Search

Abstract Background In the nearly half century since it began lending for population projects, the World Bank has become one of the largest financiers of global health projects and programs, a powerful voice in shaping health agendas in global governance spaces, and a mass producer of evidentiary knowledge for its preferred global health interventions. How can social scientists interrogate the role of the World Bank in shaping ‘global health’ in the current era? Main body As a group of historians, social scientists, and public health officials with experience studying the effects of the institution’s investment in health, we identify three challenges to this research. First, a future research agenda requires recognizing that the Bank is not a monolith, but rather has distinct inter-organizational groups that have shaped investment and discourse in complicated, and sometimes contradictory, ways. Second, we must consider how its influence on health policy and investment has changed significantly over time. Third, we must analyze its modes of engagement with other institutions within the global health landscape, and with the private sector. The unique relationships between Bank entities and countries that shape health policy, and the Bank’s position as a center of research, permit it to have a formative influence on health economics as applied to international development. Addressing these challenges, we propose a future research agenda for the Bank’s influence on global health through three overlapping objects of and domains for study: knowledge-based (shaping health policy knowledge), governance-based (shaping health governance), and finance-based (shaping health financing). We provide a review of case studies in each of these categories to inform this research agenda. Conclusions As the COVID-19 pandemic continues to rage, and as state and non-state actors work to build more inclusive and robust health systems around the world, it is more important than ever to consider how to best document and analyze the impacts of Bank’s financial and technical investments in the Global South.

We provide an assessment of the impact of government closure and containment measures on deaths from COVID-19 across sequential waves of the COVID-19 pandemic globally. Daily data was collected on a range of containment and closure policies for 186 countries from January 1, 2020 until March 11th, 2021. These data were combined into an aggregate stringency index (SI) score for each country on each day (range: 0-100). Countries were divided into successive waves via a mathematical algorithm to identify peaks and troughs of disease. Within our period of analysis, 63 countries experienced at least one wave, 40 countries experienced two waves, and 10 countries saw three waves, as defined by our approach. Within each wave, regression was used to assess the relationship between the strength of government stringency and subsequent deaths related to COVID-19 with a number of controls for time and country-specific demographic, health system, and economic characteristics. Across the full period of our analysis and 113 countries, an increase of 10 points on the SI was linked to 6 percentage points (P < 0.001, 95% CI = [5%, 7%]) lower average daily deaths. In the first wave, in countries that ultimately experiences 3 waves of the pandemic to date, ten additional points on the SI resulted in lower average daily deaths by 21 percentage points (P < .001, 95% CI = [8%, 16%]). This effect was sustained in the third wave with reductions in deaths of 28 percentage points (P < .001, 95% CI = [13%, 21%]). Moreover, interaction effects show that government policies were effective in reducing deaths in all waves in all groups of countries. These findings highlight the enduring importance of non-pharmaceutical responses to COVID-19 over time.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic shows variable dynamics in WHO Regions, with lowest disease burden in the Western-Pacific Region. While China has been able to rapidly eliminate transmission of SARS-CoV-2, Germany – as well as most of Europe and the Americas – is struggling with high numbers of cases and deaths. Objective: We analyse COVID-19 epidemiology and control strategies in China and in Germany, two countries which have chosen profoundly different approaches to deal with the epidemic. Methods: In this narrative review, we searched the literature from 1 December 2019, to 4 December 2020. Results: China and several neighbours (e.g. Australia, Japan, South Korea, New Zealand, Thailand) have achieved COVID-19 elimination or sustained low case numbers. This can be attributed to: (1) experience with previous coronavirus outbreaks; (2) classification of SARS-CoV-2 in the highest risk category and consequent early employment of aggressive control measures; (3) mandatory isolation of cases and contacts in institutions; (4) broad employment of modern contact tracking technology; (5) travel restrictions to prevent SARS-CoV-2 re-importation; (6) cohesive communities with varying levels of social control. Conclusions: Early implementation of intense and sustained control measures is key to achieving a near normal social and economic life.

The global burden of disease study—which has been affiliated with the World Bank and the World Health Organisation (WHO) and is now housed in the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME)—has become a very important tool to global health governance since it was first published in the 1993 World Development Report. In this article, based on literature review of primary and secondary sources as well as field notes from public events, we present first a summary of the origins and evolution of the GBD over the past 25 years. We then analyse two illustrative examples of estimates and the ways in which they gloss over the assumptions and knowledge gaps in their production, highlighting the importance of historical context by country and by disease in the quality of health data. Finally, we delve into the question of the end users of these estimates and the tensions that lie at the heart of producing estimates of local, national, and global burdens of disease. These tensions bring to light the different institutional ethics and motivations of IHME, WHO, and the World Bank, and they draw our attention to the importance of estimate methodologies in representing problems and their solutions in global health. With the rise in the investment in and the power of global health estimates, the question of representing global health problems becomes ever more entangled in decisions made about how to adjust reported numbers and to evolving statistical science. Ultimately, more work needs to be done to create evidence that is relevant and meaningful on country and district levels, which means shifting resources and support for quantitative—and qualitative—data production, analysis, and synthesis to countries that are the targeted beneficiaries of such global health estimates.

Global health security and universal health coverage have been frequently considered as “two sides of the same coin”. Yet, greater analysis is required as to whether and where these two ideals converge, and what important differences exist. A consequence of ignoring their individual characteristics is to distort global and local health priorities in an effort to streamline policymaking and funding activities. This paper examines the areas of convergence and divergence between global health security and universal health coverage, both conceptually and empirically. We consider analytical concepts of risk and human rights as fundamental to both goals, but also identify differences in priorities between the two ideals. We support the argument that the process of health system strengthening provides the most promising mechanism of benefiting both goals.

The global burden of disease study—which has been affiliated with the World Bank and the World Health Organisation (WHO) and is now housed in the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME)—has become a very important tool to global health governance since it was first published in the 1993 World Development Report. In this article, based on literature review of primary and secondary sources as well as field notes from public events, we present first a summary of the origins and evolution of the GBD over the past 25 years. We then analyse two illustrative examples of estimates and the ways in which they gloss over the assumptions and knowledge gaps in their production, highlighting the importance of historical context by country and by disease in the quality of health data. Finally, we delve into the question of the end users of these estimates and the tensions that lie at the heart of producing estimates of local, national, and global burdens of disease. These tensions bring to light the different institutional ethics and motivations of IHME, WHO, and the World Bank, and they draw our attention to the importance of estimate methodologies in representing problems and their solutions in global health. With the rise in the investment in and the power of global health estimates, the question of representing global health problems becomes ever more entangled in decisions made about how to adjust reported numbers and to evolving statistical science. Ultimately, more work needs to be done to create evidence that is relevant and meaningful on country and district levels, which means shifting resources and support for quantitative—and qualitative—data production, analysis, and synthesis to countries that are the targeted beneficiaries of such global health estimates.

Abstract This paper explores the extent to which global health governance – in the context of the early implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals is grounded in the right to health. The essential components of the right to health in relation to global health are unpacked. Four essential functions of the global health system are assessed from a normative, rights‐based, analysis on how each of these governance functions should operate. These essential functions are: the production of global public goods, the management of externalities across countries, the mobilization of global solidarity, and stewardship. The paper maps the current reality of global health governance now that the post‐2015 Sustainable Development Goals are beginning to be implemented. In theory, the existing human rights legislation would enable the principles and basis for the global governance of health beyond the premise of the state. In practice, there is a governance gap between the human rights framework and practices in global health and development policies. This gap can be explained by the political determinants of health that shape the governance of these global policies. Current representations of the right to health in the Sustainable Development Goals are insufficient and superficial, because they do not explicitly link commitments or right to health discourse to binding treaty obligations for duty‐bearing nation states or entitlements by people. If global health policy is to meaningfully contribute to the realization of the right to health and to rights based global health governance then future iterations of global health policy must bridge this gap. This includes scholarship and policy debate on the structure, politics, and agency to overcome existing global health injustices.

The commitment of massive resources – financial, social, organisational, and human – drives developments in biomedicine. Fundamental transformations in the generation and application of knowledge are challenging our understandings and experiences of health, illness, and disease as well as the organisation of research and care. Coupled with the accelerated pace of change, it is pressing that we build authentic collaborations across and between the biomedical sciences, humanities and social sciences, and wider society. It is only in this way that we can ask and answer the penetrating questions that will shape improvements in human health now and in the decades ahead. We delineate the need for such commitments across five key areas of human and societal experience that impact on and are impacted by developments in biomedicine: disease; bodies; global movements and institutions; law; and, science-society engagements. Interactions between ideas, researchers, and communities across and within these domains can provide a way into creating the new knowledges, methods, and partnerships we believe are essential if the promises of biomedicine are to be realised.

Background: Over the past decade gender mainstreaming has gained visibility at global health organisations. The World Bank, one of the largest funders of global health activities, released two World Development Reports showcasing its gender policies, and recently announced a $1 billion initiative for women’s entrepreneurship. We summarise the development of the Bank’s gender policies and analyse its financing of gender projects in the health sector. This article is intended to provide background for future research on the Bank’s gender and global health portfolio. Methods: First, we constructed a timeline of the Bank’s gender policy development, through a review of published articles, grey literature, and Bank documents and reports. Second, we performed a health-focused analysis of publicly available Bank gender project databases, to track its financing of health sector projects with a gender ‘theme’ from 1985-2017. Results: The Bank’s gender policy developed through four major phases from 1972-2017: ‘women in development’ (WID), institutionalisation of WID, gender mainstreaming, and gender equality through ‘smart economics’. In the more inclusive Bank project database, projects with a gender theme comprised between 1.3% (1985-1989) and 6.2% (2010-2016) of all Bank commitments. Most funding targeted middle-income countries and particular health themes, including communicable diseases and health systems. Major gender-related trust funds were absent from both databases. The Bank reports that 98% of its lending is ‘gender informed’, which indicates that the gender theme used in its publicly available project databases is poorly aligned with its criteria for gender informed projects. Conclusion: The Bank focused most of its health sector gender projects on women’s and girls’ issues. It is increasingly embracing private sector financing of its gender activities, which may impact its poverty alleviation agenda. Measuring the success of gender mainstreaming in global health will require the Bank to release more information about its gender indicators and projects.

Background: Global tobacco control is a major public health issue, as smoking-related disease burden remains high worldwide. The World Bank and the World Health Organization (WHO) are the driving forces in global tobacco control. However, little research has focused on their development, financing, decision-making, and accountability structures. Methods: We used two strategies to identify the development and structure of global tobacco control initiatives. First, we reviewed the published literature through electronic databases. Second, we conducted grey literature searching. Results: We identified four periods in the Bank’s involvement in global tobacco control, from creation of the evidence base in the 1990s to the implementation of tax reforms. We identified three phases in the WHO’s efforts, from its early recognition of the link between tobacco and health risks in the 1970s to its implementation of the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. Both organisations are financed by a handful of private philanthropies, and face similar risks for effective tobacco control: reduced accountability and resource mobilisation, poor decision-making authority due to specific donor influence, and difficulty in monitoring and evaluation. Conclusions: Continued attention should be paid not only to the primary health-related outcomes of tobacco use, but also to the decision-making and financing structures to promote tobacco control activities.

In 2007 and 2008, the World Health Organization's Department for Child and Adolescent Health and Development commissioned five large research priority setting exercises using the CHNRI (Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative) method. The aim was to define research priorities related to the five major causes of child deaths for the period up to the year 2015. The selected causes were childhood pneumonia, diarrhoea, birth asphyxia, neonatal infections and preterm birth/low birth weight. The criteria used for prioritization in all five exercises were the “standard” CHNRI criteria: answerability, effectiveness, deliverability, potential for mortality burden reduction and the effect on equity. Having completed the exercises, the WHO officers were left with another question: how “fundable” were the identified priorities, i.e. how attractive were they to research funders?

The burden of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) across many world regions is high. We aim to estimate COPD prevalence and number of disease cases for the years 1990 and 2010 across world regions based on the best available evidence in publicly accessible scientific databases. We conducted a systematic search of Medline, EMBASE and Global Health for original, population–based studies providing spirometry–based prevalence rates of COPD across the world from January 1990 to December 2014. Random effects meta–analysis was conducted on extracted crude prevalence rates of COPD, with overall summaries of the meta–estimates (and confidence intervals) reported separately for World Health Organization (WHO) regions, the World Bank's income categories and settings (urban and rural). We developed a meta–regression epidemiological model that we used to estimate the prevalence of COPD in people aged 30 years or more. Our search returned 37 472 publications. A total of 123 studies based on a spirometry–defined prevalence were retained for the review. From the meta–regression epidemiological model, we estimated about 227.3 million COPD cases in the year 1990 among people aged 30 years or more, corresponding to a global prevalence of 10.7% (95% confidence interval (CI) 7.3%–14.0%) in this age group. The number of COPD cases increased to 384 million in 2010, with a global prevalence of 11.7% (8.4%–15.0%). This increase of 68.9% was mainly driven by global demographic changes. Across WHO regions, the highest prevalence was estimated in the Americas (13.3% in 1990 and 15.2% in 2010), and the lowest in South East Asia (7.9% in 1990 and 9.7% in 2010). The percentage increase in COPD cases between 1990 and 2010 was the highest in the Eastern Mediterranean region (118.7%), followed by the African region (102.1%), while the European region recorded the lowest increase (22.5%). In 1990, we estimated about 120.9 million COPD cases among urban dwellers (prevalence of 13.2%) and 106.3 million cases among rural dwellers (prevalence of 8.8%). In 2010, there were more than 230 million COPD cases among urban dwellers (prevalence of 13.6%) and 153.7 million among rural dwellers (prevalence of 9.7%). The overall prevalence in men aged 30 years or more was 14.3% (95% CI 13.3%–15.3%) compared to 7.6% (95% CI 7.0%–8.2%) in women.

Background International development assistance for health (DAH) quadrupled between 1990 and 2012, from US$ 5.6 billion to US$ 28.1 billion. This generates an increasing need for transparent and replicable tools that could be used to set investment priorities, monitor the distribution of funding in real time, and evaluate the impact of those investments.

Background: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is an autoimmune disorder that affects the small joints of the body. It is one of the leading causes of chronic morbidity in high–income countries, but little is known about the burden of this disease in low– and middle–income countries (LMIC). Methods: The aim of this study was to estimate the prevalence of RA in six of the World Health Organization's (WHO) regions that harbour LMIC by identifying all relevant studies in those regions. To accomplish this aim various bibliographic databases were searched: PubMed, EMBASE, Global Health, LILACS and the Chinese databases CNKI and WanFang. Studies were selected based on pre–defined inclusion criteria, including a definition of RA based on the 1987 revision of the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) definition. Results: Meta–estimates of regional RA prevalence rates for countries of low or middle income were 0.40% (95% CI: 0.23–0.57%) for Southeast Asian, 0.37% (95% CI: 0.23–0.51%) for Eastern Mediterranean, 0.62% (95% CI: 0.47–0.77%) for European, 1.25% (95% CI: 0.64–1.86%) for American and 0.42% (95% CI: 0.30–0.53%) for Western Pacific regions. A formal meta–analysis could not be performed for the sub–Saharan African region due to limited data. Male prevalence of RA in LMIC was 0.16% (95% CI: 0.11–0.20%) while the prevalence in women reached 0.75% (95% CI: 0.60–0.90%). This difference between males and females was statistically signifcant (P

Diabetes mellitus is one of the diseases considered to be the main constituents of the global non–communicable disease (NCD) pandemic. Despite the large impact that NCDs are predicted to have, particularly in developing countries, estimates of disease burden are sparse and inconsistent. This systematic review transparently estimates prevalence of type 2 diabetes mellitus in Southern Asia, its association with urbanization and provides insight into the policy challenges facing the region.

The prevalence of non–communicable diseases (NCDs) – such as cancer, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and chronic respiratory diseases – is surging globally. Yet despite the availability of cost–effective interventions, NCDs receive less than 3% of annual development assistance for health to low and middle income countries. The top donors in global health – including the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the US Government, and the World Bank – together commit less than 2% of their budgets to the prevention and control of NCDs. Why is there such meagre funding on the table for the prevention and control of NCDs? Why has a global plan of action aimed at halting the spread of NCDs been so difficult to achieve?