Charnele Nunes, Martin Mckee, Simon Rushton, Natasha Howard
{"title":"“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。","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":"{\"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}","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}
'I Think From the Beginning, the Ambitions Were Compromised': A Case Study of COVAX as Vaccine Equity Policy Operationalisation.
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.
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.