Worldwide, leaders are implementing nonpharmaceutical interventions to slow transmission of the novel coronavirus while pursuing vaccines that confer immunity to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. In this paper, we will describe lessons learned from past pandemics and vaccine campaigns about the path to successful vaccine delivery. The historical record suggests that to have a widely immunized population, leaders must invest in evidence-based vaccine delivery strategies that generate demand, allocate and distribute vaccines, and verify coverage. To generate demand, we must understand the roots of vaccine hesitancy, engage trusted sources of authority to advocate for vaccination, and commit to longitudinal engagement with communities. To allocate vaccines, we must allow qualified organizations and expert coalitions to determine evidence-based vaccination approaches and generate the political will to ensure the cooperation of local and national governments. To distribute vaccines, we must ensure that the people and organizations with expertise in manufacturing, supply chains, and last-mile distribution are positioned to direct efforts. To verify vaccine coverage, we must identify vaccination tracking systems that are portable, interoperable, and secure. Lessons of past pandemics suggest that nations should invest in evidenceinformed strategies to ensure that COVID-19 vaccines protect individuals, suppress transmission, and minimize disruption to health services and livelihoods.

Background South Africa's Health Minister Aaron Motsoaledi inherited an HIV epidemic and a weak public health system when he took office in 2009. His priorities were to establish a national programme to address HIV and to create a system of national health insurance (NHI) to increase access to affordable and high-quality health care. By 2015, Motsoaledi's work on HIV was considered as a success; however, work on the creation of NHI was stymied. Here, we aimed to compare the design, promotion, and implementation of the national HIV programme-a primarily vertical programme-with that of NHI, a horizontal programme.Methods In January and February, 2015, we conducted 20 semi-structured interviews in South Africa with government leaders, civil society, researchers, health-care practitioners, private insurers, and international non-governmental organisations. We analysed interviews and available quantitative data from government, academic, and industry sources and distilled key themes in two teaching cases.Findings We identified several key differences between the HIV programme and NHI efforts, including the role that leadership and politics play in health policy and care delivery; the effect of historical, economic, and cultural context on outcomes and leaders' ability to institute change; and the importance of strategy in planning and decision making. We noted both contextual barriers (such as public distrust of government) and catalysts (demand for HIV treatment) in the programmes. Furthermore, the approach used by the Minister of Health sometimes hindered programme success (for example, the exclusion of private insurers from NHI design) and sometimes enabled success (such as the engagement of civil society in the HIV response). For both programmes, the availability or absence of outcomes data affected the Minister's ability to advocate for change and to make strategic decisions about how to invest in health.Interpretation The comparison of South Africa's well known and effective HIV programme with its stalled NHI efforts-both led by the same person with very different results--sheds light on important considerations when approaching complex, large-scale change. Our analysis of the politics of health systems shows how explicit acknowledgement of the political nature of health will lead to more effective health promotion strategies and policies. Political leaders can either drive or hinder the implementation of evidence-based public health practices.

No abstract

The rapidly changing landscape of medical knowledge and guidelines requires health professionals to have immediate access to current, reliable clinical resources. Access to evidence is instrumental in reducing diagnostic errors and generating better health outcomes. UpToDate, a leading evidence-based clinical resource is used extensively in the USA and other regions of the world and has been linked to lower mortality and length of stay in US hospitals. In 2009, the Global Health Delivery Project collaborated with UpToDate to provide free subscriptions to qualifying health workers in resource-limited settings. We evaluated the provision of UpToDate access to health workers by analysing their usage patterns. Since 2009, ∼2000 individual physicians and healthcare institutions from 116 countries have received free access to UpToDate through our programme. During 2013–2014, users logged into UpToDate ∼150 000 times; 61% of users logged in at least weekly; users in Africa were responsible for 54% of the total usage. Search patterns reflected local epidemiology with ‘clinical manifestations of malaria’ as the top search in Africa, and ‘management of hepatitis B’ as the top search in Asia. Our programme demonstrates that there are barriers to evidence-based clinical knowledge in resource-limited settings we can help remove. Some assumed barriers to its expansion (poor internet connectivity, lack of training and infrastructure) might pose less of a burden than subscription fees.