How the world bank's pandemic fund can address health inequities

Yusuff Adebayo Adebisi, Aminat Olaitan Adebayo, Nafisat Dasola Jimoh, Olusegun Ayo Ade‐adekunle, Mba Oluebube Mercy, Sarah Kuponiyi
{"title":"How the world bank's pandemic fund can address health inequities","authors":"Yusuff Adebayo Adebisi, Aminat Olaitan Adebayo, Nafisat Dasola Jimoh, Olusegun Ayo Ade‐adekunle, Mba Oluebube Mercy, Sarah Kuponiyi","doi":"10.1002/puh2.138","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The Pandemic Fund is established to strengthen pandemic prevention and response capabilities in low- and middle-income countries and address critical gaps through investments and technical support at the national, regional and global levels. It is governed by a Board comprising representatives from sovereign contributors, non-sovereign contributors, sovereign co-investors and civil society organizations. This Fund represents a multi-stakeholder global partnership, with its Secretariat hosted by the World Bank, which also acts as a trustee for the fund, and with technical leadership from the World Health Organization [1]. The recent announcement on 3 March 2023 of a $300 million allocation for the Pandemic Fund's initial round of funding represents a stride towards enhancing prevention, preparedness and response initiatives for public health emergencies in low-and middle-income countries [2]. It is, however, pertinent that the Pandemic Fund bolsters inclusive and holistic strategies that prioritize the needs of vulnerable communities in order to effectively tackle health disparities and foster equity. The priority areas specified in the Call for Proposals – namely disease surveillance, laboratory systems and workforce capacity – are indisputably crucial components of preparedness and response efforts [2]. Although these elements play a foundational role in strengthening health infrastructures and promoting early outbreak detection, there is a pressing need for a more comprehensive discussion on health system strengthening. This should emphasize not only the infrastructure but also the access to quality care and the equitable distribution of resources. These components not only support early detection but also underpin a dependable emergency health response. It is imperative, however, to recognize that marginalized groups – such as ethnic minorities, the economically disadvantaged, people with disabilities and residents of remote areas – often suffer disproportionately during health crises. In the wake of health emergencies like COVID-19, the pronounced health disparities and the severe implications for these vulnerable populations became glaringly evident [3, 4]. These groups encountered a myriad of challenges, from higher infection and mortality rates to limited healthcare access, all of which magnified existing socio-economic inequalities [5]. The necessity of fully engaging minority communities in pandemic preparedness and response initiatives cannot be overstated. Such engagement is paramount for crafting strategies that address the unique vulnerabilities and barriers these communities face in health emergencies and has been widely recognized in the literature for HIV/AIDS [6]. The Pandemic Fund has the opportunity to facilitate this vital inclusion by prioritizing and funding initiatives that highlight active engagement with these communities. One approach for this engagement could involve robust collaboration with local organizations, grassroots movements and community leaders that have a deep understanding of the specific needs, barriers and socio-cultural dynamics within these communities. This could ensure that funded initiatives are appropriately tailored to address distinct health and socio-economic challenges faced by these marginalized groups. Embracing an intersectional approach would underscore the diverse challenges these communities face, providing a blueprint for more targeted interventions. Moreover, involving community stakeholders in the design and implementation of interventions ensures a degree of cultural sensitivity and appropriacy that might be lacking in top-down initiatives. The active integration of the viewpoints of marginalized groups in decision-making processes is also crucial. This can be achieved by involving representatives from these communities in consultation processes, planning meetings and review committees. Hence, the Pandemic Fund can ensure that its initiatives align with the priorities, values and needs of the communities they are meant to serve. Investing in community-based initiatives is another critical strategy for promoting local ownership of pandemic preparedness and response efforts. For instance, supporting community health workers can be particularly effective, given their unique position within the communities they serve. These workers understand the local needs, challenges and cultural contexts, which equips them to deliver services and information in a way that resonates with the community. A practical example is illustrated by the role of community health workers in the fight against the Ebola virus in West Africa. As documented in the literature [7], their local expertise and community trust played a crucial role in breaking the chain of transmission by rapidly identifying and reporting suspected cases, as well as educating community members about preventive measures. Their presence not only improved health outcomes but also bridged the gap between formal health systems and remote or marginalized communities, ensuring a more equitable health response. Furthermore, experts suggest that the Pandemic Fund can enhance its effectiveness by learning from and leveraging the proven strategies and proficiencies of established global health organizations and initiatives [8]. For example, the Global Fund's success in addressing HIV/AIDS, Malaria and Tuberculosis in developing countries offers valuable insights. The Pandemic Fund could adopt similar strategies for reaching key populations and ensuring that they are not left behind. These established entities have laid out pathways and best practices, having achieved notable successes in health challenges across various regions. Leveraging their expertise, strategies and networks would not only allow for enhanced impact but also provide opportunities for synergy, reducing duplication of efforts and ensuring a unified approach towards addressing health inequities and promoting health equity. Alongside this, there is a need for the Pandemic Fund to bolster efforts aimed at enhancing data collection and analysis systems. Accurate, robust data is vital for illuminating the unique needs and challenges faced by marginalized populations. The fund can help develop and implement mechanisms for gathering and analysing such data, ensuring that these populations are adequately represented in all stages of pandemic preparedness and response. This data could, in turn, be used to inform targeted interventions and policies that specifically address these needs. In addressing critical observations related to the World Bank's Pandemic Fund, it is paramount to engage with prevailing concerns that have been brought to the fore by various stakeholders and scholars. Central to these apprehensions is the Fund's governance structure, operational mechanisms and the breadth of its mandate [8]. A salient critique lies in the alleged exclusion of significant regional stakeholders, such as the Africa CDC as an implementing entity [9], which raises questions about representation and inclusivity in the decision-making processes of the Fund. Such exclusions might inadvertently limit the scope and efficacy of the Fund's interventions, especially in regions where localized insights are crucial for effective response strategies. Additionally, there is a discernible gap in the fund's provision for response activities, a limitation that could hamstring immediate and comprehensive interventions in the face of emerging health crises [8]. Furthermore, the call for the adoption of a global public investment model amplifies the need for diversified funding mechanisms [10]. Such an approach would not only augment the financial pool available for pandemic interventions but also promote a sense of shared responsibility and commitment across nations. Governance, in this context, is not merely an administrative function but serves as the bedrock ensuring that the Fund's objectives are met holistically and equitably. Emphasizing sustainability in the Pandemic Fund's strategies is also essential. Fostering resilience, strengthening health infrastructures and endorsing self-sufficiency within LMICs provide a long-term vision for combating future health crises [4]. Equally crucial is the implementation of a rigorous evaluation framework for the initiatives funded by the Pandemic Fund. Regularly measuring the impact of these initiatives on health equity is essential for ensuring accountability, learning from successes and failures and informing the direction of future investments. By adopting a framework for evaluating its activities, the Pandemic Fund can continuously refine its strategies and approaches to maximize its effectiveness and impact. In an interconnected world, pandemics do not respect national borders, and the health of one community can have far-reaching implications for the health of others. Ensuring that all populations, particularly marginalized communities, have the resources and support needed to prevent and respond to pandemics is crucial for global health security and the overall well-being of our societies. This article was conceptualized by Yusuff Adebayo Adebisi. Yusuff Adebayo Adebisi and Nafisat Dasola Jimoh wrote the first draft, whereas Aminat Olaitan Adebayo, Olusegun Ayo Ade-adekunle, Mba Oluebube Mercy and Sarah Kuponiyi revised the first draft critically for important intellectual content. The authors received no funding to develop this article. Yusuff Adebayo Adebisi is an Editorial Board member of Public Health Challenges and co-author of this article. To minimize bias, he was excluded from all editorial decision-making related to the acceptance of this article for publication. This article did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors. None. Not applicable.","PeriodicalId":74613,"journal":{"name":"Public health challenges","volume":"101 19","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Public health challenges","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/puh2.138","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The Pandemic Fund is established to strengthen pandemic prevention and response capabilities in low- and middle-income countries and address critical gaps through investments and technical support at the national, regional and global levels. It is governed by a Board comprising representatives from sovereign contributors, non-sovereign contributors, sovereign co-investors and civil society organizations. This Fund represents a multi-stakeholder global partnership, with its Secretariat hosted by the World Bank, which also acts as a trustee for the fund, and with technical leadership from the World Health Organization [1]. The recent announcement on 3 March 2023 of a $300 million allocation for the Pandemic Fund's initial round of funding represents a stride towards enhancing prevention, preparedness and response initiatives for public health emergencies in low-and middle-income countries [2]. It is, however, pertinent that the Pandemic Fund bolsters inclusive and holistic strategies that prioritize the needs of vulnerable communities in order to effectively tackle health disparities and foster equity. The priority areas specified in the Call for Proposals – namely disease surveillance, laboratory systems and workforce capacity – are indisputably crucial components of preparedness and response efforts [2]. Although these elements play a foundational role in strengthening health infrastructures and promoting early outbreak detection, there is a pressing need for a more comprehensive discussion on health system strengthening. This should emphasize not only the infrastructure but also the access to quality care and the equitable distribution of resources. These components not only support early detection but also underpin a dependable emergency health response. It is imperative, however, to recognize that marginalized groups – such as ethnic minorities, the economically disadvantaged, people with disabilities and residents of remote areas – often suffer disproportionately during health crises. In the wake of health emergencies like COVID-19, the pronounced health disparities and the severe implications for these vulnerable populations became glaringly evident [3, 4]. These groups encountered a myriad of challenges, from higher infection and mortality rates to limited healthcare access, all of which magnified existing socio-economic inequalities [5]. The necessity of fully engaging minority communities in pandemic preparedness and response initiatives cannot be overstated. Such engagement is paramount for crafting strategies that address the unique vulnerabilities and barriers these communities face in health emergencies and has been widely recognized in the literature for HIV/AIDS [6]. The Pandemic Fund has the opportunity to facilitate this vital inclusion by prioritizing and funding initiatives that highlight active engagement with these communities. One approach for this engagement could involve robust collaboration with local organizations, grassroots movements and community leaders that have a deep understanding of the specific needs, barriers and socio-cultural dynamics within these communities. This could ensure that funded initiatives are appropriately tailored to address distinct health and socio-economic challenges faced by these marginalized groups. Embracing an intersectional approach would underscore the diverse challenges these communities face, providing a blueprint for more targeted interventions. Moreover, involving community stakeholders in the design and implementation of interventions ensures a degree of cultural sensitivity and appropriacy that might be lacking in top-down initiatives. The active integration of the viewpoints of marginalized groups in decision-making processes is also crucial. This can be achieved by involving representatives from these communities in consultation processes, planning meetings and review committees. Hence, the Pandemic Fund can ensure that its initiatives align with the priorities, values and needs of the communities they are meant to serve. Investing in community-based initiatives is another critical strategy for promoting local ownership of pandemic preparedness and response efforts. For instance, supporting community health workers can be particularly effective, given their unique position within the communities they serve. These workers understand the local needs, challenges and cultural contexts, which equips them to deliver services and information in a way that resonates with the community. A practical example is illustrated by the role of community health workers in the fight against the Ebola virus in West Africa. As documented in the literature [7], their local expertise and community trust played a crucial role in breaking the chain of transmission by rapidly identifying and reporting suspected cases, as well as educating community members about preventive measures. Their presence not only improved health outcomes but also bridged the gap between formal health systems and remote or marginalized communities, ensuring a more equitable health response. Furthermore, experts suggest that the Pandemic Fund can enhance its effectiveness by learning from and leveraging the proven strategies and proficiencies of established global health organizations and initiatives [8]. For example, the Global Fund's success in addressing HIV/AIDS, Malaria and Tuberculosis in developing countries offers valuable insights. The Pandemic Fund could adopt similar strategies for reaching key populations and ensuring that they are not left behind. These established entities have laid out pathways and best practices, having achieved notable successes in health challenges across various regions. Leveraging their expertise, strategies and networks would not only allow for enhanced impact but also provide opportunities for synergy, reducing duplication of efforts and ensuring a unified approach towards addressing health inequities and promoting health equity. Alongside this, there is a need for the Pandemic Fund to bolster efforts aimed at enhancing data collection and analysis systems. Accurate, robust data is vital for illuminating the unique needs and challenges faced by marginalized populations. The fund can help develop and implement mechanisms for gathering and analysing such data, ensuring that these populations are adequately represented in all stages of pandemic preparedness and response. This data could, in turn, be used to inform targeted interventions and policies that specifically address these needs. In addressing critical observations related to the World Bank's Pandemic Fund, it is paramount to engage with prevailing concerns that have been brought to the fore by various stakeholders and scholars. Central to these apprehensions is the Fund's governance structure, operational mechanisms and the breadth of its mandate [8]. A salient critique lies in the alleged exclusion of significant regional stakeholders, such as the Africa CDC as an implementing entity [9], which raises questions about representation and inclusivity in the decision-making processes of the Fund. Such exclusions might inadvertently limit the scope and efficacy of the Fund's interventions, especially in regions where localized insights are crucial for effective response strategies. Additionally, there is a discernible gap in the fund's provision for response activities, a limitation that could hamstring immediate and comprehensive interventions in the face of emerging health crises [8]. Furthermore, the call for the adoption of a global public investment model amplifies the need for diversified funding mechanisms [10]. Such an approach would not only augment the financial pool available for pandemic interventions but also promote a sense of shared responsibility and commitment across nations. Governance, in this context, is not merely an administrative function but serves as the bedrock ensuring that the Fund's objectives are met holistically and equitably. Emphasizing sustainability in the Pandemic Fund's strategies is also essential. Fostering resilience, strengthening health infrastructures and endorsing self-sufficiency within LMICs provide a long-term vision for combating future health crises [4]. Equally crucial is the implementation of a rigorous evaluation framework for the initiatives funded by the Pandemic Fund. Regularly measuring the impact of these initiatives on health equity is essential for ensuring accountability, learning from successes and failures and informing the direction of future investments. By adopting a framework for evaluating its activities, the Pandemic Fund can continuously refine its strategies and approaches to maximize its effectiveness and impact. In an interconnected world, pandemics do not respect national borders, and the health of one community can have far-reaching implications for the health of others. Ensuring that all populations, particularly marginalized communities, have the resources and support needed to prevent and respond to pandemics is crucial for global health security and the overall well-being of our societies. This article was conceptualized by Yusuff Adebayo Adebisi. Yusuff Adebayo Adebisi and Nafisat Dasola Jimoh wrote the first draft, whereas Aminat Olaitan Adebayo, Olusegun Ayo Ade-adekunle, Mba Oluebube Mercy and Sarah Kuponiyi revised the first draft critically for important intellectual content. The authors received no funding to develop this article. Yusuff Adebayo Adebisi is an Editorial Board member of Public Health Challenges and co-author of this article. To minimize bias, he was excluded from all editorial decision-making related to the acceptance of this article for publication. This article did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors. None. Not applicable.
世界银行的流行病基金如何解决卫生不平等问题
设立大流行病基金是为了加强低收入和中等收入国家的大流行病预防和应对能力,并通过国家、区域和全球各级的投资和技术支持解决重大差距。它由一个由主权出资人、非主权出资人、主权共同投资者和民间社会组织代表组成的董事会管理。该基金是一个多利益攸关方的全球伙伴关系,其秘书处由世界银行担任,世界银行也是该基金的受托人,并由世界卫生组织[1]担任技术领导。最近于2023年3月3日宣布为大流行病基金第一轮拨款3亿美元,这是在加强低收入和中等收入国家突发公共卫生事件的预防、准备和应对举措方面迈出的一步。然而,大流行病基金应支持优先考虑弱势社区需求的包容和整体战略,以便有效解决保健差距和促进公平。《征求建议书》中规定的优先领域——即疾病监测、实验室系统和工作人员能力——无疑是防备和应对工作b[2]的关键组成部分。虽然这些因素在加强卫生基础设施和促进及早发现疫情方面发挥着基础作用,但迫切需要对加强卫生系统进行更全面的讨论。这不仅应强调基础设施,而且还应强调获得优质护理和公平分配资源的机会。这些组成部分不仅支持早期发现,而且支持可靠的紧急卫生反应。然而,必须认识到,边缘化群体——如少数民族、经济上处于不利地位的人、残疾人和偏远地区居民——在卫生危机期间往往遭受不成比例的痛苦。在2019冠状病毒病等突发卫生事件之后,明显的健康差距及其对这些弱势群体的严重影响变得尤为明显[3,4]。这些群体遇到了无数的挑战,从较高的感染率和死亡率到有限的医疗保健机会,所有这些都加剧了现有的社会经济不平等。少数群体社区充分参与大流行病防范和应对举措的必要性再怎么强调也不为过。这种参与对于制定应对这些社区在突发卫生事件中面临的独特脆弱性和障碍的战略至关重要,并已在有关艾滋病毒/艾滋病主题的文献中得到广泛认可。大流行病基金有机会通过优先考虑和资助强调与这些社区积极参与的举措来促进这一至关重要的包容。这种参与的一种方法可能涉及与对这些社区的具体需求、障碍和社会文化动态有深刻理解的地方组织、基层运动和社区领导人进行强有力的合作。这可确保获得资助的倡议适当地针对这些边缘化群体所面临的独特的健康和社会经济挑战。采用交叉方法将强调这些社区面临的各种挑战,为更有针对性的干预提供蓝图。此外,让社区利益相关者参与干预措施的设计和实施,可确保一定程度的文化敏感性和适当性,这可能是自上而下的举措所缺乏的。在决策过程中积极纳入边缘化群体的观点也是至关重要的。这可以通过让这些社区的代表参与协商进程、规划会议和审查委员会来实现。因此,大流行病基金可以确保其举措符合其所服务的社区的优先事项、价值观和需求。投资于以社区为基础的举措,是促进地方对大流行病防范和应对工作的自主权的另一项重要战略。例如,鉴于社区卫生工作者在其所服务的社区中的独特地位,支持社区卫生工作者可能特别有效。这些工作人员了解当地的需求、挑战和文化背景,这使他们能够以与社区产生共鸣的方式提供服务和信息。社区卫生工作者在西非抗击埃博拉病毒中发挥的作用就是一个实际的例子。正如文献bbb所记载的那样,他们的当地专业知识和社区信任通过迅速发现和报告疑似病例以及教育社区成员采取预防措施,在打破传播链方面发挥了至关重要的作用。 他们的存在不仅改善了卫生结果,而且弥合了正规卫生系统与偏远或边缘化社区之间的差距,确保了更公平的卫生应对措施。此外,专家建议,大流行病基金可以通过学习和利用已建立的全球卫生组织和倡议b[8]行之有效的战略和熟练程度来提高其效力。例如,全球基金在解决发展中国家的艾滋病毒/艾滋病、疟疾和结核病方面的成功提供了宝贵的见解。大流行病基金可以采取类似的战略,帮助关键人群,确保他们不被落下。这些已建立的实体制定了途径和最佳做法,在各区域的卫生挑战方面取得了显著成功。利用它们的专门知识、战略和网络不仅可以增强影响,而且还可以提供协同作用的机会,减少工作重复,并确保采取统一的办法来处理卫生不公平现象和促进卫生公平。除此之外,大流行病基金还需要加强旨在加强数据收集和分析系统的努力。准确、可靠的数据对于阐明边缘化人群的独特需求和面临的挑战至关重要。该基金可以帮助制定和执行收集和分析这类数据的机制,确保这些人口在大流行病防范和应对的各个阶段都有充分的代表性。反过来,这些数据可用于为专门解决这些需求的有针对性的干预措施和政策提供信息。在处理与世界银行大流行病基金有关的重要意见时,最重要的是要考虑到各利益攸关方和学者提出的普遍关切。这些担忧的核心是基金组织的治理结构、业务机制及其任务的广度。一个突出的批评在于,据称将重要的区域利益攸关方排除在外,例如非洲疾病预防控制中心作为执行实体b[9],这引发了基金决策过程中的代表性和包容性问题。这种排除可能会在不经意间限制基金组织干预措施的范围和效力,特别是在本地化见解对有效应对战略至关重要的区域。此外,基金为应对活动提供的资金存在明显差距,这一限制可能妨碍在面临新出现的健康危机时采取立即和全面的干预措施[b]。此外,对采用全球公共投资模式的呼吁扩大了对多样化筹资机制的需求[10]。这种做法不仅可以增加用于大流行病干预措施的资金来源,还可以促进各国的共同责任感和承诺感。在这方面,治理不仅是一项行政职能,而且是确保基金组织各项目标全面和平等实现的基础。强调大流行病基金战略的可持续性也至关重要。增强复原力、加强卫生基础设施和支持中低收入国家内部的自给自足,是应对未来卫生危机的长期愿景。同样重要的是,对大流行病基金资助的各项举措实施严格的评估框架。定期衡量这些举措对卫生公平的影响对于确保问责制、从成功和失败中吸取教训以及为未来投资方向提供信息至关重要。通过采用一个评估其活动的框架,大流行病基金可以不断完善其战略和方法,以最大限度地发挥其效力和影响。在一个相互联系的世界中,大流行病不受国界的限制,一个社区的健康可能对其他社区的健康产生深远影响。确保所有人口,特别是边缘化社区,获得预防和应对大流行病所需的资源和支持,对全球卫生安全和我们社会的整体福祉至关重要。这篇文章是由yusuf Adebayo Adebisi构思的。Yusuff addebayo addebisi和Nafisat Dasola Jimoh撰写了初稿,而Aminat Olaitan addebayo, Olusegun Ayo Ade-adekunle, Mba Oluebube Mercy和Sarah Kuponiyi对初稿进行了重要的智力内容的批判性修改。作者在撰写这篇文章时没有得到任何资助。优素福·阿德巴约·阿德比西是《公共卫生挑战》的编辑委员会成员,也是本文的合著者。为了尽量减少偏倚,他被排除在所有与接受这篇文章发表相关的编辑决策之外。本文未获得公共、商业或非营利部门资助机构的任何具体资助。一个也没有。不适用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信