Search

The Sudan 2023 Humanitarian Response Plan was revised in May, 2023, due to the escalating violence in the country. This revision increased the scale of assistance and protection activities and suspended the funding allocated for access to livelihood, access to basic services, and for the implementation of resilience solutions. We call to rethink Sudan's current humanitarian response through a pro-resilience and people-centred approach. A pro-resilience approach prioritises investments in national systems and institutions capable of delivering aid and anticipates, prevents, mitigates, and manages imminent and simultaneous shocks. A people-centred humanitarian response involves meaningful engagement of communities and collaborations with civil society organisations, which continue to be the key responders to the ongoing conflict in Sudan. Finally, we propose approaches to effectively operationalise health system resilience to enhance immediate and long-term health outcomes., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests We declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY-NC 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

The number of people on the move internationally is increasing, and a sizable number of these individuals are migrating through and to the WHO European Region. The UN Sustainable Development Goals demand that we leave no one behind and ensure equitable implementation of Universal Health Coverage (UHC), regardless of immigration status. In the WHO European region, some of the migrants in the most precarious situations are undocumented; defined as those who may have been unsuccessful in asylum applications, born to undocumented parents, continued their residence in a country after their permit or other means of stay expired, as well as those who have entered the country irregularly. These undocumented migrants face some of the biggest challenges to accessing UHC and are often left behind by systems that exclude and stigmatise them. This paper examines the literature on access to healthcare for undocumented migrants in the WHO European Region and calls for urgent action towards ensuring UHC for all migrants regardless of immigration status by 2030., Competing Interests: All opinions expressed are the views of the individual authors and not their employing organisations. The authors declare no conflicts of interest., (© 2023 The Authors.)

The 2030 Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) agenda has committed to 'ensuring that no one is left behind'. Applying the right to health of non-citizens and international migrants is challenging in today's highly polarized political discourse on migration governance and integration. We explore the role of a priority setting approach to help support better, fairer and more transparent policy making in migration health. A priority setting approach must also incorporate migration health for more efficient and fair allocation of scarce resources. Explicitly recognizing the trade-offs as part of strategic planning, would circumvent ad hoc decision-making during crises, not well-suited for fairness. Discussions surrounding decisions about expanding services to migrants or subgroups of migrants, which services and to whom should be transparent and fair. We conclude that a priority setting approach can help better inform policy making by being more closely aligned with the practical challenges policy makers face towards the progressive realization of migration health., Competing Interests: The authors have no competing interests., (© 2023 The Authors.)

Objective: Migrants and refugees are at a disadvantage in accessing basic necessities. The objective of this study is to assess the inequity in access, needs and determinants of COVID-19 vaccination among refugees and migrant populations in Pakistan., Design: We conducted a mixed-method study comprising a cross-sectional survey and a qualitative study. In this paper, we will only report the findings from the cross-sectional survey., Setting: This survey was conducted in different cities of Pakistan including Quetta, Karachi and Hyderabad., Participants: A total of 570 participants were surveyed including refugees and migrants, both in regular and irregular situations., Primary and Secondary Outcome Measures: The primary outcome of the study was to estimate the proportion of refugees and migrants, both in regular and irregular situations vaccinated against COVID-19 and assess the inequity. The χ 2 test and Fisher's exact test were used to determine the significant differences in proportions between refugees and migrants and between regions., Results: The survey showed that only 26.9% of the refugee and migrant population were tested for COVID-19, 4.56% contracted coronavirus, and 3.85% were hospitalised due to COVID-19. About 66% of the refugees and migrants were fully vaccinated including those who received the single-dose vaccine or received all two doses, and 17.6% were partially vaccinated. Despite vaccination campaigns by the government, 14.4% of the refugee and migrant population remained unvaccinated mostly because of vaccines not being offered, distant vaccination sites, limited access, unavailability of COVID-19 vaccine or due to a difficult registration process. Vaccination rates varied across provinces, genders and migrant populations due to misconceptions, and several social, cultural and geographical barriers., Conclusion: This study highlights the COVID-19 vaccine coverage, access and inequity faced by refugees and migrants during the pandemic. It suggests early prioritisation of policies inclusive of all refugees and migrants and the provision of identification documents to ease access to basic necessities., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction: Despite rapidly growing academic and policy interest in health system resilience, the empirical literature on this topic remains small and focused on macrolevel effects arising from single shocks. To better understand health system responses to multiple shocks, we conducted an in-depth case study using qualitative system dynamics. We focused on routine childhood vaccination delivery in Lebanon in the context of at least three shocks overlapping to varying degrees in space and time: large-scale refugee arrivals from neighbouring Syria; COVID-19; and an economic crisis., Methods: Semistructured interviews were performed with 38 stakeholders working at different levels in the system. Interview transcripts were analysed using purposive text analysis to generate individual stakeholder causal loop diagrams (CLDs) mapping out relationships between system variables contributing to changes in coverage for routine antigens over time. These were then combined using a stepwise process to produce an aggregated CLD. The aggregated CLD was validated using a reserve set of interview transcripts., Results: Various system responses to shocks were identified, including demand promotion measures such as scaling-up community engagement activities and policy changes to reduce the cost of vaccination to service users, and supply side responses including donor funding mobilisation, diversification of service delivery models and cold chain strengthening. Some systemic changes were introduced-particularly in response to refugee arrivals-including task-shifting to nurse-led vaccine administration. Potentially transformative change was seen in the integration of private sector clinics to support vaccination delivery and depended on both demand side and supply side changes. Some resilience-promoting measures introduced following earlier shocks paradoxically increased vulnerability to later ones., Conclusion: Flexibility in financing and human resource allocation appear key for system resilience regardless of the shock. System dynamics offers a promising method for ex ante modelling of ostensibly resilience-strengthening interventions under different shock scenarios, to identify-and safeguard against-unintended consequences., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Competing Interests: There are no competing interests.

This Viewpoint brings together insights from health system experts working in a range of settings. Our focus is on examining the state of the resilience field, including current thinking on definitions, conceptualisation, critiques, measurement, and capabilities. We highlight the analytical value of resilience, but also its risks, which include neglect of equity and of who is bearing the costs of resilience strategies. Resilience depends crucially on relationships between system actors and components, and-as amply shown during the COVID-19 pandemic-relationships with wider systems (eg, economic, political, and global governance structures). Resilience is therefore connected to power imbalances, which need to be addressed to enact the transformative strategies that are important in dealing with more persistent shocks and stressors, such as climate change. We discourage the framing of resilience as an outcome that can be measured; instead, we see it emerge from systemic resources and interactions, which have effects that can be measured. We propose a more complex categorisation of shocks than the common binary one of acute versus chronic, and outline some of the implications of this for resilience strategies. We encourage a shift in thinking from capacities towards capabilities-what actors could do in future with the necessary transformative strategies, which will need to encompass global, national, and local change. Finally, we highlight lessons emerging in relation to preparing for the next crisis, particularly in clarifying roles and avoiding fragmented governance., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests We declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

In 2017, in the middle of the armed conflict with the Taliban, the Ministry of Public Health decided that the Afghan health system needed a well-defined priority package of health services taking into account the increasing burden of non-communicable diseases and injuries and benefiting from the latest evidence published by DCP3. This leads to a 2-year process involving data analysis, modelling and national consultations, which produce this Integrated Package of Essential health Services (IPEHS). The IPEHS was finalised just before the takeover by the Taliban and could not be implemented. The Afghanistan experience has highlighted the need to address not only the content of a more comprehensive benefit package, but also its implementation and financing. The IPEHS could be used as a basis to help professionals and the new authorities to define their priorities., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Competing Interests: We declare no competing interests.

Competing Interests: Competing interests: We have read and understood BMJ policy on declaration of interests and have no interests to declare.

Essential packages of health services (EPHS) are a critical tool for achieving universal health coverage, especially in low-income and lower middle-income countries. However, there is a lack of guidance and standards for monitoring and evaluation (M&E) of EPHS implementation. This paper is the final in a series of papers reviewing experiences using evidence from the Disease Control Priorities, third edition publications in EPHS reforms in seven countries. We assess current approaches to EPHS M&E, including case studies of M&E approaches in Ethiopia and Pakistan. We propose a step-by-step process for developing a national EPHS M&E framework. Such a framework would start with a theory of change that links to the specific health system reforms the EPHS is trying to accomplish, including explicit statements about the 'what' and 'for whom' of M&E efforts. Monitoring frameworks need to consider the additional demands that could be placed on weak and already overstretched data systems, and they must ensure that processes are put in place to act quickly on emergent implementation challenges. Evaluation frameworks could learn from the field of implementation science; for example, by adapting the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation and Maintenance framework to policy implementation. While each country will need to develop its own locally relevant M&E indicators, we encourage all countries to include a set of core indicators that are aligned with the Sustainable Development Goal 3 targets and indicators. Our paper concludes with a call to reprioritise M&E more generally and to use the EPHS process as an opportunity for strengthening national health information systems. We call for an international learning network on EPHS M&E to generate new evidence and exchange best practices., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objective: To assess decision-making quality through piloting an audit tool among decision-makers responding to the COVID-19 epidemic in Somalia., Design and Setting: We utilised a mixed-methods programme evaluation design comprising quantitative and qualitative methods. Decision-makers in Somalia piloted the audit tool generating a scorecard for decision-making in epidemic response. They also participated in key informant interviews discussing their experience with the audit process and results., Participants: A total of 18 decision-makers from two humanitarian agencies responding to COVID-19 in Somalia were recruited to pilot the audit tool., Outcome Measures and Analysis: We used thematic analysis to assess the feasibility and perceived utility of the audit tool by intended users (decision-makers). We also calculated Fleiss' Kappa to assess inter-rater agreement in the audit scorecard., Results: The audit highlighted areas of improvement in decision-making among both organisations including in the dimensions of accountability and transparency. Despite the audit occurring in a highly complex operating environment, decision-makers found the process to be feasible and of high utility. The flexibility of the audit approach allowed for organisations to adapt the audit to their needs. As a result, organisation reported a high level of acceptance of the findings., Conclusion: Strengthening decision-making processes is key to realising the objectives of epidemic response. This pilot evaluation contributes towards this goal by the testing what, to our knowledge, may be the first tool designed specifically to assess quality of decision-making processes in epidemic response. The tool has proven feasible and acceptable in assessing decision-making quality in an ongoing response and has potential applicability in assessing decision-making in broader humanitarian response., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

This paper reviews the experience of six low-income and lower middle-income countries in setting their own essential packages of health services (EPHS), with the purpose of identifying the key requirements for the successful design and transition to implementation of the packages in the context of accelerating progress towards universal health coverage (UHC). The analysis is based on input from three meetings of a knowledge network established by the Disease Control Priorities 3 Country Translation Project and working groups, supplemented by a survey of participating countries.All countries endorsed the Sustainable Development Goals target 3.8 on UHC for achievement by 2030. The assessment of country experiences found that health system strengthening and mobilising and sustaining health financing are major challenges. EPHS implementation is more likely when health system gaps are addressed and when there are realistic and sustainable financing prospects. However, health system assessments were inadequate and the government planning and finance sectors were not consistently engaged in setting the EPHS in most of the countries studied. There was also a need for greater engagement with community and civil society representatives, academia and the private sector in package design. Leadership and reinforcement of technical and managerial capacity are critical in the transition from EPHS design to sustained implementation, as are strong human resources and country ownership of the process. Political commitment beyond the health sector is key, particularly commitment from parliamentarians and policymakers in the planning and finance sectors. National ownership, institutionalisation of technical and managerial capacity and reinforcing human resources are critical for success.The review concludes that four prerequisites are crucial for a successful EPHS: (1) sustained high-level commitment, (2) sustainable financing, (3) health system readiness, and (4) institutionalisation., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Health challenges like coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are becoming increasingly complex, transnational, and unpredictable. Studying health system responses to the COVID-19 pandemic is an opportunity to enhance our understanding of health system resilience and establish a clearer link between theoretical concepts and practical ideas on how to build resilience., Methods: This narrative literature review aims to address four questions using a health system resilience framework: ( i ) What do we understand about the dimensions of resilience? ( ii ) What aspects of the resilience dimensions remain uncertain? ( iii ) What aspects of the resilience dimensions are missing from the COVID-19 discussions? and ( iv ) What has COVID-19 taught us about resilience that is missing from the framework? A scientific literature database search was conducted in December 2020 and in April 2022 to identify publications that discussed health system resilience in relation to COVID-19, excluding articles on psychological and other types of resilience. A total of 63 publications were included., Results: There is good understanding around information sharing, flexibility and good leadership, learning, maintaining essential services, and the need for legitimate, interdependent systems. Decision-making, localized trust, influences on interdependence, and transformation remain uncertain. Vertical interdependence, monitoring risks beyond the health system, and consequences of changes on the system were not discussed. Teamwork, actor legitimacy, values, inclusivity, trans-sectoral resilience, and the role of the private sector are identified as lessons from COVID-19 that should be further explored for health system resilience., Conclusion: Knowledge of health system resilience has continued to cohere following the pandemic. The eventual consequences of system changes and the resilience of subsystems are underexplored. Through governance, the concept of health system resilience can be linked to wider issues raised by the pandemic, like inclusivity. Our findings show the utility of resilience theory for strengthening health systems for crises and the benefit of continuing to refine existing resilience theory., (© 2023 The Author(s); Published by Kerman University of Medical Sciences This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.)

Background: In 2014, Terre des Hommes (Tdh) together with the Ministry of Health (MoH) launched the Integrated electronic Diagnosis Approach (IeDA) intervention in two regions of Burkina Faso consisting of supplying every health centre with a digital algorithm. A realistic evaluation was conducted to understand the implementation process, the mechanisms by which the IeDA intervention lead to change., Methods: Data collection took place between January 2016 and October 2017. Direct observation in health centres were conducted. In-depth interviews were conducted with 154 individuals including 92 healthcare workers (HCW) from health centres, 16 officers from district health authorities, 6 members of health centre management committees. In addition, 5 focus groups were organised with carers. The initial coding was based on a preliminary list of codes inspired by the middle-range theory (MRT)., Results: Our results showed that the adoption of the electronic protocol depended on a multiplicity of management practices including role distribution, team work, problem solving approach, task monitoring, training, supervision, support and recognition. Such changes lead to reorganising the health team and redistributing roles before and during consultation, and positive atmosphere that included recognition of each team member, organisational commitment and sense of belonging. Conditions for such management changes to be effective included open dialog at all levels of the system, a minimum of resources to cover the support services and supervision and regular discussions focusing on solving problems faced by health centre teams., Conclusion: This project reinforces the point that in a successful diffusion of IeDA, it is necessary to combine the introduction of technology with support and management mechanisms. It also important to highlight that managers' attitude plays a great place in the success of the intervention: open dialog and respect are crucial dimensions. This is aligned with the findings from other studies., (© 2023 The Author(s); Published by Kerman University of Medical Sciences This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.)

Many countries around the world strive for universal health coverage, and an essential packages of health services (EPHS) is a central policy instrument for countries to achieve this. It defines the coverage of services that are made available, as well as the proportion of the costs that are covered from different financial schemes and who can receive these services. This paper reports on the development of an analytical framework on the decision-making process of EPHS revision, and the review of practices of six countries (Afghanistan, Ethiopia, Pakistan, Somalia, Sudan and Zanzibar-Tanzania).The analytical framework distinguishes the practical organisation, fairness and institutionalisation of decision-making processes. The review shows that countries: (1) largely follow a similar practical stepwise process but differ in their implementation of some steps, such as the choice of decision criteria; (2) promote fairness in their EPHS process by involving a range of stakeholders, which in the case of Zanzibar included patients and community members; (3) are transparent in terms of at least some of the steps of their decision-making process and (4) in terms of institutionalisation, express a high degree of political will for ongoing EPHS revision with almost all countries having a designated governing institute for EPHS revision.We advise countries to organise meaningful stakeholder involvement and foster the transparency of the decision-making process, as these are key to fairness in decision-making. We also recommend countries to take steps towards the institutionalisation of their EPHS revision process., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Competing Interests: No conflict of interest declared.

Causal loop diagrams (CLDs) are a systems thinking method that can be used to visualize and unpack complex health system behaviour. They can be employed prospectively or retrospectively to identify the mechanisms and consequences of policies or interventions designed to strengthen health systems and inform discussion with policymakers and stakeholders on actions that may alleviate sub-optimal outcomes. Whilst the use of CLDs in health systems research has generally increased, there is still limited use in low- and middle-income settings. In addition to their suitability for evaluating complex systems, CLDs can be developed where opportunities for primary data collection may be limited (such as in humanitarian or conflict settings) and instead be formulated using secondary data, published or grey literature, health surveys/reports and policy documents. The purpose of this paper is to provide a step-by-step guide for designing a health system research study that uses CLDs as their chosen research method, with particular attention to issues of relevance to research in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). The guidance draws on examples from the LMIC literature and authors' own experience of using CLDs in this research area. This paper guides researchers in addressing the following four questions in the study design process; (1) What is the scope of this research? (2) What data do I need to collect or source? (3) What is my chosen method for CLD development? (4) How will I validate the CLD? In providing supporting information to readers on avenues for addressing these key design questions, authors hope to promote CLDs for wider use by health system researchers working in LMICs., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press in association with The London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.)

Competing Interests: There are no conflicts of interests to declare.

Competing Interests: I declare no conflict of interest.

Health systems worldwide face major challenges in anticipating, planning for and responding to shocks from infectious disease epidemics, armed conflict, climatic and other crises. Although the literature on health system resilience has grown substantially in recent years, major uncertainties remain concerning approaches to resilience conceptualisation and measurement. This narrative review revisits literatures from a range of fields outside health to identify lessons relevant to health systems. Four key insights emerge. Firstly, shocks can only be understood by clarifying how, where and over what timescale they interact with a system of interest, and the dynamic effects they produce within it. Shock effects are contingent on historical path-dependencies, and on the presence of factors or system pathways (e.g. financing models, health workforce capabilities or supply chain designs) that may amplify or dampen impact in unexpected ways. Secondly, shocks often produce cascading effects across multiple scales, whereas the focus of much of the health resilience literature has been on macro-level, national systems. In reality, health systems bring together interconnected sub-systems across sectors and geographies, with different components, behaviours and sometimes even objectives - all influencing how a system responds to a shock. Thirdly, transformability is an integral feature of resilient social systems: cross-scale interactions help explain how systems can show both resilience and transformational capability at the same time. We illustrate these first three findings by extending the socioecological concept of adaptive cycles in social systems to health, using the example of maternal and child health service delivery. Finally, we argue that dynamic modelling approaches, under-utilised in research on health system resilience to date, have significant promise for identification of shock-moderating or shock-amplifying pathways, for understanding effects at multiple levels and ultimately for building resilience., Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed., (Copyright: © 2022 Ismail SA et al.)

The invasion of Ukraine has unleashed a humanitarian crisis and the impact is devastating for millions displaced in Ukraine and for those fleeing the country. Receiving countries in Europe are reeling with shock and disbelief and trying at the same time to grapple with the reality of providing for a large, unplanned, unprecedented number of refugees mainly women and children on the move. Several calls for actions, comments and statements express outrage, the risks, and the impending consequences to life and health. There is a need to constantly assess the situation on the ground, identify priorities for health and provide guidance regarding how these needs could be addressed. Therefore, the Lancet Migration European Regional Hub conducted rapid interviews with key informants to identify these needs, and in collaboration with the World Health Organization Health and Migration Programme, summarized how these could be addressed. This viewpoint provides a summary of the situation in receiving countries and the technical guidance required that could be useful for providing assistance in the current refugee crisis., Competing Interests: None to declare., (© 2022 The Author(s).)

The global COVID-19 pandemic is unprecedented in its scope and impact. While a great deal of research has been directed towards the response in high-income countries, relatively little is known about the way in which decision-makers in low-income and crisis-affected countries have contended with the epidemic. Through use of an a priori decision framework, we aimed to evaluate the process of policy and operational decision-making in relation to the COVID-19 response in Somalia, a chronically fragile country, focusing particularly on the use of information and the role of transparency. We undertook a desk review, observed a number of key decision-making fora and conducted a series of key informant and focus group discussions with a range of decision-makers including state authority, civil society, humanitarian and development actors. We found that nearly all actors struggled to make sense of the scale of the epidemic and form an appropriate response. Decisions made during the early months had a large impact on the course of the epidemic response. Decision-makers relied heavily on international norms and were constrained by a number of factors within the political environment including resource limitations, political contestation and low population adherence to response measures. Important aspects of the response suffered from a transparency deficit and would have benefitted from more inclusive decision-making. Development of decision support tools appropriate for crisis-affected settings that explicitly deal with individual and environmental decision factors could lead to more effective and timely epidemic response., Competing Interests: We have read the journal’s policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests: • Dr Mohamed Fuje is the former Chief Medical Officer of the Federal Republic of Somalia The authors declare no other competing interests., (Copyright: © 2022 Warsame et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)

Background: Cash transfers, payments provided by formal or informal institutions to recipients, are increasingly used in emergencies. While increasing autonomy and being supportive of local economies, cash transfers are a cost-effective method in some settings to cover basic needs and extend benefits of limited humanitarian aid budgets. Yet, the extent to which cash transfers impact health in humanitarian settings remains largely unexplored. This systematic review evaluates the evidence on the effect of cash transfers on health outcomes and health service utilisation in humanitarian contexts., Methods: Studies eligible for inclusion were peer reviewed (quantitative,qualitative and mixed-methods). Nine databases (PubMed, EMBAS, Medline, CINAHL, Global Health, Scopus, Web of Science Core Collection, SciELO and LiLACS) were searched without language and without a lower bound time restriction through 24 February 2021. The search was updated to include articles published through 8 December 2021. Data were extracted using a piloted extraction tool and quality was assessed using The Joanna Briggs Critical Appraisal Tool. Due to heterogeneity in study designs and outcomes, results were synthesised narratively and no meta-analysis was performed., Results: 30 673 records were identified. After removing duplicates, 17 715 were double screened by abstract and title, and 201 in full text. Twenty-three articles from 16 countries were included reporting on nutrition outcomes, psychosocial and mental health, general/subjective health and well-being, acute illness (eg, diarrhoea, respiratory infection), diabetes control (eg, blood glucose self-monitoring, haemoglobin A1C levels) and gender-based violence. Nineteen studies reported some positive impacts on various health outcomes and use of health services, 11 reported no statistically significant impact on outcomes assessed and 4 reported potential negative impacts on health outcomes., Discussion: Although there is evidence to suggest a positive relationship between cash transfers and health outcomes in humanitarian settings, high-quality empirical evidence, that is methodologically robust, investigates a range of humanitarian settings and is conducted over longer time periods is needed. This should consider factors influencing programme implementation and the differential impact of cash transfers designed to improve health versus multipurpose cash transfers., Prospero Registration Number: CRD42021237275., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Health system resilience, known as the ability for health systems to absorb, adapt or transform to maintain essential functions when stressed or shocked, has quickly gained popularity following shocks like COVID-19. The concept is relatively new in health policy and systems research and the existing research remains mostly theoretical. Research to date has viewed resilience as an outcome that can be measured through performance outcomes, as an ability of complex adaptive systems that is derived from dynamic behaviour and interactions, or as both. However, there is little congruence on the theory and the existing frameworks have not been widely used, which as diluted the research applications for health system resilience. A global group of health system researchers were convened in March 2021 to discuss and identify priorities for health system resilience research and implementation based on lessons from COVID-19 and other health emergencies. Five research priority areas were identified: (1) measuring and managing systems dynamic performance, (2) the linkages between societal resilience and health system resilience, (3) the effect of governance on the capacity for resilience, (4) creating legitimacy and (5) the influence of the private sector on health system resilience. A key to filling these research gaps will be longitudinal and comparative case studies that use cocreation and coproduction approaches that go beyond researchers to include policy-makers, practitioners and the public., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

The current global systemic crisis reveals how globalised societies are unprepared to face a pandemic. Beyond the dramatic loss of human life, the COVID-19 pandemic has triggered widespread disturbances in health, social, economic, environmental and governance systems in many countries across the world. Resilience describes the capacities of natural and human systems to prevent, react to and recover from shocks. Societal resilience to the current COVID-19 pandemic relates to the ability of societies in maintaining their core functions while minimising the impact of the pandemic and other societal effects. Drawing on the emerging evidence about resilience in health, social, economic, environmental and governance systems, this paper delineates a multisystemic understanding of societal resilience to COVID-19. Such an understanding provides the foundation for an integrated approach to build societal resilience to current and future pandemics., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Competing Interests: None to declare.

Background: Performance-based financing (PBF) has attracted considerable attention in recent years in low and middle-income countries. Afghanistan's Ministry of Public Health (MoPH) implemented a PBF programme between 2010 and 2015 to strengthen the utilisation of maternal and child health services in primary health facilities. This study aimed to examine the political economy factors influencing the adoption, design and implementation of the PBF programme in Afghanistan., Methods: Retrospective qualitative research methods were employed using semi structured interviews as well as a desk review of programme and policy documents. Key informants were selected purposively from the national level (n = 9), from the province level (n = 6) and the facility level (n = 15). Data analysis was inductive as well as deductive and guided by a political economy analysis framework to explore the factors that influenced the adoption and design of the PBF programme. Thematic content analysis was used to analyse the data., Results: The global policy context, and implementation experience in other LMIC, shaped PBF and its introduction in Afghanistan. The MoPH saw PBF as a promise of additional resources needed to rebuild the country's health system after a period of conflict. The MoPH support for PBF was also linked to their past positive experience of performance-based contracting. Power dynamics and interactions between PBF programme actors also shaped the policy process. The PBF programme established a centralised management structure which strengthened MoPH and donor ability to manage the programme, but overlooked key stakeholders, such as provincial health offices and non-state providers. However, MoPH had limited input in policy design, resulting in a design which was not well tailored to the national setting., Conclusions: This study shows that PBF programmes need to be designed and adapted according to the local context, involving all relevant actors in the policy cycle. Future studies should focus on conducting empirical research to not only understand the multiple effects of PBF programmes on the performance of health systems but also the main political economy dynamics that influence the PBF programmes in different stages of the policy process.

Background: In an era of increasingly competitive funding, governments and donors will be looking for creative ways to extend and maximise resources. One such means can include building upon professional advice networks to more efficiently introduce, scale up, or change programmes and healthcare provider practices. This cross-sectional, mixed-methods, observational study compared professional advice networks of healthcare workers in eight primary healthcare units across four regions of Ethiopia. Primary healthcare units include a health centre and typically five satellite health posts., Methods: One hundred sixty staff at eight primary healthcare units were interviewed using a structured tool. Quantitative data captured the frequency of healthcare worker advice seeking and giving on providing antenatal, childbirth, postnatal and newborn care. Network and actor-level metrics were calculated including density (ratio of ties between actors to all possible ties), centrality (number of ties incident to an actor), distance (average number of steps between actors) and size (number of actors within the network). Following quantitative network analyses, 20 qualitative interviews were conducted with network study participants from four primary healthcare units. Qualitative interviews aimed to interpret and explain network properties observed. Data were entered, analysed or visualised using Excel 6.0, UCINET 6.0, Netdraw, Adobe InDesign and MaxQDA10 software packages., Results: The following average network level metrics were observed: density .26 (SD.11), degree centrality .45 (SD.08), distance 1.94 (SD.26), number of ties 95.63 (SD 35.46), size of network 20.25 (SD 3.65). Advice networks for antenatal or maternity care were more utilised than advice networks for post-natal or newborn care. Advice networks were typically limited to primary healthcare unit staff, but not necessarily to supervisors. In seeking advice, a colleague's level of training and knowledge were valued over experience. Advice exchange primarily took place in person or over the phone rather than over email or online fora. There were few barriers to seeking advice., Conclusion: Informal, inter-and intra-cadre advice networks existed. Fellow primary healthcare unit staff were preferred, particularly midwives, but networks were not limited to the primary healthcare unit. Additional research is needed to associate network properties with outcomes and pilot network interventions with central actors.

Background: In 1997, the pursuit of greater accountability and effectiveness in humanitarian response prompted a multi-stakeholder collaboration to develop a set of indicators and standards to guide humanitarian practitioners, published later in the form of the Sphere Handbook. Twenty years after the first edition of the Handbook was developed, and in order to guide the 2018 revision, an assessment of the evidence base for current Water, Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH), Food Security and Nutrition, and Health Action indicators, as compared to evidence collated by the 2015 LSHTM Humanitarian Health Evidence Review (HHER), was conducted., Methodology: In order to assess the utility of the Sphere indicators as a tool with which to monitor and evaluate humanitarian activities, indicators from the WASH, Food Security and Nutrition, and Health Action chapters of the Sphere Handbook were analysed and classified according to the SMART criteria. Each indicator was then assessed based on existing evidence related to the effectiveness of humanitarian health interventions as compiled in the HHER., Results: Of the 159 Sphere indicators intended to guide humanitarian response, only 2 met all of the SMART criteria. The remaining 157 did not provide any time indication for the measurement of the indicator. Furthermore, only 11 standards (23%) and 14 indicators (8%) are supported in part by 33 studies identified in the HHER. Less than one third of studies captured by HHER that explore interventions related to WASH, nutrition, or health could be linked to existing Sphere indicators., Conclusion: It is not possible to adequately link the 2011 Sphere indicators and standards to their sources in their current constitution, and they are not sufficiently evidence-informed. In the absence of clear measurement definitions, they do not provide necessarily detailed guidance. While recognising that a number of indicators have emerged as a combination of empirical evidence, expert experience, and "common sense", a focus on fewer indicators, each better defined, is likely to enhance the practical application of the Sphere Handbook in humanitarian settings.

Recognition of the need for evidence-based interventions to help to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of humanitarian responses has been increasing. However, little is known about the breadth and quality of evidence on health interventions in humanitarian crises. We describe the findings of a systematic review with the aim of examining the quantity and quality of evidence on public health interventions in humanitarian crises to identify key research gaps. We identified 345 studies published between 1980 and 2014 that met our inclusion criteria. The quantity of evidence varied substantially by health topic, from communicable diseases (n=131), nutrition (n=77), to non-communicable diseases (n=8), and water, sanitation, and hygiene (n=6). We observed common study design and weaknesses in the methods, which substantially reduced the ability to determine causation and attribution of the interventions. Considering the major increase in health-related humanitarian activities in the past three decades and calls for a stronger evidence base, this paper highlights the limited quantity and quality of health intervention research in humanitarian contexts and supports calls to scale up this research., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Health systems research aims to understand the governance of health systems (i.e. how health systems function and perform and how their actors interact with each other). This can be achieved by applying innovative methodologies and concepts that are going to capture the complexity and dynamics of health systems when they are affected by shocks. The capacity of health systems to adapt to shocks (i.e. the resilience of health systems) is a new area of investigation. Social network analysis is a great avenue that can help measure the properties of systems and analyse the relationships between its actors and between the structure of a health system and the performance of a health system. A new conceptual framework is presented to define the governance of health systems using a resilience perspective.

In its 2008 annual report, WHO affirmed the importance of resisting the temptation to depend on direct payment for primary health care. Members of the WHO committee on the social determinants of health as well as of those at the conference on primary health care in Ouagadougou in 2008 reaffirmed the need to make access to health care systems more equitable. Several decades after imposition of direct payment began, convincing data clearly demonstrate its harmful effects on the basic fairness of access to care. Accordingly, the current debate in the field of financial support for health involves the elimination of payments. More precisely, we can finally say that this is a debate about a return to the free care that existed before the widespread implementation of "cost recovery" systems. Here we want to review these discussions and prepare the ground for a debate on possible effective strategies for making health care systems more equitable from the perspective of universal coverage. We will thus note that analyses today must certainly focus more on how to eliminate direct payments than on the reasons to do so, already amply demonstrated. The international community must now undertake to support governments that want to move in this direction and ensure that the process is thoroughly documented so that it can also produce useful knowledge for the formulation of fair public policies.