'I Think From the Beginning, the Ambitions Were Compromised': A Case Study of COVAX as Vaccine Equity Policy Operationalisation.

IF 1.8 4区 医学 Q3 HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES
Charnele Nunes, Martin Mckee, Simon Rushton, Natasha Howard
{"title":"'I Think From the Beginning, the Ambitions Were Compromised': A Case Study of COVAX as Vaccine Equity Policy Operationalisation.","authors":"Charnele Nunes, Martin Mckee, Simon Rushton, Natasha Howard","doi":"10.1002/hpm.70028","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>COVAX was designed to support the discovery, development, and distribution of COVID-19 vaccines globally, at scale and pace. This article examines how COVAX promoted vaccine equity and what lessons can be learnt.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Informed by a scoping review of lessons learnt from GHPs, we reviewed 109 documents related to COVAX and other GHPs and conducted 23 key informant interviews with representatives from GHPs, civil society, academia, and the private sector. Data were synthesised thematically using Rushton and Williams's framework.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Data showed how the global health policy context shaped COVAX, with experience with Gavi and CEPI influencing its governance structure. We highlighted weaknesses in transparency and accountability, limited engagement with civil society organisations [CSO] and LMIC stakeholders, contested policy debates (e.g., different framing) and paradigms (e.g., prioritising technical and financial over political solutions).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>COVAX largely replicated existing GHP approaches, subsidising research and development and then paying for resulting discoveries. While recognising how this reflects global power structures, in the inevitable next global health crisis, the international health community must advocate for greater LMIC and CSO involvement in decision-making, sharing of intellectual property and technology transfer, and rebalancing of flows of innovation costs and benefits to a broader range of actors across public and private sectors.</p>","PeriodicalId":47637,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Health Planning and Management","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Health Planning and Management","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/hpm.70028","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: COVAX was designed to support the discovery, development, and distribution of COVID-19 vaccines globally, at scale and pace. This article examines how COVAX promoted vaccine equity and what lessons can be learnt.

Methods: Informed by a scoping review of lessons learnt from GHPs, we reviewed 109 documents related to COVAX and other GHPs and conducted 23 key informant interviews with representatives from GHPs, civil society, academia, and the private sector. Data were synthesised thematically using Rushton and Williams's framework.

Results: Data showed how the global health policy context shaped COVAX, with experience with Gavi and CEPI influencing its governance structure. We highlighted weaknesses in transparency and accountability, limited engagement with civil society organisations [CSO] and LMIC stakeholders, contested policy debates (e.g., different framing) and paradigms (e.g., prioritising technical and financial over political solutions).

Conclusions: COVAX largely replicated existing GHP approaches, subsidising research and development and then paying for resulting discoveries. While recognising how this reflects global power structures, in the inevitable next global health crisis, the international health community must advocate for greater LMIC and CSO involvement in decision-making, sharing of intellectual property and technology transfer, and rebalancing of flows of innovation costs and benefits to a broader range of actors across public and private sectors.

“我认为从一开始,雄心就受到了损害”:COVAX作为疫苗公平政策运作的案例研究。
背景:COVAX旨在支持在全球范围内以规模和速度发现、开发和分发COVID-19疫苗。本文探讨了全球获取疫苗计划如何促进疫苗公平以及可以吸取哪些教训。方法:通过对全球疫苗计划的经验教训进行范围审查,我们审查了109份与全球疫苗计划和其他全球疫苗计划相关的文件,并与全球疫苗计划、民间社会、学术界和私营部门的代表进行了23次关键信息提供者访谈。使用Rushton和Williams的框架对数据进行主题合成。结果:数据显示了全球卫生政策背景如何塑造了全球疫苗获取计划,全球疫苗和免疫联盟的经验影响了其治理结构。我们强调了在透明度和问责制方面的弱点,与民间社会组织和中低收入国家利益相关者的接触有限,有争议的政策辩论(例如,不同的框架)和范式(例如,优先考虑技术和财政而不是政治解决方案)。结论:COVAX在很大程度上复制了现有的GHP方法,为研究和开发提供补贴,然后为由此产生的发现付费。在认识到这如何反映全球权力结构的同时,在不可避免的下一次全球卫生危机中,国际卫生界必须倡导低收入和中等收入国家和公民社会组织更多地参与决策,分享知识产权和技术转让,以及重新平衡创新成本和收益流向公共和私营部门更广泛的行为体。
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
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
3.70%
发文量
197
期刊介绍: Policy making and implementation, planning and management are widely recognized as central to effective health systems and services and to better health. Globalization, and the economic circumstances facing groups of countries worldwide, meanwhile present a great challenge for health planning and management. The aim of this quarterly journal is to offer a forum for publications which direct attention to major issues in health policy, planning and management. The intention is to maintain a balance between theory and practice, from a variety of disciplines, fields and perspectives. The Journal is explicitly international and multidisciplinary in scope and appeal: articles about policy, planning and management in countries at various stages of political, social, cultural and economic development are welcomed, as are those directed at the different levels (national, regional, local) of the health sector. Manuscripts are invited from a spectrum of different disciplines e.g., (the social sciences, management and medicine) as long as they advance our knowledge and understanding of the health sector. The Journal is therefore global, and eclectic.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信