Search

This paper argues for a rethinking of disease preparedness that puts incertitude and the politics of knowledge at the centre. Through examining the experiences of Ebola, Nipah, cholera and COVID-19 across multiple settings, the limitations of current approaches are highlighted. Conventional approaches assume a controllable, predictable future, which is responded to by a range of standard interventions. Such emergency preparedness planning approaches assume risk - where future outcomes can be predicted - and fail to address uncertainty, ambiguity and ignorance - where outcomes or their probabilities are unknown. Through examining the experiences of outbreak planning and response across the four cases, the paper argues for an approach that highlights the politics of knowledge, the constructions of time and space, the requirements for institutions and administrations and the challenges of ethics and justice. Embracing incertitude in disease preparedness responses therefore means making contextual social, political and cultural dimensions central.

International audience; This article shares findings on COVID-19 in Africa across 2020 to examine concepts and practices of epidemic preparedness and response. Amidst uncertainties about the trajectory of COVID-19, the stages of emergency response emerge in practice as interconnected. We illustrate how complex dynamics manifest as diverse actors interpret and modify approaches according to contexts and experiences. We suggest that the concept of "intersecting precarities" best captures the temporalities at stake; that these precarities include the effects of epidemic control measures; and that people do not just accept but actively negotiate these intersections as they seek to sustain their lives and livelihoods.

Highlights • COVID-19, an unprecedented health and development crisis, has exposed major faultlines and fragilities in current systems. • A novel conceptual framework grounded in a decade of research on epidemics and development emphasises a structural-unruly duality in the conditions and processes of emergence, progression and impact. • Mainstream development thinking and practice are part of the problem; post-pandemic futures require radical transformations in science-policy under uncertainty; economies, and citizen-state relations. • Post-COVID-19 development must fully embrace resilience, diversity, care and solidarity, and egalitarian, inclusive knowledge and politics., COVID-19 is proving to be the long awaited ‘big one’: a pandemic capable of bringing societies and economies to their knees. There is an urgent need to examine how COVID-19 – as a health and development crisis - unfolded the way it did it and to consider possibilities for post-pandemic transformations and for rethinking development more broadly. Drawing on over a decade of research on epidemics, we argue that the origins, unfolding and effects of the COVID-19 pandemic require analysis that addresses both structural political-economic conditions alongside far less ordered, ‘unruly’ processes reflecting complexity, uncertainty, contingency and context-specificity. This structural-unruly duality in the conditions and processes of pandemic emergence, progression and impact provides a lens to view three key challenges areas. The first is how scientific advice and evidence are used in policy, when conditions are rigidly ‘locked in’ to established power relations and yet so uncertain. Second is how economies function, with the COVID-19 crisis having revealed the limits of a conventional model of economic growth. The third concerns how new forms of politics can become the basis of reshaped citizen-state relations in confronting a pandemic, such as those around mutual solidarity and care. COVID-19 demonstrates that we face an uncertain future, where anticipation of and resilience to major shocks must become the core problematic of development studies and practice. Where mainstream approaches to development have been top down, rigid and orientated towards narrowly-defined economic goals, post-COVID-19 development must have a radically transformative, egalitarian and inclusive knowledge and politics at its core.

The heterogeneous epidemiological picture for COVID-19 in Africa continues to generate debate. Modelling projections raise speculation about the phases and trends of SARS-CoV-2 outbreaks across the continent and how these differ from outbreaks elsewhere.[1–4][1] Continental efforts drew praise in

By September 2014, it was clear that conventional approaches to containing the spread of Ebola in West Africa were failing. Public health teams were often met with fear, and efforts to treat patients and curtail population movement frequently backfired. Both governments and international agencies recognized that anthropological expertise was essential if locally acceptable, community-based interventions to interrupt transmission were to be designed. The Ebola Response Anthropology Platform was established against this background. Drawing together local and internationally based anthropologists, the Platform provided a coordinated and rapid response to the outbreak in real time. This social thought & commentary piece explores how the Platform developed and interacted with other epistemic communities to produce knowledge and policy over the course of the outbreak. Reflecting on the experiences of working with the UK Department for International Development, the World Health Organization, and other agencies, we ask: what do these experiences reveal about the politics of (expert) knowledge and its influence on the design and implementation of policy? Did differing conceptions of the place of anthropology in humanitarian crises by policymakers and practitioners shape the contributions made by the Ebola Response Anthropology Platform? What are the implications of these experiences for future anthropological engagement with, and research on, humanitarian responses to health crises?

Global risks of zoonotic disease are high on policy agendas. Increasingly, Africa is seen as a ‘hotspot’, with likely disease spillovers from animals to humans. This paper explores the social dynamics of disease exposure, demonstrating how risks are not generalised, but are related to occupation, gender, class and other dimensions of social difference. Through case studies of Lassa Fever in Sierra Leone, Henipah virus in Ghana, Rift Valley Fever in Kenya and Trypanosomiasis in Zimbabwe, the paper proposes a social difference space–time framework to assist the understanding of and response to zoonotic diseases within a ‘One Health’ approach.

International audience

This review identifies evidence on supply-side interventions to change the practices of antibiotic prescribers and gatekeepers in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). A total of 102 studies met the inclusion criteria, of which 70 studies evaluated interventions and 32 provided insight into prescribing contexts. All intervention studies were from human healthcare settings, none were from animal health. Only one context study examined antibiotic use in animal health. The evidence base is uneven, with the strongest evidence on knowledge and stewardship interventions. The review found that multiplex interventions that combine different strategies to influence behaviour tend to have a higher success rate than interventions based on single strategies. Evidence on prescribing contexts highlights interacting influences including health system quality, education, perceptions of patient demand, bureaucratic processes, profit, competition, and cultures of care. Most interventions took place within one health setting. Very few studies targeted interventions across different kinds of providers and settings. Interventions in hospitals were the most commonly evaluated. There is much less evidence on private and informal private providers who play a major role in drug distribution in LMICs. There were no interventions involving drug detailers or the pharmaceutical companies despite their prominent role in the contextual studies.

This paper introduces the Thematic Issue on Innovation in Health Systems in Low- and Middle-Income Countries.

The WHO launched a Global Action Plan on antimicrobial resistance (AMR) in 2015. World leaders in the G7, G20 and the UN General Assembly have declared AMR to be a global crisis. World leaders have also adopted universal health coverage (UHC) as a key target under the sustainable development goals. This paper argues that neither initiative is likely to succeed in isolation from the other and that the policy goals should be to both provide access to appropriate antimicrobial treatment and reduce the risk of the emergence and spread of resistance by taking a systems approach. It focuses on outpatient treatment of human infections and identifies a number of interventions that would be needed to achieve these policy goals. It then shows how a strategy for achieving key attributes of a health system for UHC can take into account the need to address AMR as part of a UHC strategy in any country. It concludes with a list of recommended priority actions for integrating initiatives on AMR and UHC.

This paper argues for an integrative modelling approach for understanding zoonoses disease dynamics, combining process, pattern and participatory models. Each type of modelling provides important insights, but all are limited. Combining these in a ‘3P’ approach offers the opportunity for a productive conversation between modelling efforts, contributing to a ‘One Health’ agenda. The aim is not to come up with a composite model, but seek synergies between perspectives, encouraging cross-disciplinary interactions. We illustrate our argument with cases from Africa, and in particular from our work on Ebola virus and Lassa fever virus. Combining process-based compartmental models with macroecological data offers a spatial perspective on potential disease impacts. However, without insights from the ground, the ‘black box’ of transmission dynamics, so crucial to model assumptions, may not be fully understood. We show how participatory modelling and ethnographic research of Ebola and Lassa fever can reveal social roles, unsafe practices, mobility and movement and temporal changes in livelihoods. Together with longer-term dynamics of change in societies and ecologies, all can be important in explaining disease transmission, and provide important complementary insights to other modelling efforts. An integrative modelling approach therefore can offer help to improve disease control efforts and public health responses. This article is part of the themed issue ‘One Health for a changing world: zoonoses, ecosystems and human well-being’.

This article explores the implications for human health of local interactions between disease, ecosystems and livelihoods. Five interdisciplinary case studies addressed zoonotic diseases in African settings: Rift Valley fever (RVF) in Kenya, human African trypanosomiasis in Zambia and Zimbabwe, Lassa fever in Sierra Leone and henipaviruses in Ghana. Each explored how ecological changes and human–ecosystem interactions affect pathogen dynamics and hence the likelihood of zoonotic spillover and transmission, and how socially differentiated peoples’ interactions with ecosystems and animals affect their exposure to disease. Cross-case analysis highlights how these dynamics vary by ecosystem type, across a range from humid forest to semi-arid savannah; the significance of interacting temporal and spatial scales; and the importance of mosaic and patch dynamics. Ecosystem interactions and services central to different people's livelihoods and well-being include pastoralism and agro-pastoralism, commercial and subsistence crop farming, hunting, collecting food, fuelwood and medicines, and cultural practices. There are synergies, but also tensions and trade-offs, between ecosystem changes that benefit livelihoods and affect disease. Understanding these can inform ‘One Health’ approaches towards managing ecosystems in ways that reduce disease risks and burdens.This article is part of the themed issue ‘One Health for a changing world: zoonoses, ecosystems and human well-being’.

This paper argues that addressing the underlying structural drivers of disease vulnerability is essential for a ‘One Health’ approach to tackling zoonotic diseases in Africa. Through three case studies—trypanosomiasis in Zimbabwe, Ebola and Lassa fever in Sierra Leone and Rift Valley fever in Kenya—we show how political interests, commercial investments and conflict and securitization all generate patterns of vulnerability, reshaping the political ecology of disease landscapes, influencing traditional coping mechanisms and affecting health service provision and outbreak responses. A historical, political economy approach reveals patterns of ‘structural violence’ that reinforce inequalities and marginalization of certain groups, increasing disease risks. Addressing the politics of One Health requires analysing trade-offs and conflicts between interests and visions of the future. For all zoonotic diseases economic and political dimensions are ultimately critical and One Health approaches must engage with these factors, and not just end with an ‘anti-political’ focus on institutional and disciplinary collaboration.This article is part of the themed issue ‘One Health for a changing world: zoonoses, ecosystems and human well-being’.

Background The Theory of Change (ToC) is a management and evaluation tool supporting critical thinking in the design, implementation and evaluation of development programmes. We document the experience of Future Health Systems (FHS) Consortium research teams in Bangladesh, India and Uganda with using ToC. We seek to understand how and why ToCs were applied and to clarify how they facilitate the implementation of iterative intervention designs and stakeholder engagement in health systems research and strengthening. Methods This paper combines literature on ToC, with a summary of reflections by FHS research members on the motivation, development, revision and use of the ToC, as well as on the benefits and challenges of the process. We describe three FHS teams’ experiences along four potential uses of ToCs, namely planning, communication, learning and accountability. Results The three teams developed ToCs for planning and evaluation purposes as required for their initial plans for FHS in 2011 and revised them half-way through the project, based on assumptions informed by and adjusted through the teams’ experiences during the previous 2 years of implementation. All teams found that the revised ToCs and their accompanying narratives recognised greater feedback among intervention components and among key stakeholders. The ToC development and revision fostered channels for both internal and external communication, among research team members and with key stakeholders, respectively. The process of revising the ToCs challenged the teams’ initial assumptions based on new evidence and experience. In contrast, the ToCs were only minimally used for accountability purposes. Conclusions The ToC development and revision process helped FHS research teams, and occasionally key local stakeholders, to reflect on and make their assumptions and mental models about their respective interventions explicit. Other projects using the ToC should allow time for revising and reflecting upon the ToCs, to recognise and document the adaptive nature of health systems, and to foster the time, space and flexibility that health systems strengthening programmes must have to learn from implementation and stakeholder engagement. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12961-017-0272-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

International audience

The emergence and spread of antibiotic resistant pathogens poses a big challenge to policy-makers, who need to oversee the transformation of health systems that evolved to provide easy access to these drugs into ones that encourage appropriate use of antimicrobials, whilst reducing the risk of resistance. This is a particular challenge for low and middle-income countries with pluralistic health systems where antibiotics are available in a number of different markets. This review paper considers access and use of antibiotics in these countries from a complex adaptive system perspective. It highlights the main areas of intervention that could provide the key to addressing the sustainable long term use and availability of antibiotics.A focus on the synergies between interventions addressing access strategies, antibiotic quality, diagnostics for low-resource settings, measures to encourage just and sustainable decision making and help seeking optimal therapeutic and dosing strategies are key levers for the sustainable future of antibiotic use. Successful integration of such strategies will be dependent on effective governance mechanisms, effective partnerships and coalition building and accurate evaluation systems at national, regional and global levels.