scholarly journals Analysis of the Health Product Profile Directory — a new tool to inform priority-setting in global public health

2019 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
R. F. Terry ◽  
A. Plasència ◽  
J. C. Reeder
Keyword(s):  
Global Health ◽  
Priority Setting ◽  
Communicable Disease ◽  
Safety Information ◽  
Target Population ◽  
Health Priorities ◽  
Health Product ◽  
Global Public Health ◽  
Middle Income ◽  
Product Profile

Abstract Background The Health Product Profile Directory (HPPD) is an online database describing 8–10 key characteristics (such as target population, measures of efficacy and dosage) of product profiles for medicines, vaccines, diagnostics and other products that are intended to be accessed by populations in low- and middle-income countries. The HPPD was developed by TDR on behalf of WHO and launched on 15 May 2019. Methods The contents of the HPPD were downloaded into an Excel™ spreadsheet via the open access interface and analysed to identify the number of health product profiles by type, disease, year of publication, status, author organization and safety information. Results The HPPD contains summaries of 215 health product profiles published between 2008 and May 2019, 117 (54%) of which provide a hyperlink to the detailed publication from which the summary was extracted, and the remaining 98 provide an email contact for further information. A total of 55 target disease or health conditions are covered, with 210 profiles describing a product with an infectious disease as the target. Only 5 product profiles in the HPPD describe a product for a non-communicable disease. Four diseases account for 40% of product profiles in the HPPD; these are tuberculosis (33 profiles, 15%), malaria (31 profiles, 14%), HIV (13 profiles, 6%) and Chagas (10 profiles, 5%). Conclusion The HPPD provides a new tool to inform priority-setting in global health — it includes all product profiles authored by WHO (n = 51). There is a need to standardise nomenclature to more clearly distinguish between strategic publications (describing research and development (R&D) priorities or preferred characteristics) compared to target product profiles to guide a specific candidate product undergoing R&D. It is recommended that all profiles published in the HPPD define more clearly what affordability means in the context where the product is intended to be used and all profiles should include a statement of safety. Combining the analysis from HPPD to a mapping of funds available for R&D and those products in the R&D pipeline would create a better overview of global health priorities and how they are supported. Such analysis and increased transparency should take us a step closer to measuring and improving coordination of efforts in global health R&D.

Global Health Priority-Setting

2019 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Global Health ◽  
Priority Setting ◽  
Health Resources ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Health Priorities ◽  
Health Coverage ◽  
Household Finances ◽  
Health Gains ◽  
Global Priority ◽  
Financing Gap

Global health is at a crossroads. The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development has come with ambitious targets for health and health services worldwide. To reach these targets, many more billions of dollars need to be spent on health. However, development assistance for health has plateaued and domestic funding on health in most countries is growing at rates too low to close the financing gap. National and international decision-makers face tough choices about how scarce health care resources should be spent. Should additional funds be spent on primary prevention of stroke, treating childhood cancer, or expanding treatment for HIV/AIDS? Should health coverage decisions take into account the effects of illness on productivity, household finances, and children’s educational attainment, or should they just focus on health outcomes? Does age matter for priority-setting or should it be ignored? Are health gains far in the future less important than gains in the present? Should higher priority be given to people who are sicker or poorer? This book provides a framework for how to think about evidence-based priority-setting in health. Over 18 chapters, ethicists, philosophers, economists, policymakers, and clinicians from around the world assess the state of current practice in national and global priority-setting, describe new tools and methodologies to address establishing global health priorities, and tackle the most important ethical questions that decision-makers must consider in allocating health resources.

scholarly journals Emphasizing the Role of Neurosurgery Within Global Health and National Health Systems: A Call to Action

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jean Wilguens Lartigue ◽  
Olaoluwa Ezekiel Dada ◽  
Makinah Haq ◽  
Sarah Rapaport ◽  
Lorraine Arabang Sebopelo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Global Health ◽  
Health Systems ◽  
Global Burden ◽  
Global Public Health ◽  
Middle Income ◽  
Disability Adjusted Life ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Development Goals ◽  
Global Burden Of Diseases

Background: Worldwide, neurological disorders are the leading cause of disability-adjusted life years lost and the second leading cause of death. Despite global health capacity-building efforts, each year, 22.6 million individuals worldwide require neurosurgeon's care due to diseases such as traumatic brain injury and hydrocephalus, and 13.8 million of these individuals require surgery. It is clear that neurosurgical care is indispensable in both national and international public health discussions. This study highlights the role neurosurgeons can play in supporting the global health agenda, national surgical plans, and health strengthening systems (HSS) interventions.Methods: Guided by a literature review, the authors discuss key topics such as the global burden of neurosurgical diseases, the current state of neurosurgical care around the world and the inherent benefits of strong neurosurgical capability for health systems.Results: Neurosurgical diseases make up an important part of the global burden of diseases. Many neurosurgeons possess the sustained passion, resilience, and leadership needed to advocate for improved neurosurgical care worldwide. Neurosurgical care has been linked to 14 of the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), thus highlighting the tremendous impact neurosurgeons can have upon HSS initiatives.Conclusion: We recommend policymakers and global health actors to: (i) increase the involvement of neurosurgeons within the global health dialogue; (ii) involve neurosurgeons in the national surgical system strengthening process; (iii) integrate neurosurgical care within the global surgery movement; and (iv) promote the training and education of neurosurgeons, especially those residing in Low-and middle-income countries, in the field of global public health.

scholarly journals Firearm violence: a neglected “Global Health” issue

2021 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Meghan Werbick ◽  
Imran Bari ◽  
Nino Paichadze ◽  
Adnan A. Hyder
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Global Health ◽  
Health Issue ◽  
Public Health Issue ◽  
Global Public Health ◽  
Middle Income ◽  
Firearm Violence ◽  
The World ◽  
Global Health Issue ◽  
The Impact

AbstractPopulations around the world are facing an increasing burden of firearm violence on mortality and disability. While firearm violence affects every country globally, the burden is significantly higher in many low- and middle-income countries. However, despite overwhelming statistics, there is a lack of research, reporting, and prioritization of firearm violence as a global public health issue, and when attention is given it is focused on high-income countries. This paper discusses the impact of firearm violence, the factors which shape such violence, and how it fits into global public health frameworks in order to illustrate how firearm violence is a global health issue which warrants evidence-based advocacy around the world.

scholarly journals Evidence-informed capacity building for setting health priorities in low- and middle-income countries: A framework and recommendations for further research

F1000Research ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 6 ◽  
pp. 231 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ryan Li ◽  
Francis Ruiz ◽  
Anthony J. Culyer ◽  
Kalipso Chalkidou ◽  
Karen J Hofman
Keyword(s):  
Capacity Building ◽  
Priority Setting ◽  
Health Priorities ◽  
Economic Evaluations ◽  
Middle Income ◽  
Relevant Evidence ◽  
Trade Offs ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
The Media ◽  
Institutional Capacity Building

Priority-setting in health is risky and challenging, particularly in resource-constrained settings. It is not simply a narrow technical exercise, and involves the mobilisation of a wide range of capacities among stakeholders – not only the technical capacity to “do” research in economic evaluations. Using the Individuals, Nodes, Networks and Environment (INNE) framework, we identify those stakeholders, whose capacity needs will vary along the evidence-to-policy continuum. Policymakers and healthcare managers require the capacity to commission and use relevant evidence (including evidence of clinical and cost-effectiveness, and of social values); academics need to understand and respond to decision-makers’ needs to produce relevant research. The health system at all levels will need institutional capacity building to incentivise routine generation and use of evidence. Knowledge brokers, including priority-setting agencies (such as England’s National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, and Health Interventions and Technology Assessment Program, Thailand) and the media can play an important role in facilitating engagement and knowledge transfer between the various actors. Especially at the outset but at every step, it is critical that patients and the public understand that trade-offs are inherent in priority-setting, and careful efforts should be made to engage them, and to hear their views throughout the process. There is thus no single approach to capacity building; rather a spectrum of activities that recognises the roles and skills of all stakeholders. A range of methods, including formal and informal training, networking and engagement, and support through collaboration on projects, should be flexibly employed (and tailored to specific needs of each country) to support institutionalisation of evidence-informed priority-setting. Finally, capacity building should be a two-way process; those who build capacity should also attend to their own capacity development in order to sustain and improve impact.

scholarly journals Reflections on Norheim (2018), Disease Control Priorities Third Edition Is Published Comment on "Disease Control Priorities Third Edition Is Published: A Theory of Change Is Needed for Translating Evidence to Health Policy"

2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (6) ◽  
pp. 375-377 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rachel Nugent
Keyword(s):  
Health Policy ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Global Health ◽  
Disease Control ◽  
Priority Setting ◽  
Theory Of Change ◽  
High Quality ◽  
Middle Income ◽  
Middle Income Countries ◽  
Quality Health

The publication of Disease Control Priorities, 3rd edition (DCP3) is a major milestone in the global health world. DCP3 reviews and summarizes high quality health intervention effectiveness and cost-effectiveness evidence relevant to low- and middle-income countries and is freely available to users. This Commentary summarizes Norheim’s (2018) assessment of DCP3’s role in country health priority-setting and offers reflections on what DCP3 can continue to offer countries seeking to improve their purchasing of health.

Global Health

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jessica Euna Lee
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Global Health ◽  
Sustainable Development Goals ◽  
Health Priorities ◽  
Global Public Health ◽  
Global Perspectives ◽  
Disability Adjusted Life ◽  
Recommendations For Action ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Development Goals

Within its 150-year history, public health has grown from a focus on local communities to include countrywide, then international, and now global perspectives. Drawing upon the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, this article provides an overview of global public health within the broadest possible context of the world and all of its peoples. Also provided are the global burden of disease as measured in disability-adjusted life years, global health statistics, current health priorities, and recommendations for action by social workers and other health professionals.

scholarly journals Improving resource mobilisation for global health R&D: a role for coordination platforms?

2019 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. e001209 ◽  
Author(s):  
Naomi Beyeler ◽  
Sara Fewer ◽  
Marcel Yotebieng ◽  
Gavin Yamey
Keyword(s):  
Global Health ◽  
Low Income ◽  
Priority Setting ◽  
Low Income Countries ◽  
Global Health Research ◽  
Investment Strategies ◽  
Middle Income ◽  
The Sustainable Development ◽  
Middle Income Countries ◽  
Development Goals

Achieving many of the health targets in the Sustainable Development Goals will not be possible without increased financing for global health research and development (R&D). Yet financing for neglected disease product development fell from 2009-2015, with the exception of a one-time injection of Ebola funding. An important cause of the global health R&D funding gap is lack of coordination across R&D initiatives. In particular, existing initiatives lack robust priority-setting processes and transparency about investment decisions. Low-income countries (LICs) and middle-income countries (MICs) are also often excluded from global investment initiatives and priority-setting discussions, leading to limited investment by these countries. An overarching global health R&D coordination platform is one promising response to these challenges. This analysis examines the essential functions such a platform must play, how it should be structured to maximise effectiveness and investment strategies for diversifying potential investors, with an emphasis on building LIC and MIC engagement. Our analysis suggests that a coordination platform should have four key functions: building consensus on R&D priorities; facilitating information sharing about past and future investments; building in accountability mechanisms to track R&D spending against investment targets and curating a portfolio of prioritised projects alongside mechanisms to link funders to these projects. Several design features are likely to increase the platform’s success: public ownership and management; separation of coordination and financing functions; inclusion of multiple diseases; coordination across global and national efforts; development of an international R&D ‘roadmap’ and a strategy for the financial sustainability of the platform’s secretariat.

Adolescent health

2021 ◽  
pp. 453-468
Author(s):  
George Patton ◽  
Peter Azzopardi ◽  
Natasha Kaoma ◽  
Farnaz Sabet ◽  
Susan Sawyer
Keyword(s):  
Adolescent Health ◽  
Communicable Disease ◽  
Global Public Health ◽  
Middle Income ◽  
Middle Income Countries ◽  
Appropriateness Of Care ◽  
The Social ◽  
Disease Risks ◽  
Infancy And Early Childhood ◽  
Risks Prevention

Many recent shifts are propelling adolescence into the forefront of global public health. There is a youth bulge with 1.8 billion, 10–24-year-olds comprising over a quarter of the global population. Nearly 90% live in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC). Dramatic declines in mortality and disease burden in infancy and early childhood in many countries have resulted in a focus on growing adolescent health problems including mental disorders, the consequences of unsafe sexuality, the growing rates of non-communicable disease risks, and the impact of injuries and violence on this age group. Youth-friendly health services have the potential to promote equity, effectiveness, accessibility, acceptability, and appropriateness of care, including early interventions for major health risks. Prevention frameworks have integrated life-course epidemiology with strategies developed in the social and behavioural sciences. There is some evidence that involving young people in the conceptualization and implementation of some of these interventions improves the outcomes.

scholarly journals An analysis of policy and funding priorities of global actors regarding noncommunicable disease in low- and middle-income countries

2021 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Kanykey Jailobaeva ◽  
Jennifer Falconer ◽  
Giulia Loffreda ◽  
Stella Arakelyan ◽  
Sophie Witter ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Global Health ◽  
Poverty Reduction ◽  
Noncommunicable Disease ◽  
Health Priorities ◽  
Noncommunicable Diseases ◽  
Limited Attention ◽  
Middle Income ◽  
Middle Income Countries ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Low And Middle Income

Abstract Background Noncommunicable diseases (NCDs), including mental health, have become a major concern in low- and middle-income countries. Despite increased attention to them over the past decade, progress toward addressing NCDs has been slow. A lack of bold policy commitments has been suggested as one of the contributors to limited progress in NCD prevention and management. However, the policies of key global actors (bilateral, multilateral, and not-for-profit organisations) have been understudied. Methods This study aimed to map the key global actors investing in action regarding NCDs and review their policies to examine the articulation of priorities regarding NCDs. Narrative synthesis of 70 documents and 31 policy papers was completed, and related to data collated from the Global Health Data Visualisation Tool. Results In 2019 41% of development assistance for health committed to NCDs came from private philanthropies, while that for other global health priorities from this source was just 20%. Through a range of channels, bilateral donors were the other major source of NCD funding (contributing 41% of NCD funding). The UK and the US were the largest bilateral investors in NCDs, each contributing 8%. However, NCDs are still under-prioritised within bilateral portfolios – receiving just 0.48% of US funding and 1.66% of the UK. NGOs were the key channels of funding for NCDs, spending 48% of the funds from donors in 2019. The reviewed literature generally focused on NCD policies of WHO, with policies of multilateral and bilateral donors given limited attention. The analysis of policies indicated a limited prioritisation of NCDs in policy documents. NCDs are framed in the policies as a barrier to economic growth, poverty reduction, and health system sustainability. Bilateral donors prioritise prevention, while multilateral actors offer policy options for NCD prevention and care. Even where stated as a priority, however, funding allocations are not aligned. Conclusion The growing threat of NCDs and their drivers are increasingly recognised. However, global actors’ policy priorities and funding allocations need to align better to address these NCD threats. Given the level of their investment and engagement, more research is needed into the role of private philanthropies and NGOs in this area.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document