A systems perspective on the importance of global health strategy developments for accomplishing today's Sustainable Development Goals

The interfaces between One Health and Global Health: A scoping review

One Health (OH) and Global Health (GH) are interconnected perspectives that may contribute to subsidizing GH policies. This scoping review aims to map the volume, nature, and characteristics of studies focused on the interface of OH and GH concepts. We used PubMed (MEDLINE), Embase, Scopus, and The Virtual Health Library (BVS) as the literature data sources for the review. The search strategy used the descriptors "one health", "one health concept", "one medicine", "global health", "international health", and "planetary health" in title and abstracts. We included original research presented as articles in scientific journals, book chapters or conference papers written in English, Spanish, or Portuguese, exploring the intersections between OH and GH concepts, not necessarily as their primary objectives, and published up to December 31, 2021. A total of 1.060 references were identified in the databases after removing duplicates, 139 publications selected for full-text evaluation and 45 publications were included for analysis. All included publications were published between 2011 and 2021, with the highest concentration in 2014 (22.2%). First authors were most frequently from the United States (35.6%), followed by the United Kingdom (15.6%). Overall, seven key themes were identified zoonosis, emerging infectious diseases, antimicrobial resistance, food safety, policy, human resources, and Sustainable Development Goals (SDG). The majority of the included publications employed OH concepts based on the United States Centre for Disease Control and Prevention, and the American Veterinary Medical Association definitions. We observed a common understanding of OH as an area of knowledge involving multiple disciplines and professionals and recognizing that both humans' and animals' health and the environment are interdependent. Although most authors demonstrated that health issues transcend national boundaries, a formal definition for GH was frequently not clearly identified. OH and GH interfaces are essential for accomplishing the 2030 Agenda and its SDG.

Addressing Inequalities Toward Inclusive Governance for Achieving One Health: A Rapid Review

Sustainable development goals (SDGs) adopted in 2015 are geared toward sustainable development through various pathways, one being reducing inequality as covered in SDG 10. Inequalities are a threat to health and wellbeing of populations and a planet Earth in which we live. This rapid review aims to identify key issues that are likely to exacerbate inequalities around the six SDGs directly related to One Health, which are SDG 3, 6, 11, 13, 14 and 15, and suggest some actions that may help to address them using inclusive governance taking into account the coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Informed by the literature on SDGs and using the “inclusive development concept” by Gupta and Vegelin, literature search was done in Google Scholar, PubMed Central, as well as, searching of references in the relevant articles identified using search terms from the six SDGs that are directly related to One Health. In the context of the SDGs, in order to achieve One Health through inclusive governance, and tackle inequalities, the following needs to be considered and addressed: increasing number of armed conflicts; ongoing COVID-19 pandemic; ensuring availability of water and sanitation facilities; improving city and urban areas planning to cope with climate change; improving governance arrangements for addressing climate change factoring gender and human rights; multisectoral planning for conservation of oceans, seas, and marine resources; balancing trade regulation of wildlife trade with conservation efforts; need for a research collaborative involving experts from environmental sciences, wildlife, agriculture and human health to study and develop scientific evidence on contribution of changes in land use practices to occurrence of zoonotic diseases; and need of a legislation for promoting animal welfare to protect public health. Also, inclusion of people with disabilities in the use of digital technologies is critical.

The future of public health policymaking after COVID-19: a qualitative systematic review of lessons from Health in All Policies

Background: 'Health in All Policies' (HiAP) describes the pursuit of health equity. It has five main elements: treat health as a human right; identify evidence of the 'social determinants' of health inequalities, recognise that most powers to affect health are not held by health departments, promote intersectoral policymaking and collaboration inside and outside of government, and generate political will. Studies describe its potential but bemoan a major implementation gap. Some HiAP scholars learn from policymaking research how to understand this gap, but the use of policy theories is patchy. In that context, our guiding research question is: How does HiAP research use policy theory to understand policymaking? It allows us to zoom-out to survey the field and zoom-in to identify: the assumed and actual causes of policy change, and transferable lessons to HiAP scholars and advocates. Methods: Our qualitative systematic review (two phases, 2018 and 2020) identified 4972 HiAP articles. Of these, 113 journal articles (research and commentary) provide a non-trivial reference to policymaking (at least one reference to a policymaking concept). We use the 113 articles to produce a general HiAP narrative and explore how the relatively theory-informed articles enhance it. Results: Most articles focus on policy analysis (identifying policy problems and solutions) rather than policy theory (explaining policymaking dynamics). They report a disappointing gap between HiAP expectations and policy outcomes. Theory-informed articles contribute to a HiAP playbook to close that gap or a programme theory to design and evaluate HiAP in new ways.   Conclusions: Few HiAP articles use policy theories for their intended purpose. Policy theories provide lessons to aid critical reflection on power, political dilemmas, and policymaking context. HiAP scholars seek more instrumental lessons, potentially at the cost of effective advocacy and research.

The future of public health policymaking after COVID-19: a qualitative systematic review of lessons from Health in All Policies

Background: 'Health in All Policies' (HiAP) describes the pursuit of health equity. It has five main elements: treat health as a human right; identify evidence of the 'social determinants' of health inequalities, recognise that most powers to affect health are not held by health departments, promote intersectoral policymaking and collaboration inside and outside of government, and generate political will. Studies describe its potential but bemoan a major implementation gap. Some HiAP scholars learn from policymaking research how to understand this gap, but the use of policy theories is patchy. In that context, our guiding research question is: How does HiAP research use policy theory to understand policymaking? It allows us to zoom-out to survey the field and zoom-in to identify: the assumed and actual causes of policy change, and transferable lessons to HiAP scholars and advocates. Methods: Our qualitative systematic review (two phases, 2018 and 2020) identified 4972 HiAP articles. Of these, 113 journal articles (research and commentary) provide a non-trivial reference to policymaking (at least one reference to a policymaking concept). We use the 113 articles to produce a general HiAP narrative and explore how the relatively theory-informed articles enhance it. Results: Most articles focus on policy analysis (identifying policy problems and solutions) rather than policy theory (explaining policymaking dynamics). They report a disappointing gap between HiAP expectations and policy outcomes. Theory-informed articles contribute to a HiAP playbook to close that gap or a programme theory to design and evaluate HiAP in new ways.   Conclusions: Few HiAP articles use policy theories for their intended purpose. Policy theories provide lessons to aid critical reflection on power, political dilemmas, and policymaking context. HiAP scholars seek more instrumental lessons, potentially at the cost of effective advocacy and research.

Defining and classifying public health systems: a critical interpretive synthesis

Background

The introduction of the determinants of health has caused a shift towards understanding health from a holistic perspective as well as increased recognition of public health’s contributions to the health of the population. Several frameworks exist to conceptualise healthcare systems, highlighting the stark contrast of frameworks unique to public health systems. The objectives of this study were to define public health systems and assess differences between healthcare systems and public health systems within established health systems frameworks.

Methods

A critical interpretive synthesis was conducted. Databases searched included EBSCOhost, OVID, Scholars Portal, Web of Science, Cochrane Library and Health Systems Evidence. Data extraction, coding and analysis followed a best-fit framework analysis method. Initial codes were based on a current leading health systems and policy classification scheme – health systems arrangements (governance, financial and delivery arrangements).

Results

A total of 5933 unique documents were identified and 67 were included in the analysis. Definitions of public health and public health systems varied significantly as did their roles and functions across jurisdictions. Public health systems arrangements generally followed those of health systems, with the addition of partnerships (community and inter-sectoral) and communication playing a larger role in public health. A public health systems framework and conceptualisation of how public health currently fits within health systems are presented.

Conclusions

Public health systems are unique and vital entities within health systems. In addition to examining how public health and public health systems have been defined within the literature, this review suggests that establishing the scope of public health is crucial to understanding its role within the larger health system and adds to the discourse around the relationship between public health, healthcare and population health. More broadly, this study addresses an important gap in understanding public health systems and provides conceptual and practical contributions as well as areas for future research.