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.

Background Community participation is widely believed to be beneficial to the development, implementation and evaluation of health services. However, many challenges to successful and sustainable community involvement remain. Importantly, there is little evidence on the effect of community participation in terms of outcomes at both the community and individual level. Our systematic review seeks to examine the evidence on outcomes of community participation in high and upper-middle income countries. Methods and findings This review was developed according to PRISMA guidelines. Eligible studies included those that involved the community, service users, consumers, households, patients, public and their representatives in the development, implementation, and evaluation of health services, policy or interventions. We searched the following databases from January 2000 to September 2016: Medline, Embase, Global Health, Scopus, and LILACs. We independently screened articles for inclusion, conducted data extraction, and assessed studies for risk of bias. No language restrictions were made. 27,232 records were identified, with 23,468 after removal of duplicates. Following titles and abstracts screening, 49 met the inclusion criteria for this review. A narrative synthesis of the findings was conducted. Outcomes were categorised as process outcomes, community outcomes, health outcomes, empowerment and stakeholder perspectives. Our review reports a breadth of evidence that community involvement has a positive impact on health, particularly when substantiated by strong organisational and community processes. This is in line with the notion that participatory approaches and positive outcomes including community empowerment and health improvements do not occur in a linear progression, but instead consists of complex processes influenced by an array of social and cultural factors. Conclusion This review adds to the evidence base supporting the effectiveness of community participation in yielding positive outcomes at the organizational, community and individual level. Trial registration Prospero record number: CRD42016048244 .

BackgroundIn Singapore, the burden of hypertension disproportionately falls on the elderly population of low socio-economic status. Despite availability of effective treatment, studies have shown high prevalence of sub-optimal blood pressure control in this group. Poor hypertension management can be attributed to a number of personal factors including awareness, management skills and overall adherence to treatment. However, these factors are also closely linked to a broader range of community and policy factors. This paper explores the perceived social and physical environments of low socio-economic status and elderly patients with hypertension; and how the interplay of factors within these environments influences their ability to mobilise resources for hypertension management.MethodsIn-depth interviews were conducted in English, Chinese, Chinese dialects and Malay with 20 hypertensive patients of various ethnic backgrounds. Purposive sampling was adopted for recruitment of participants from a previous community health screening campaign. Interviews were translated into English and transcribed verbatim. We deductively analysed leveraging on the Social Model of Health to identify key themes, while inductive analysis was used simultaneously to allow sub-themes to emerge.Results and discussionOur finding shows that financing is an overarching topic embedded in most themes. Despite the availability of multiple safety nets, some patients were left out and lacked capital to navigate systems effectively, which resulted in delayed treatment or debt. The built environment played a significant role in enabling patients to access care easily and lead a more active lifestyle. A closer look is needed to enhance the capacity of patients with mobility challenges to enjoy equitable access. Furthermore, the establishment of community based elderly centres has enabled patients to engage in meaningful and healthy social activities. In contrast, participants’ descriptions showed that their communication with healthcare professionals remained brief, and that personalised and meaningful interactions that are context and culturally specific are essential to advocate for patients’ overall treatment adherence and lifestyle modification.ConclusionElderly patients with hypertension from lower socio-economic background have various unmet needs in managing their hypertension and other comorbidities. These needs are closely related to broader societal factors such as socio-demographic characteristics, support systems, urban planning and public policies, and health systems factors. Policy decisions to address these needs require an integrated multi-sectoral approach grounded in the principles of health equity.

Non-communicable diseases (NCDs), including cardiovascular diseases (CVD), hypertension and diabetes together with HIV infection are among the major public health concerns worldwide. Health services for HIV and NCDs require health systems that provide for people's chronic care needs, which present an opportunity to coordinate efforts and create synergies between programmes to benefit people living with HIV and/or AIDS and NCDs. This review included studies that reported service integration for HIV and/or AIDS with coronary heart diseases, chronic CVD, cerebrovascular diseases (stroke), hypertension or diabetes. We searched multiple databases from inception until October 2015. Articles were screened independently by two reviewers and assessed for risk of bias. 11,057 records were identified with 7,616 after duplicate removal. After screening titles and abstracts, 14 papers addressing 17 distinct interventions met the inclusion criteria. We categorized integration models by diseases (HIV with diabetes, HIV with hypertension and diabetes, HIV with CVD and finally HIV with hypertension and CVD and diabetes). Models also looked at integration from micro (patient focused integration) to macro (system level integrations). Most reported integration of hypertension and diabetes with HIV and AIDS services and described multidisciplinary collaboration, shared protocols, and incorporating screening activities into community campaigns. Integration took place exclusively at the meso-level, with no micro-or macro-level integrations described. Most were descriptive studies, with one cohort study reporting evaluative outcomes. Several innovative initiatives were identified and studies showed that CVD and HIV service integration is feasible.Integration should build on existing protocols and use the community as a locus for advocacy and health services, while promoting multidisciplinary teams, including greater involvement of pharmacists. There is a need for robust and well-designed studies at all levels -particularly macrolevel studies, research looking at long-term outcomes of integration, and research in a more diverse range of countries.

No abstract

BackgroundThe frequency in which HIV and AIDS and mental health problems co-exist, and the complex bi-directional relationship between them, highlights the need for effective care models combining services for HIV and mental health. Here, we present a systematic review that synthesizes the literature on interventions and approaches integrating these services.MethodsThis review was part of a larger systematic review on integration of services for HIV and non-communicable diseases. Eligible studies included those that described or evaluated an intervention or approach aimed at integrating HIV and mental health care. We searched multiple databases from inception until October 2015, independently screened articles identified for inclusion, conducted data extraction, and assessed evaluative papers for risk of bias.ResultsForty-five articles were eligible for this review. We identified three models of integration at the meso and micro levels: single-facility integration, multi-facility integration, and integrated care coordinated by a non-physician case manager. Single-site integration enhances multidisciplinary coordination and reduces access barriers for patients. However, the practicality and cost-effectiveness of providing a full continuum of specialized care on-site for patients with complex needs is arguable. Integration based on a collaborative network of specialized agencies may serve those with multiple co-morbidities but fragmented and poorly coordinated care can pose barriers. Integrated care coordinated by a single case manager can enable continuity of care for patients but requires appropriate training and support for case managers. Involving patients as key actors in facilitating integration within their own treatment plan is a promising approach.ConclusionThis review identified much diversity in integration models combining HIV and mental health services, which are shown to have potential in yielding positive patient and service delivery outcomes when implemented within appropriate contexts. Our review revealed a lack of research in low- and middle- income countries, and was limited to most studies being descriptive. Overall, studies that seek to evaluate and compare integration models in terms of long-term outcomes and cost-effectiveness are needed, particularly at the health system level and in regions with high HIV and AIDS burden.

ObjectiveThe aim of this review, conducted in April 2020, is to examine available national primary care guidelines for COVID-19 and to explore the ways in which these guidelines support primary care facilities in responding to the demands of the COVID-19 pandemic.DesignRapid review and narrative synthesis.Data sourcesPubMed, Embase and Google, as well as the websites of relevant national health departments, were searched from 1 January 2020 to 24 April 2020.Eligibility criteriaDocuments included must be issued by a national health authority, must be specific to COVID-19 care, directed at healthcare workers or managers, and must refer to the role of primary care in the COVID-19 response.ResultsWe identified 17 documents from 14 countries. An adapted framework on primary care challenges and responses to pandemic influenza framed our analysis. Guidelines generally reported on COVID-19 service delivery and mostly made specific recommendations for ensuring continued delivery of essential primary care services through telehealth or other virtual care modalities. Few offered guidance to support surveillance as a public health function. All offered guidance on implementing outbreak control measures, largely through flexible and coordinated organisational models with partners from various sectors. There was a lack of guidance to support supply chain management and practice resilience in primary care, and lack of personal protective equipment represents a serious threat to the provision of quality care during the pandemic.ConclusionsCurrent national primary care guidelines for COVID-19 provide guidance on infection control and minimising the risk of spread in primary care practices, while supporting the use of new technology and coordinated partnerships. However, to ensure primary care practice resilience and quality of care are upheld, guidelines must offer recommendations on supply chain management and operational continuity, supported by adequate resources.

Introduction: Substance use is an important risk factor for HIV, with both concentrated in certain vulnerable and marginalized populations. Although their management differs, there may be opportunities to integrate services for substance use and HIV. In this paper we systematically review evidence from studies that sought to integrate care for people living with HIV and substance use problems.Methods: Studies were included if they evaluated service integration for substance use and HIV. We searched multiple databases from inception until October 2015. Articles were screened independently by two reviewers and assessed for risk of bias.Results and discussion: 11,057 records were identified, with 7616 after removal of duplicates. After screening titles and abstracts, 51 met the inclusion criteria. Integration models were categorized by location (HIV, substance use and other facilities), level of integration from mirco (integrated care delivered to individuals) to macro (system level integrations) and degree of integration from least (screening and counselling only) to most (care for HIV, substance use and/or other illnesses at the same facility). Most reported descriptive or cohort studies; in four randomized control trials integrated activities improved patient outcomes. There is potential for integrating services at all facility types, including mobile health services. While services offering screening only can achieve synergies, there are benefits from delivering integrated treatment for HIV and substance use, including ease of referral to other mental health and social services.Conclusions: Our review used a wide range of databases and conference archives to increase representation of papers from low- and middle-income countries. Limitations include the overrepresentation of studies from the United States, and the descriptive nature of the majority of papers. The evidence reviewed shows that greater integration offers important benefits in both patient and service outcomes but further research and outcome reporting is needed to better understand innovative and holistic care models at the complex intersection of substance use and HIV services.