Health systems resilience is key to learning lessons from country responses to crises such as coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). In this perspective, we review COVID-19 responses in 28 countries using a new health systems resilience framework. Through a combination of literature review, national government submissions and interviews with experts, we conducted a comparative analysis of national responses. We report on domains addressing governance and financing, health workforce, medical products and technologies, public health functions, health service delivery and community engagement to prevent and mitigate the spread of COVID-19. We then synthesize four salient elements that underlie highly effective national responses and offer recommendations toward strengthening health systems resilience globally.

Singapore, one of the first countries affected by COVID-19, adopted a national strategy for the pandemic which emphasised preparedness through a whole-of-nation approach. The pandemic was well contained initially until early April 2020, when there was a surge in cases, attributed to Singapore residents returning from hotspots overseas, and more significantly, rapid transmission locally within migrant worker dormitories. In this paper, we present the response of Singapore to the COVID-19 pandemic based on core dimensions of health system resilience during outbreaks. We also discussed on the surge in cases in April 2020, highlighting efforts to mitigate it. There was: (1) clear leadership and governance which adopted flexible plans appropriate to the situation; (2) timely, accurate and transparent communication from the government; (3) public health measures to reduce imported cases, and detect as well as isolate cases early; (4) maintenance of health service delivery; (5) access to crisis financing; and (6) legal foundation to complement policy measures. Areas for improvement include understanding reasons for poor uptake of government initiatives, such as the mobile application for contact tracing and adopting a more inclusive response that protects all individuals, including at-risk populations. The experience in Singapore and lessons learnt will contribute to pandemic preparedness and mitigation in the future.

Summary The complex problem of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is spread across human health, animal health, and the environment. The Global Action Plan (GAP) on AMR and context-specific national action plans (NAPs) were developed to combat this problem. To date, there is no systematic content analysis of NAPs from countries of the Association of Southeast Asia Nations (ASEAN). As the validity periods of most NAPs are ending, an analysis now will provide an opportunity to improve subsequent iterations of these NAPs. We analysed the current NAPs of ten ASEAN countries. We explored their objective alignment with GAP and performed content analysis using an AMR governance framework. Themes were broadly classified under five governance areas: policy design, implementation tools, monitoring and evaluation, sustainability, and One Health engagement. We identified policy priorities, useful features of NAPs, and specific areas that should be strengthened, including accountability, sustained engagement, equity, behavioural economics, sustainability plans and transparency, international collaboration, as well as integration of the environmental sector. Enhancement of these areas and adoption of best practices will drive improved policy formulation and its translation into effective implementation.

No abstract

Covid-19 caught the West by surprise, but the legacy of Ebola, MERS, and SARS meant that several Asian and African nations had systems in place to mitigate the severity of the pandemic. Experts explain what Hong Kong, Liberia, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, and Taiwan learnt and how they have made a difference.

Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) results in drug-resistant infections that are harder to treat, subsequently leading to increased morbidity and mortality. In 2008, we reviewed the problem of AMR in Singapore, limiting our discussion to the human healthcare sector. Ten years later, we revisit this issue again, reviewing current efforts to contain it in order to understand the progress made as well as current and emerging challenges. Although a significant amount of work has been done to control AMR and improve antibiotic prescribing in Singapore, most of it has focused on the hospital setting, with mixed impact. The role of antibiotic use and AMR in food animals and the environment-and the link to human health-is better understood today. This issue of AMR encompasses both human health as well as animal/food safety, and efforts to control it will need to continually evolve to maintain or improve on current gains.

Victoria Haldane and colleagues delve into the characteristics of national responses to covid-19. They suggest actionable steps at a national level that can guide states to achieve the independent panel’s recommendations for making this the last pandemic

Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is a global public health threat that warrants urgent attention. Countries developed their national action plans (NAPs) following the launch of the Global Action Plan on AMR in 2015. The development and implementation of NAPs are often complicated due to the multifaceted nature of AMR, and studies analyzing these aspects are lacking. We analyzed the development and implementation of the Philippine NAP on AMR with guidance from an AMR governance framework. We conducted in-depth interviews with 37 participants across the One Health spectrum. The interviews were transcribed verbatim and were analyzed thematically, adopting an interpretative approach. The enabling factors for NAP implementation include (1) a high level of governmental support and involvement of relevant stakeholders, (2) the development of policies to support improved responses in infection prevention and control and antimicrobial stewardship, and (3) better engagement and advocacy by professional associations and civil society groups. The challenges include (1) a lack of resources and regulatory capacity, (2) insufficient impetus for AMR research and surveillance, and (3) limited One Health engagement. Although there has been considerable progress for human health, strengthening the involvement and representation of the animal health and environment sectors in the AMR scene must be undertaken. Developing well-defined roles within policies will be paramount to the strong implementation of AMR strategies.