was emphasised; such stakeholders were notably absent from the majority of prioritisation processes we analysed. CONCLUSIONS: This study indicated two critical areas for improvement of research prioritisation processes such that inequalities in health are better addressed - the need to deprioritise some research areas to generate a specific and meaningful list for investment, and greater involvement of experts working in high disease-burden countries.

INTRODUCTION: The global health field has witnessed the rise, short-term persistence and fall of several movements. One Health, which addresses links between human, animal and environmental health, is currently experiencing a surge in political and financial attention, but there are well-documented barriers to collaboration between stakeholders from different sectors. We examined how stakeholder dynamics and approaches to operationalising One Health have evolved further to recent political and financial support for One Health. METHODS: We conducted a mixed methods study, first by qualitatively investigating views of 25 major policymakers and funders of One Health programmes about factors supporting or impeding systemic changes to strengthen the One Health movement. We then triangulated these findings with a quantitative analysis of the current operations of 100 global One Health Networks. RESULTS: We found that recent attention to One Health at high-level political fora has increased power struggles between dominant human and animal health stakeholders, in a context where investment in collaboration building skills is lacking. The injection of funding to support One Health initiatives has been accompanied by a rise in organisations conducting diverse activities under the One Health umbrella, with stakeholders shifting operationalisation in directions most aligned with their own interests, thereby splintering and weakening the movement. While international attention to antimicrobial resistance was identified as a unique opportunity to strengthen the One Health movement, there is a risk that this will further drive a siloed, disease-specific approach and that structural changes required for wider collaboration will be neglected. CONCLUSION: Our analysis indicated several opportunities to capitalise on the current growth in One Health initiatives and funding. In particular, evidence from better monitoring and evaluation of ongoing activities could support the case for future funding and allow development of more ...

Introduction: The global health field has witnessed the rise, short-term persistence and fall of several movements. One Health, which addresses links between human, animal and environmental health, is currently experiencing a surge in political and financial attention, but there are well-documented barriers to collaboration between stakeholders from different sectors. We examined how stakeholder dynamics and approaches to operationalising One Health have evolved further to recent political and financial support for One Health. Methods: We conducted a mixed methods study, first by qualitatively investigating views of 25 major policymakers and funders of One Health programmes about factors supporting or impeding systemic changes to strengthen the One Health movement. We then triangulated these findings with a quantitative analysis of the current operations of 100 global One Health Networks. Results: We found that recent attention to One Health at high-level political fora has increased power struggles between dominant human and animal health stakeholders, in a context where investment in collaboration building skills is lacking. The injection of funding to support One Health initiatives has been accompanied by a rise in organisations conducting diverse activities under the One Health umbrella, with stakeholders shifting operationalisation in directions most aligned with their own interests, thereby splintering and weakening the movement. While international attention to antimicrobial resistance was identified as a unique opportunity to strengthen the One Health movement, there is a risk that this will further drive a siloed, disease-specific approach and that structural changes required for wider collaboration will be neglected. Conclusion: Our analysis indicated several opportunities to capitalise on the current growth in One Health initiatives and funding. In particular, evidence from better monitoring and evaluation of ongoing activities could support the case for future funding and allow development of more precise guidelines on best practices.

Background: There has been insufficient attention to a fundamental force shaping healthcare policies-conflicts of interest (COI). We investigated COI, which results in the professional judgement of a policymaker or healthcare provider being compromised by a secondary interest, in relation to antimicrobial use, thereby illuminating challenges to the regulation of medicines use more broadly. Our objectives were to characterise connections between three groups-policymakers, healthcare providers and pharmaceutical companies-that can create COI, and elucidate the impacts of COI on stages of the policy process.Methods: Using an interpretive approach, we systematically analysed qualitative data from 136 in-depth interviews and five focus group discussions in three Asian countries with dominant private healthcare sectors: Cambodia, Indonesia and Pakistan.Findings: We characterised four types of connections that were pervasive between the three groups: financial, political, social and familial. These connections created strong COI that could impact all stages of the policy process by: preventing issues related to medicines sales from featuring prominently on the agenda; influencing policy formulation towards softer regulatory measures; determining resource availability for, and opposition to, policy implementation; and shaping how accurately the success of contested policies is reported.Interpretation: Our multicountry study fills a gap in empirical evidence on how COI can impede effective policies to improve the quality of healthcare. It shows that COI can be pervasive, rather than sporadic, in influencing regulation of medicine use, and highlights that, in addition to financial connections, other types of connections should be examined as important drivers of COI.

BACKGROUND: The recent increase in attention to linkages between human health, animal health, and the state of the environment has resulted in the rapid growth of networks that facilitate collaboration between these sectors. This study ascertained whether duplication of efforts is occurring across networks, which stakeholders are being engaged, and how frequently monitoring and evaluation of investments is being reported. METHODS: This study is a systematic analysis of One Health networks (OHNs) in Africa, Asia, and Europe. We defined an OHN as an engagement between two or more discrete organisations with at least two of the following sectors represented: animal health, human health, and the environment or ecosystem. Between June 5 and Sept 29, 2017, we systematically searched for OHNs in PubMed, Google, Google Scholar, and relevant conference websites. No language restrictions were applied, but we were only able to translate from English and French. Data about OHNs, including their year of initiation, sectors of engagement, regions of operation, activities conducted, and stakeholders involved, were extracted with a standardised template and analysed descriptively. FINDINGS: After screening 2430 search results, we identified and analysed 100 unique OHNs, of which 86 were formed after 2005. 32 OHNs covered only human and animal health, without engaging with the role of the environment on health. 78 OHNs involved academic bodies and 78 involved government bodies, with for-profit organisations involved in only 23 and community groups involved in only ten. There were few collaborations exclusively between networks in the developing world (four OHNs) and only 15 OHNs reported monitoring and evaluation information. The majority of OHNs worked on supporting communication, collaboration, information sharing, and capacity building. INTERPRETATION: Amid concerns about there being insufficient strategic direction and coordination in the growth of OHNs, our study provides empirical evidence about limitations in stakeholder representation, apparently absent or ambiguous monitoring and evaluation structures, and potential areas of duplication. The collective strategic functioning of OHNs might be improved by more transparent reporting of goals and outcomes of OHN activities, as well as more collaborations led by networks within the developing world and increased attention to environmental health. FUNDING: None.

BACKGROUND: There has been insufficient attention to a fundamental force shaping healthcare policies—conflicts of interest (COI). We investigated COI, which results in the professional judgement of a policymaker or healthcare provider being compromised by a secondary interest, in relation to antimicrobial use, thereby illuminating challenges to the regulation of medicines use more broadly. Our objectives were to characterise connections between three groups—policymakers, healthcare providers and pharmaceutical companies—that can create COI, and elucidate the impacts of COI on stages of the policy process. METHODS: Using an interpretive approach, we systematically analysed qualitative data from 136 in-depth interviews and five focus group discussions in three Asian countries with dominant private healthcare sectors: Cambodia, Indonesia and Pakistan. FINDINGS: We characterised four types of connections that were pervasive between the three groups: financial, political, social and familial. These connections created strong COI that could impact all stages of the policy process by: preventing issues related to medicines sales from featuring prominently on the agenda; influencing policy formulation towards softer regulatory measures; determining resource availability for, and opposition to, policy implementation; and shaping how accurately the success of contested policies is reported. INTERPRETATION: Our multicountry study fills a gap in empirical evidence on how COI can impede effective policies to improve the quality of healthcare. It shows that COI can be pervasive, rather than sporadic, in influencing regulation of medicine use, and highlights that, in addition to financial connections, other types of connections should be examined as important drivers of COI.