Suchergebnisse

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.