Search

Abstract Against a backdrop of stalled progress in malaria control, it is surprising that the various forms of malaria chemoprevention are not more widely used. The World Health Organization (WHO) has recommended several malaria chemoprevention strategies, some of them for over a decade, and each with documented efficacy and cost effectiveness. In 2022, the WHO updated and augmented its malaria chemoprevention guidelines to facilitate their wider use. This paper considers new insights into the empirical evidence that supports the broader application of chemoprevention and encourages its application as a default strategy for young children living in moderate to high transmission settings given their high risk of severe disease and death. Chemoprevention is an effective medium-term strategy with potential benefits far outweighing costs. There is a strong argument for urgently increasing malaria chemoprevention in endemic countries.

Vaccination was a key intervention in controlling the COVID-19 pandemic globally. In early 2021, Norway faced significant regional variations in COVID-19 incidence and prevalence, with large differences in population density, necessitating efficient vaccine allocation to reduce infections and severe outcomes. This study explored alternative vaccination strategies to minimize health outcomes (infections, hospitalizations, ICU admissions, deaths) by varying regions prioritized, extra doses prioritized, and implementation start time. Using two models (individual-based and meta-population), we simulated COVID-19 transmission during the primary vaccination period in Norway, covering the first 7 months of 2021. We investigated alternative strategies to allocate more vaccine doses to regions with a higher force of infection. We also examined the robustness of our results and highlighted potential structural differences between the two models. Our findings suggest that early vaccine prioritization could reduce COVID-19 related health outcomes by 8% to 20% compared to a baseline strategy without geographic prioritization. For minimizing infections, hospitalizations, or ICU admissions, the best strategy was to initially allocate all available vaccine doses to fewer high-risk municipalities, comprising approximately one-fourth of the population. For minimizing deaths, a moderate level of geographic prioritization, with approximately one-third of the population receiving doubled doses, gave the best outcomes by balancing the trade-off between vaccinating younger people in high-risk areas and older people in low-risk areas. The actual strategy implemented in Norway was a two-step moderate level aimed at maintaining the balance and ensuring ethical considerations and public trust. However, it did not offer significant advantages over the baseline strategy without geographic prioritization. Earlier implementation of geographic prioritization could have more effectively addressed the main wave of infections, substantially reducing the national burden of the pandemic.

Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) fundamentally weakens societal foundations economically and in health care. The development of well-considered policies against AMR is important. However, in many places, AMR policy implementation remains elusive. This study aims to identify enablers and deterrents as well as processes and conditions in AMR policy advocacy. It also aims to identify AMR implementation conditions where AMR national policies are adopted and, to a certain extent, formulated and implemented. This study adopts qualitative research methodology and applies the Grounded Theory Framework to identify thematic findings from interviews conducted in China, Japan, Norway, the United Kingdom (UK), and the United States of America (US). It was identified that AMR policy protagonists are critical to filtering AMR issues and identifying policies “fit to prioritize” and “fit to implement”. They have helped move policy prioritization needles in the UK and the US and engaged in diplomatic efforts in the UK. In these cases, no clientelism was considered. In the US, protagonists who talked to the right decision-makers in the right office at the right time both moved AMR issues from individuals to institutional agenda and from social norms to policy agenda. To conclude, there are three thematic policy conditions that are significant to AMR policy advocacy and implementation: committed personal championship, institutionalization of policies, and social norms facilitate AMR policy advocacy and implementation.

Little is known about the overall trend and prioritisations of past and current antimicrobial resistance (AMR) policies. Here we introduce a quantitative method to analyse AMR policies. The AMR-Policy Analysis Coding Toolkit (AMR-PACT) uses several categorical variables. Thirteen AMR action plans from five countries (China, Japan, Norway, the UK and the USA) were used to develop the tool and identify possible values for each variable. The scope and capability of AMR-PACT is demonstrated through the 2015 WHO’s Global Action Plan and 2017 Hong Kong AMR Action Plan (HKAP). Majority of policies were aimed at either human or animal sector with less attention given to the environment, plant or food sector. Both plans shared the same two strategic focus areas, namely the conservation of antibiotics and the improved surveillance of resistance. There were no policies dedicated to improving access to antibiotics in the HKAP. These empirical results provide useful insights into the priorities and gaps of AMR policies. The method proposed here can help understand countries’ priorities regarding AMR, support the creation of AMR policy database and foster innovative policymaking.