Globalization and Health最新文献

Background: Numerous studies have explored the impact of pre- and post-migration factors on the overall health of migrant populations. The objective of this study is to enhance our understanding of additional determinants affecting migrants' health by examining the impact of the migration phase and related journeys in the European context.

Methods: We conducted a systematic review of studies published in the MEDLINE, Embase, and Scopus databases from 2003 up to January 5, 2024. We included observational studies reporting information on the health status of migrant populations recorded upon arrival in a country situated in Europe, and on the transit phase, including specific risk factors experienced during the journey or its characteristics. Title and abstract screening were performed using active learning techniques provided by ASReview software. The results of the included studies were presented qualitatively, with a focus on publications that formally assessed the association between the journey and the investigated health outcomes. The systematic review was registered on PROSPERO, CRD42024513421.

Results: Out of 11,370 records screened, we ultimately included 25 studies, all conducted since 2017. Most adopted a cross-sectional design and a quantitative approach, with relatively small sample sizes. The majority of the studies were conducted in Serbia and Italy. Only 14 of them formally assessed the association between different exposures in the transit phase and health outcomes, including mental health, well-being and quality of life, infectious and non-communicable diseases.

Conclusion: Epidemiological research focusing on the transit phase in Europe remains limited, with few available studies facing challenges related to data collection, study design and analysis, thereby limiting the interpretability and generalisability of their results. These findings underscore the need for action, prompting the development of adequate and feasible strategies to conduct additional studies focusing on migrant populations during migration journeys.

The Bellagio Group for Accelerating AMR Action met in April 2024 to develop the ambitious but achievable 1-10-100 unifying goals to galvanize global policy change and investments for antimicrobial resistance mitigation: 1 Health; 10 million lives saved; and 100% sustainable access to effective antimicrobials. High profile political goals such as the Paris Agreement's objective to keep global warming well below 2° Celsius compared to pre-industrial levels, UNAIDS' 90-90-90 goal, and the Sustainable Development Goals challenge global norms, direct attention towards relevant activities, and serve an energizing function to motivate action over an extended period of time. The 1-10-100 unifying goals propose to unite the world through a One Health approach to safeguard human health, animal welfare, agrifood systems, and the environment from the emergence and spread of drug-resistant microbes and infections; save over 10 million lives by 2040 through concerted efforts to prevent and appropriately treat infections while preserving the vital systems and services that depend on sustained antimicrobial effectiveness; and commit to ensuring that antimicrobials are available and affordable for all, used prudently, and secured for the future through innovation. Compared to existing technical targets, these unifying goals offer advantages of focusing on prevention, encouraging multisectoral action and collaboration, promoting health equity, recognizing the need for innovation, and integrating with Sustainable Development Goals. By committing to 1 Health, 10 million lives saved, and 100% sustainable access to effective antimicrobials, we can protect lives and livelihoods today and safeguard options for tomorrow.

Background: The attainment of global health security goals and universal health coverage will remain a mirage unless African health systems are adequately funded to improve resilience to public health emergencies. The COVID-19 pandemic exposed the global inequity in accessing medical countermeasures, leaving African countries far behind. As we anticipate the next pandemic, improving investments in health systems to adequately finance pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response (PPPR) promptly, ensuring equity and access to medical countermeasures, is crucial. In this article, we analyze the African and global pandemic financing initiatives and put ways forward for policymakers and the global health community to consider.

Methods: This article is based on a rapid literature review and desk review of various PPPR financing mechanisms in Africa and globally. Consultation of leaders and experts in the area and scrutinization of various related meeting reports and decisions have been carried out.

Main text: The African Union (AU) has demonstrated various innovative financing mechanisms to mitigate the impacts of public health emergencies in the continent. To improve equal access to the COVID-19 medical countermeasures, the AU launched Africa Medical Supplies Platform (AMSP) and Africa Vaccine Acquisition Trust (AVAT). These financing initiatives were instrumental in mitigating the impacts of COVID-19 and their lessons can be capitalized as we make efforts for PPPR. The COVID-19 Response Fund, subsequently converted into the African Epidemics Fund (AEF), is another innovative financing mechanism to ensure sustainable and self-reliant PPPR efforts. The global initiatives for financing PPPR include the Pandemic Emergency Financing Facility (PEF) and the Pandemic Fund. The PEF was criticized for its inadequacy in building resilient health systems, primarily because the fund ignored the prevention and preparedness items. The Pandemic Fund is also being criticized for its suboptimal emphasis on the response aspect of the pandemic and non-inclusive governance structure.

Conclusions: To ensure optimal financing for PPPR, we call upon the global health community and decision-makers to focus on the harmonization of financing efforts for PPPR, make regional financing mechanisms central to global PPPR financing efforts, and ensure the inclusivity of international finance governance systems.

Africa's dual burden of rising incidence of infectious diseases and increasing prevalence of non-communicable diseases (NCDs), such as cardiovascular diseases and diabetes, demands innovative approaches to disease surveillance, response, and cross-border health management in response to growing economic integration and global connectivity. In this context, we propose a discursive framework for the development and implementation of a multi-disease digital health passport (MDDHP) in Africa. The MDDHP would serve as a secure platform for storing and sharing individual health data, offering a comprehensive solution to track and respond to infectious diseases, facilitate the management of NCDs, and improve healthcare access across borders. Empowering individuals to proactively manage their health and improve overall outcomes is a key aspect of the MDDHP. In the paper, we examine the key elements necessary to effectively implement MDDHP, focusing on minimizing risks, maintaining efficacy, and driving its adoption while also taking into consideration the unique contexts of the continent. The paper is intended to provide an understanding of the key principles involved and contribute to the discussion on the development and successful implementation of MDDHP in Africa.

Global health accelerators have become the leading expression of global health engagement and policy. While accelerators seem to be the strategy of the moment, the term is meaningless and devoid of any statement of content. Moreover, acceleration can make social processes too fast to be subject to rational control or governance, especially in an era of (un-)social media, which makes the pace of communication and information. Under the dominance of neoliberalism, acceleration and accelerators pose a particular risk because they encounter a situation in which mankind is moving away from solving vital challenges and addressing their root causes. The fashionable emergence of accelerators cannot inspire confidence in the future trends in global health unless they actually result in tangible change and new approaches to tackling systemic challenges.

Background: Cambodia's health sector faces significant challenges exacerbated by aid fragmentation, where development aid is dispersed among numerous small, uncoordinated projects. This study examines the distribution of health sector aid among Cambodia's principal donors to identify priorities, overlaps, and potential collaboration opportunities, addressing the urgent need for aid efficiency and alignment with national health priorities.

Methods: Utilizing OECD datasets and the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI) for the years 2010-2021, this study quantifies aid fragmentation within Cambodia's health sector. It analyzes aid allocations from the top five donors-United States, Australia, South Korea, Japan, and Germany-across various health projects and initiatives, evaluating the extent of fragmentation and identifying areas for potential donor collaboration.

Results: This study's findings highlight a pervasive issue of aid fragmentation within Cambodia's health sector, evident through the sector's low HHI score. This indicates a widespread distribution of aid across numerous small-scale initiatives, rather than targeted, unified efforts. A notable example includes Japan and Korea, which exhibit lower HHI scores, indicating a more pronounced fragmentation in their aid allocation. These countries' contributions are spread across various sectors without a dominant focus, contrasting with the United States' significant dedication to infectious disease control. However, beyond this specific area, the US's aid distribution across other priority health areas shows signs of fragmentation. This scattered approach to aid allocation, even amidst instances of focused support, illustrates the overarching challenge of aligning donor contributions with the holistic needs of Cambodia's health infrastructure.

Conclusions: This investigation highlights the critical need for enhanced collaboration and strategic harmonization among international donors to mitigate aid fragmentation in Cambodia's health sector. It underscores the importance of adopting integrated and priority-aligned aid strategies to improve the efficiency and impact of health aid. By fostering synergistic partnerships and harmonizing donor efforts, there is a potential to create a more cohesive support framework that resonates with Cambodia's comprehensive health requirements and contributes to sustainable health outcomes. Such harmonization not only aligns with Sustainable Development Goal 3 by optimizing health services and outcomes but also strengthens global partnerships under Sustainable Development Goal 17, fostering a unified approach to international development.

Background: Much has been said by actors from different fields and perspectives about the manifold changes in world affairs triggered by the COVID-19 pandemic. In this context, it is to be expected that there will be impacts on long-standing partnerships such as the one between the European Union and the Community of Latin American and Caribbean Countries. However, few studies have demonstrated these impacts, either empirically, by uncovering their specificities or from a historical perspective, to allow for a reasonable methodological comparison of the patterns used to define the partnership and that have changed or have been affected in some way by the pandemic.

Results: Through an in-depth qualitative assessment of primary and secondary sources, this article contributes to this research gap. It analyzes the patterns and changes or impacts in light of two strands of behavior that can make sense of EU-CELAC health cooperation-revisionist or reformist. The findings show an economy-driven health agenda as a new pattern of cooperation, which derives from EU reformist behavior after the pandemic.

Conclusions: The EU power to enforce its priorities in the context of health cooperation with CELAC is the main factor that will define how (and not just which) competing interests and capacities will be accommodated. The relevance of the study to the fields of global governance for health, interregional health cooperation and EU foreign policy is threefold. It shows us i.how two more international regimes are easily intertwined with health-trade and intellectual property-with the potential to deepen asymmetries and divergences even between long-standing strategic partners; ii.contrary to the idea that reformist behaviors are only adopted by actors who are dissatisfied with the status quo, the study shows us that the reformist actor can also be the one who has more material power and influence and who nevertheless challenges the success of cooperation in the name of new priorities and the means to achieve them; and iii.how the EU will find it difficult to operationalize its new priorities internally, among states and private actors, and with those of CELAC, given the history of intense disputes over health-related economic aspects.