Despite dramatic improvements in survival, nutrition, and education over recent decades, today's children face an uncertain future. Climate change, ecological degradation, migrating populations, conflict, pervasive inequalities, and predatory commercial practices threaten the health and future of children in every country. In 2015, the world's countries agreed on the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), yet nearly 5 years later, few countries have recorded much progress towards achieving them. This Commission presents the case for placing children, aged 0-18 years, at the centre of the SDGs: at the heart of the concept of sustainability and our shared human endeavour. Governments must harness coalitions across sectors to overcome ecological and commercial pressures to ensure children receive their rights and entitlements now and a liveable planet in the years to come.

No abstract

Existing definitions and measurement approaches of quality of health care often fail to address the complexities involved in understanding quality of care. It is perceptions of quality, rather than clinical indicators of quality, that drive service utilization and are essential to increasing demand. Here we reflect on the nature of quality, how perceptions of quality influence health systems and what such perceptions indicate about measurement of quality within health systems. We discuss six specific challenges related to the conceptualization and measurement of the quality of care: perceived quality as a driver of service utilization; quality as a concept shaped over time through experience; responsiveness as a key attribute of quality; the role of management and other so-called upstream factors; quality as a social construct co-produced by families, individuals, networks and providers; and the implications of our observations for measurement. Within the communities and societies where care is provided, quality of care cannot be understood outside social norms, relationships, trust and values. We need to improve not only technical quality but also acceptability, responsiveness and levels of patient–provider trust. Measurement approaches need to be reconsidered. An improved understanding of all the attributes of quality in health systems and their interrelationships could support the expansion of access to essential health interventions.

The recent outbreak of Ebola Virus Disease (EVD) in West Africa has drawn attention to the role and responsiveness of health systems in the face of shock. It brought into sharp focus the idea that health systems need not only to be stronger but also more ‘resilient’. In this article, we argue that responding to shocks is an important aspect of resilience, examining the health system behaviour in the face of four types of contemporary shocks: the financial crisis in Europe from 2008 onwards; climate change disasters; the EVD outbreak in West Africa 2013–16; and the recent refugee and migration crisis in Europe. Based on this analysis, we identify ‘3 plus 2’ critical dimensions of particular relevance to health systems’ ability to adapt and respond to shocks; actions in all of these will determine the extent to which a response is successful. These are three core dimensions corresponding to three health systems functions: ‘health information systems’ (having the information and the knowledge to make a decision on what needs to be done); ‘funding/financing mechanisms’ (investing or mobilising resources to fund a response); and ‘health workforce’ (who should plan and implement it and how). These intersect with two cross-cutting aspects: ‘governance’, as a fundamental function affecting all other system dimensions; and predominant ‘values’ shaping the response, and how it is experienced at individual and community levels. Moreover, across the crises examined here, integration within the health system contributed to resilience, as does connecting with local communities, evidenced by successful community responses to Ebola and social movements responding to the financial crisis. In all crises, inequalities grew, yet our evidence also highlights that the impact of shocks is amenable to government action. All these factors are shaped by context. We argue that the ‘3 plus 2’ dimensions can inform pragmatic policies seeking to increase health systems resilience.