Achieving global equity for COVID-19 vaccines: Stronger international partnerships and greater advocacy and solidarity are needed.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Figueroa JP
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8475996 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Sep
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Achieving global equity for COVID-19 vaccines: Stronger international partnerships and greater advocacy and solidarity are needed.
Figueroa J Peter JP Hotez Peter J PJ Batista Carolina C Ben Amor Yanis Y Ergonul Onder O Gilbert Sarah S Gursel Mayda M Hassanain Mazen M Kang Gagandeep G Kaslow David C DC Kim Jerome H JH Lall Bhavna B Larson Heidi H Naniche Denise D Sheahan Timothy T Shoham Shmuel S Wilder-Smith Annelies A Sow Samba O SO Strub-Wourgaft Nathalie N Yadav Prashant P Bottazzi Maria Elena ME
PLoS medicine 20210913 9
Peter Figueroa and co-authors advocate for equity in the worldwide provision of COVID-19 vaccines. ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:Many charities are appealing for donations to address problems caused by the COVID-19 crisis. Two survey studies (total N = 500) tested predictors of donation intentions of British participants to help those suffering from the crisis in Britain (ingroup donations) and overseas (outgroup donations). Perceptions of international, global common fate in our success in managing and overcoming the crisis was positively associated with prosocial intentions towards both national ingroup and outgroup targets. In contrast, a desire to 'close ranks' within the national ingroup in the face of the pandemic threat was associated with more prosocial intentions towards national ingroup targets only, but it was associated with fewer prosocial intentions towards outgroup targets. This suggests that a focus on global solidarity (in the form of global common fate and identification with all humans) has positive effects on helping both within and across group boundaries, whereas a focus on national solidarity (in the form of 'closing ranks' in the face of the pandemic threat) has positive effects on helping within the national group but negative effects on prosocial tendencies towards outgroup members. The effect of perceived global common fate on both ingroup and outgroup helping was mediated by identification with all of humanity. Findings are discussed in terms of practical implications for managing the COVID-19 crisis. Please refer to the Supplementary Material section to find this article's Community and Social Impact Statement.
| S-EPMC8426876 | biostudies-literature
Project description:UnlabelledPOLICY POINTS: Many barriers hamper advocacy for health equity, including the contemporary economic zeitgeist, the biomedical health perspective, and difficulties cooperating across policy sectors on the issue. Effective advocacy should include persistent efforts to raise awareness and understanding of the social determinants of health. Education on the social determinants as part of medical training should be encouraged, including professional training within disadvantaged communities. Advocacy organizations have a central role in advocating for health equity given the challenges bridging the worlds of civil society, research, and policy.ContextHealth inequalities are systematic differences in health among social groups that are caused by unequal exposure to-and distributions of-the social determinants of health (SDH). They are persistent between and within countries despite action to reduce them. Advocacy is a means of promoting policies that improve health equity, but the literature on how to do so effectively is dispersed. The aim of this review is to synthesize the evidence in the academic and gray literature and to provide a body of knowledge for advocates to draw on to inform their efforts.MethodsThis article is a systematic review of the academic literature and a fixed-length systematic search of the gray literature. After applying our inclusion criteria, we analyzed our findings according to our predefined dimensions of advocacy for health equity. Last, we synthesized our findings and made a critical appraisal of the literature.FindingsThe policy world is complex, and scientific evidence is unlikely to be conclusive in making decisions. Timely qualitative, interdisciplinary, and mixed-methods research may be valuable in advocacy efforts. The potential impact of evidence can be increased by "packaging" it as part of knowledge transfer and translation. Increased contact between researchers and policymakers could improve the uptake of research in policy processes. Researchers can play a role in advocacy efforts, although health professionals and disadvantaged people, who have direct contact with or experience of hardship, can be particularly persuasive in advocacy efforts. Different types of advocacy messages can accompany evidence, but messages should be tailored to advocacy target. Several barriers hamper advocacy efforts. The most frequently cited in the academic literature are the current political and economic zeitgeist and related public opinion, which tend to blame disadvantaged people for their ill health, even though biomedical approaches to health and political short-termism also act as barriers. These barriers could be tackled through long-term actions to raise public awareness and understanding of the SDH and through training of health professionals in advocacy. Advocates need to take advantage of "windows of opportunity," which open and close quickly, and demonstrate expertise and credibility.ConclusionsThis article brings together for the first time evidence from the academic and the gray literature and provides a building block for efforts to advocate for health equity. Evidence regarding many of the dimensions is scant, and additional research is merited, particularly concerning the applicability of findings outside the English-speaking world. Advocacy organizations have a central role in advocating for health equity, given the challenges bridging the worlds of civil society, research, and policy.
| S-EPMC4462882 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The aim of this paper is to identify non-governmental organizations (NGOs) advocating for policy and practices to address rising health inequities in Australia. NGOs can play a critical role in shaping and influencing governance processes including public policy relating to the social and commercial determinants of health inequities. However, scholarship on who the NGOs are that are advocating to address health inequities in Australia and how they operate is sparse. Through desktop analysis in 2022, we searched NGO websites and documents for evidence of advocacy activities related to health inequities between 2017 and 2022. A database of the NGOs was compiled, noting the type of organization, function, advocacy activities and main issues their advocacy covered. A total of 137 NGOs were identified as engaging in activities advocating for change to address health inequities either directly (e.g. advocating directly to address health inequities) or indirectly (e.g. advocating on social determinants of health inequities such as housing and linking to their unequal health impacts). We noted the primary issues they advocated on, including topic categories: risk factor, disease-specific, broader health system, social determinants of health equity, and health workforce and service issues. The results indicate that Australian NGOs from multiple sectors are active in advocacy to address heath inequities on a variety of topics and through a variety of activities. This study provides a template for similar studies in other countries and suggests further research is needed to understand the role and impact of civil society advocacy to address growing health inequities.
| S-EPMC11558067 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Global health partnerships (GHPs) involve complex relationships between individuals and organizations, often joining partners from high-income and low- or middle-income countries around work that is carried out in the latter. Therefore, GHPs are situated in the context of global inequities and their underlying sociopolitical and historical causes, such as colonization. Equity is a core principle that should guide GHPs from start to end. How equity is embedded and nurtured throughout a partnership has remained a constant challenge. We have developed a user-friendly tool for valuing a GHP throughout its lifespan using an equity lens. The development of the EQT was informed by 5 distinct elements: a scoping review of scientific published peer-reviewed literature; an online survey and follow-up telephone interviews; workshops in Canada, Burkina Faso, and Vietnam; a critical interpretive synthesis; and a content validation exercise. Findings suggest GHPs generate experiences of equity or inequity yet provide little guidance on how to identify and respond to these experiences. The EQT can guide people involved in partnering to consider the equity implications of all their actions, from inception, through implementation and completion of a partnership. When used to guide reflective dialogue with a clear intention to advance equity in and through partnering, this tool offers a new approach to valuing global health partnerships. Global health practitioners, among others, can apply the EQT in their partnerships to learning together about how to cultivate equity in their unique contexts within what is becoming an increasingly diverse, vibrant, and responsive global health community.
| S-EPMC9053142 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Malaria-related mortality has a very high association with poverty rates, and the disease is most prevalent in low- and middle-income countries. To achieve the malaria-specific targets of the Sustainable Development Goals, malaria-endemic countries and development partners need to take concerted action to reduce malaria cases and deaths. Reaching all affected communities with malaria interventions requires strong political commitment and a significant expansion of international and domestic financial resources. World Malaria Day 2019 is an opportunity to review progress and challenges in this field.
| S-EPMC6487040 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundCOVID saw a significant increase in the use of virtual care, supporting its utility and its benefits. It also revealed that unfortunately there are limitations and gaps we still need to address, including inequitable access to digitally enabled health care tools.MethodsOn November 8, 2022, the Mass General Brigham held the Third Annual Virtual Care Symposium: Demystifying Clinical Appropriateness in Virtual Care and What's Ahead for Pay Parity. One panel addressed digital health equity and key points are summarized here.ResultsFour experts discussed the key domains of digital equity and inclusion in the session titled "Achieving Digital Health Equity: Is it a One-Size-Fits-All Approach or Personalized Patient Experience?" These included lessons from strategies and tactics being used by hospitals and health systems to address digital equity issues; and opportunities to achieve digital health equity for specific populations (e.g., Medicaid).ConclusionsUnderstanding the drivers of digital health disparities can help organizations and health care systems develop and test strategies to reduce them and improve access to quality health care through digitally enabled technologies and delivery channels.
| S-EPMC10316037 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundGlobal health partnerships (GHPs) are situated in complex political and economic relationships and involve partners with different needs and interests (e.g., government agencies, non-governmental organizations, corporations, universities, professional associations, philanthropic organizations and communities). As part of a mixed methods study designed to develop an equity-sensitive tool to support more equity-centred North-South GHPs, this critical interpretive synthesis examined reported assessments of GHPs.ResultsWe examined 30 peer-reviewed articles for power dynamics, equity and inequities, and contradictions or challenges encountered in North-South partnerships. Among articles reviewed, authors most often situated GHPs around a topical focus on research, capacity-building, clinical, or health services issues, with the 'work' of the partnership aiming to foster skills or respond to community needs. The specific features of GHPs that were assessed varied widely, with consistently-reported elements including the early phases of partnering; governance issues; the day-to-day work of partnerships; the performance, impacts and benefits of GHPs; and issues of inclusion. Articles shared a general interest in partnering processes and often touched briefly on issues of equity; but they rarely accounted for the complexity of sociopolitical and historical contexts shaping issues of equity in GHPs. Further, assessments of GHPs were often reported without inclusion of voices from all partners or named beneficiaries. GHPs were frequently portrayed as inherently beneficial for Southern partners, without attention to power dynamics and inequities (North-South, South-South). Though historical and political dynamics of the Global North and South were inconsistently examined as influential forces in GHPs, such dynamics were frequently portrayed as complex and characterized by asymmetries in power and resources. Generally, assessments of GHPs paid little attention to the macroeconomic forces in the power and resource dynamics of GHPs highlights the importance of considering the broader political. Our findings suggest that GHPs can serve to entrench both inequitable relationships and unfair distributions of power, resources, and wealth within and between countries (and partners) if inequitable power relationships are left unmitigated.ConclusionsWe argue that specific practices could enhance GHPs' contributions to equity, both in their processes and outcomes. Enhancing partnering practices to focus on inclusion, responsiveness to North-South and South-South inequities, and recognition of GHPs as situated in a broader (and inequitable) political economy. A relational and equity-centred approach to assessing GHPs would place social justice, humility and mutual benefits as central practices-that is, regular, routine things that partners involved in partnering do intentionally to make GHPs function well. Practicing equity in GHPs requires continuous efforts to explicitly acknowledge and examine the equity implications of all aspects of partnering.
| S-EPMC8254362 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The emergence of global health partnerships (GHPs) towards the end of the twentieth century reflected concerns about slow progress in access to essential medicines, including vaccines. These partnerships bring together governments, private philanthropic foundations, NGOs, and international agencies. Those in the vaccine field seek to incentivise the development and manufacture of new vaccines, raise funds to pay for them and develop and support systems to deliver them to those in need. These activities became more critical during the COVID-19 pandemic, with the COVAX Facility Initiative promoting global vaccine equity. This review identifies lessons from previous experiences with GHPs. Findings contribute to understanding the emergence of GHPs, the mechanisms they leverage to support global access to vaccines, and the inherent challenges associated with their implementation. Using Arksey and O'Malley's method, we conducted a scoping review to identify and synthesise relevant articles. We analysed data thematically to identify barriers and opportunities for success. We included 68 eligible articles of 3,215 screened. Most (65 [95%]) were discussion or review articles describing partnerships or programmes they supported, and three (5%) were commentaries. Emerging themes included policy responses (e.g., immunisation mandates), different forms of partnerships arising in vaccine innovation (e.g., product development partnerships, public-private partnerships for access), and influence on global governance decision-making processes (e.g., the rising influence of foundations, diminishing authority of WHO, lack of accountability and transparency, creation of disease silos). If global health partnerships are to maximise their contributions, they should: (1) increase transparency, especially regarding their impacts; (2) address the need for health systems strengthening; and (3) address disincentives for cooperative vaccine research and development partnerships and encourage expansion of manufacturing capacity in low and middle-income countries.
| S-EPMC10883552 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Using document review, we identified 963 publicly accessible NIH RePORT publications across the 16 funded U54 Partnerships to Advance Cancer Health Equity (PACHE) center programs. Using the 868 publications that met criteria, we determined the frequency of publications across the funded PACHE programs by longevity; reported the frequency of studies focused on cancer health disparities; determined the proportion of institutions serving underserved health disparity populations, underrepresented students (ISUPS), and co- and lead-authored works; and categorized the scope of studies by commonalities in their reported purposes. The study findings showed that (1) center longevity was not necessarily related to the number of publications; (2) less than 20% of studies focused on cancer health disparities (CHD); (3) ISUPU co-authors appeared in 72% of publications, while lead authors were 48%; (4) 6.07% publications focused on cancer diagnosis, screening, treatment, and risk factors; 57.5% studies were mechanistic; 21.53% focused on the impact of interventions on health promotion, prevention, and quality of life; 5.62% studies were related to educational outcomes; and 9.28% studies were classified as epidemiological/survey outcomes. One of the primary purposes of PACHE centers is CHD research. Thus, we advocate increasing the frequency of CHD-focused publications. We suggest increasing the number of ISUPU lead-authored papers. To align with the PACHE mission, we also recommend increasing the number of studies focused on cancer diagnosis, screening, treatment, and risk factors and the impact of interventions on health promotion, prevention, and quality of life. To demonstrate the effectiveness and impact of training, increasing the number of educational outcome studies is also proposed.
| S-EPMC7910317 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC9972312 | biostudies-literature