Global responses to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID19) pandemic are converging with pervasive, existing sexual and reproductive health and justice inequities to disproportionately impact the health, wellbeing, and economic stability of women, girls, and vulnerable populations. People whose human rights are least protected are likely to experience unique difficulties from COVID19. 1 Women, girls, and marginalised Centring sexual and reproductive health and justice in the global COVID-19 response unmonitored isolation, from the effects of COVID19, as well as loneliness and mental health deterioration. The risks of using CHWs in this way could be reduced by supervision, with independent monitoring and evaluative research to identify problems early and correct them. The CHWs could visit in pairs to reduce the risks.People might resist or be reluctant to be visited by CHWs, and they could opt out of home visits at any time, but experience with CHWs in Brazil in the past 30 years suggests this would happen rarely. 4 In Brazil, 250 000 CHWs provide a much needed and relied upon service. CHWs in Brazil have been established for many years, are well integrated into their communities, and provide a wide range of health and social care support activities to each of the 100-150 households that they are responsible for. Therefore, in Brazil, additional roles for preventing the spread of and supporting those infected with COVID19 or in selfisolation could be integrated into the work of CHWs. Much can be learned from countries with successful experiences of radical, largescale workforce interventions. 9 It could be argued that this is an unrealistic proposal and that adapting the existing system or training so many people is too challenging. However, current health and social care systems in the UK are under extreme pressure and could become overwhelmed. In a time of fear, isolation, and growing health inequalities, 10 use of CHWs for the COVID19 response would boost social coherence and fill gaps that have begun to emerge between health and social care and inperson and virtual access to health care. Our proposal for CHWs would produce a large cadre of people with an understanding of basic epidemiological and public health concepts 11 who could challenge scientific misinformation and explain the rationale for specific health policies and interventions to the public. This approach would also help build a new generation of leaders who can help tackle the complex challenges of our age.

No abstract

Background The COVID-19 pandemic and global efforts to contain its spread, such as stay-at-home orders and transportation shutdowns, have created new barriers to accessing healthcare, resulting in changes in service delivery and utilization globally. The purpose of this study is to provide an overview of the literature published thus far on the indirect health effects of COVID-19 and to explore the data sources and methodologies being used to assess indirect health effects. Methods A scoping review of peer-reviewed literature using three search engines was performed. Results One hundred and seventy studies were included in the final analysis. Nearly half (46.5%) of included studies focused on cardiovascular health outcomes. The main methodologies used were observational analytic and surveys. Data was drawn from individual health facilities, multicentre networks, regional registries, and national health information systems. Most studies were conducted in high-income countries with only 35.4% of studies representing low- and middle-income countries. Conclusion Healthcare utilization for non-COVID-19 conditions has decreased almost universally, across both high- and lower-income countries. The pandemic’s impact on non-COVID-19 health outcomes, particularly for chronic diseases, may take years to fully manifest and should be a topic of ongoing study. Future research should be tied to system improvement and the promotion of health equity, with researchers identifying potentially actionable findings for national, regional, and local health leadership. Public health professionals must also seek to address the disparity in published data from LMICs as compared to high-income countries.

No abstract

Summaryobjectives To survey infrastructure characteristics, personnel, equipment and procedures of surgical, obstetric and anaesthesia care in 17 hospitals in Ghana.methods The assessment was completed by WHO country offices using the World Health Organization Tool for Situational Analysis to Assess Emergency and Essential Surgical Care, which surveyed infrastructure, human resources, types of surgical interventions and equipment in each facility.results Overall, hospitals were well equipped with general patient care and surgical supplies. The majority of hospitals had a basic laboratory (100%), running water (94%) and electricity (82%). More than 75% had the basic supplies needed for general patient care and basic intra-operative care, including sterilization. Almost all hospitals were able to perform major surgical procedures such as caesarean sections (88%), herniorrhaphy (100%) and appendectomy (94%), but formal training of providers was limited: a few hospitals had a fully qualified surgeon (29%) or obstetrician (36%) available.conclusions The greatest barrier to improving surgical care at district hospitals in Ghana is the shortage of adequately trained medical personnel for emergency and essential surgical procedures. Important future steps include strengthening their number and qualifications.

General Electric Foundation.

Background: The Rwanda Human Resources for Health Program (HRH Program) is a 7-year (2012-2019) health professional training initiative led by the Government of Rwanda with the goals of training a large, diverse, and competent health workforce and strengthening the capacity of academic institutions in Rwanda. Methods: The data for this organizational case study was collected through official reports from the Rwanda Ministry of Health (MoH) and 22 participating US academic institutions, databases from the MoH and the College of Medicine and Health Sciences (CMHS) in Rwanda, and surveys completed by the co-authors. Results: In the first 5 years of the HRH Program, a consortium of US academic institutions has deployed an average of 99 visiting faculty per year to support 22 training programs, which are on track to graduate almost 4600 students by 2019. The HRH Program has also built capacity within the CMHS by promoting the recruitment of Rwandan faculty and the establishment of additional partnerships and collaborations with the US academic institutions. Conclusion: The milestones achieved by the HRH Program have been substantial although some challenges persist. These challenges include adequately supporting the visiting faculty; pairing them with Rwandan faculty (twinning); ensuring strong communication and coordination among stakeholders; addressing mismatches in priorities between donors and implementers; the execution of a sustainability strategy; and the decision by one of the donors not to renew funding beyond March 2017. Over the next 2 academic years, it is critical for the sustainability of the 22 training programs supported by the HRH Program that the health-related Schools at the CMHS significantly scale up recruitment of new Rwandan faculty. The HRH Program can serve as a model for other training initiatives implemented in countries affected by a severe shortage of health professionals.

Facility-based emergency care delivery in low-income and middle- income countries is expanding rapidly, particularly in Africa. Unfortunately, these efforts rarely include measurement of the quality or the impact of care provided, which is essential for improvement of care provision. Our aim was to determine context-appropriate quality indicators that will allow uniform and objective data collection to enhance emergency care delivery throughout Africa. We undertook a multiphase expert consensus process to identify, rank and refine quality indicators. A comprehensive review of the literature identified existing indicators; those associated with a substantial burden of disease in Africa were categorised and presented to consensus conference delegates. Participants selected indicators based on inclusion criteria and priority clinical conditions. The indicators were then presented to a group of expert clinicians via on-line survey; all meeting agreements were refined in-person by a separate panel and ranked according to validity, feasibility and value. The consensus working group selected seven conditions addressing nearly 75% of mortality in the African region to prioritise during indicator development, and the final product at the end of the multiphase study was a list of 76 indicators. This comprehensive process produced a robust set of quality indicators for emergency care that are appropriate for use in the African setting. The adaptation of a standardised set of indicators will enhance the quality of care provided and allow for comparison of system strengthening efforts and resource distribution.