Search

The global COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated existing health, social, and economic challenges and threatened progress towards achieving the UN sustainable development goals. We discuss lessons learned from the COVID-19 pandemic for global policymaking for health security governance, with a particular focus on antimicrobial resistance. We identify One Health as the primary foundation of public health risk management owing to the collaborative, multidisciplinary, and multisectoral efforts that underpin the One Health approach and that enhance understanding of the complex interactions at the human-animal-environment interface. We discuss the narrow human-centric focus of the One Health approach, highlight the underrepresentation of the environmental sector in One Health networks, and encourage greater representation from the environmental sector. Furthermore, we highlight the importance of the social sciences for health security research and the need for effective communication and trust. Finally, we underscore the importance of strengthened and collaborative health, social care, and disaster management systems. The application of these lessons will facilitate holistic, multisectoral, collaborative, and ethical actions on antimicrobial resistance.

Background: This paper examines the suitability of extant governance frameworks at an international level for addressing antimicrobial resistance (AMR), which is a creeping crisis for global health security. Methods: Our study begins by evaluating the place of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) within United Nations (UN) Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) targets and indicators. This is followed by a discussion of the global health security agenda (GHSA). We examine how AMR needs to be taken more seriously within global policy frameworks based on adopting a One Health approach. The research is supported by a systematic analysis of the national action plans for addressing AMR published by the World Health Organisation (WHO). Results: We determine that political leaders need to do more to promote the problem of AMR and that global health institutions need to invest more energy in thinking about how AMR is governed as part of an already busy global health security agenda. This includes building capacities within health systems, embedding evaluation processes, and enhancing public service leadership within this area. Conclusions: Our review of global policy frameworks and the national plans for AMR highlight the patchy coverage of AMR strategies globally and nationally. This article represents a springboard for future research including whether and to what extent a One Health approach to AMR in the environment has been implemented in practice within national health and environmental systems.

Background We aimed to compare the immunologic and hematologic effects of 3 multimicronutrient supplements in human immunodeficiency virus–positive children in Lagos, Nigeria. Methods This double-blind, randomized controlled study included 190 children, aged 5–12 years, in Lagos, Nigeria. Sixty-four, 63, and 63 participants were assigned to multimicronutrient group A, B, or C, respectively, for 6 months. Supplements A, B, and C contained 7 micronutrients at the recommended daily allowance (RDA) (comparable to standard-of-care multivitamin), 22 micronutrients at the RDA, and 22 micronutrients at 3 times the recommended daily allowance (3RDA), respectively. Using paired sample t tests and factorial repeat-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA), within- and between-group changes in CD4 count and hemoglobin levels were evaluated after 6 months. Results After 6 months of supplementation, paired-sample t test showed that CD4 cell count did not significantly differ from baseline for all 3 groups. Between-subject effect also did not significantly differ in the 3 groups after 6 months (factorial repeat-measures ANOVA (F [degrees of freedom {df} = 2, 187] = 0.846; P = .436; partial η 2 = 0.009). Hemoglobin levels were significantly increased after supplementation in all 3 supplement groups. Increases were not significantly different between groups (factorial repeat-measures ANOVA (F [df = 2, 187] = 0.549; P = .591; partial η 2 = 0.006). Conclusions Equivalent effects were observed. After 6 months of supplementation, mean CD4 count was not significantly different between groups. Hemoglobin concentration was significantly increased in all 3 groups, but increase did not differ between groups. Clinical Trials Registration NCT02552602.

Objective: Identify, describe and appraise trials of interventions delivered by healthcare professionals to manage non-communicable diseases (NCDs) and communicable diseases that require long-term care or treatment (LT-CDs), excluding mental health and substance use disorders, in homeless adults.\ud \ud Design: Systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs), non-RCTs and controlled before–after studies. Interventions characterised using Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) taxonomy. Quality assessed using EPOC risk of bias criteria.\ud \ud Data sources: Database searches (MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Scopus, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts (ASSIA) and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials), hand searching reference lists, citation searches, grey literature and contact with study authors.\ud \ud Setting: Community.\ud \ud Participants: Adults (≥18 years) fulfilling European Typology of Homelessness criteria.\ud \ud Intervention: Delivered by healthcare professionals managing NCD and LT-CDs.\ud \ud Outcomes: Primary outcome: unscheduled healthcare utilisation. Secondary outcomes: mortality, biological markers of disease control, adherence to treatment, engagement in care, patient satisfaction, knowledge, self-efficacy, quality of life and cost-effectiveness.\ud \ud Results: 11 studies were included (8 RCTs, 2 quasi-experimental and 1 feasibility) involving 9–520 participants (67%–94% male, median age 37–49 years). Ten from USA and one from UK. Studies included various NCDs (n=3); or focused on latent tuberculosis (n=4); HIV (n=2); hepatitis C (n=1) or type 2 diabetes (n=1). All interventions were complex with multiple components. Four described theories underpinning intervention. Three assessed unscheduled healthcare utilisation: none showed consistent reduction in hospitalisation or emergency department attendance. Six assessed adherence to specific treatments, of which four showed improved adherence to latent tuberculosis therapy. Three concerned education case management, all of which improved disease-specific knowledge. No improvements in biological markers of disease (two studies) and none assessed mortality.\ud \ud Conclusions: Evidence for management of NCD and LT-CDs in homeless adults is sparse. Educational case-management interventions may improve knowledge and medication adherence. Large trials of theory-based interventions are needed, assessing healthcare utilisation and outcomes as well as assessment of biological outcomes and cost-effectiveness.

IntroductionPeople experiencing homelessness are at increased risk of, and have poorer outcomes from, a range of physical long-term conditions (LTCs). It is increasingly recognised that interventions targeting people who are homeless should be tailored to the specific needs of this population. This systematic review aims to identify, describe and appraise trials of interventions that aim to manage physical LTCs in homeless adults and are delivered by healthcare professionals.Methods and analysisSeven electronic databases (Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Assia, Scopus, PsycINFO and CINAHL) will be searched from 1960 (or inception) to October 2016 and supplemented by forward citation searching, handsearching of reference lists and searching grey literature. Two reviewers will independently review titles, abstract and full-texts using DistillerSR software. Inclusion criteria include (1) homeless adults with any physical LTC, (2) interventions delivered by a healthcare professional (any professional trained to provide any form of healthcare, but excluding social workers and professionals without health-related training), (3) comparison with usual care or an alternative intervention, (4) report outcomes such as healthcare usage, physical and psychological health or well-being or cost-effectiveness, (5) randomised controlled trials, non-randomised controlled trials, controlled before-after studies. Quality will be assessed using the Cochrane EPOC Risk of Bias Tool. A meta-analysis will be performed if sufficient data are identified; however, we anticipate a narrative synthesis will be performed.Ethics and disseminationThis review will synthesise existing evidence for interventions delivered by healthcare professionals to manage physical LTCs in adults who are homeless. The findings will inform the development of future interventions and research aiming to improve the management of LTCs for people experiencing homelessness. Ethical approval will not be required for this systematic review as it does not contain individual patient data. We will disseminate the results of this systematic review via conference presentations, healthcare professional networks, social media and peer-reviewed publication.Trial registration numberPROSPERO registration number: CRD42016046183.