Conceptual and institutional gaps: understanding how the WHO can become a more effective cross-sectoral collaborator

Emergent patterns in global health diplomacy: a network analysis of the resolutions adopted by the World Health Assembly from 1948 to 2022

From a complexity perspective on governance, multilateral diplomacy is based on interactions between people, ideas, norms, policies and institutions. This article uses a computer-assisted methodology to better understand governance systems as a network of norms. All World Health Assembly (WHA) resolutions that were available from 1948 to 2022 were collected from the WHO Institutional Repository for Information Sharing (IRIS) database. Regular expressions were used to identify how resolutions cite other resolutions and the resulting relationships were analysed as a normative network. The findings show that WHA resolutions constitute a complex network of interconnected global health issues. This network is characterised by several community patterns. While chain-like patterns are associated with specific diseases programmes, radial patterns are characteristic of highly important procedural decisions that member states reaffirm in similar situations. Finally, densely connected communities correspond to contested topics and emergencies. While these emergeng patterns suggest the relevance of using network analysis to understand global health norms in international organisations, we reflect on how this computational approach can be extended to provide new understandings of how multilateral governance systems work, and to address some important contemporary questions about the effects of regime complexity on global health diplomacy.

Assessing the World Health Organization: What does the academic debate reveal and is it democratic?

The World Health Organization (WHO), the leading global authority in public health, routinely attracts loud calls for reform. Although Member States negotiate reform internally, academic debate is more public, and can generate ideas and provide independent accountability. We investigate why authors advocate for WHO reform so commonly. We wondered if this literature had potentially useful themes for WHO, what methods and evidence were used, and we wanted to analyze the geography of participation. We conducted a systematic review using four databases to identify 139 articles assessing WHO or advocating for reform. We discuss these using categories we derived from the management literature on organizational performance. We also analyzed evidence, country of origin, and topic. The literature we reviewed contained 998 claims about WHO's performance or reform, although there were no standard methods for assessing WHO. We developed a framework to analyze WHO's performance and structure a synthesis of the claims, which find WHO imperiled. Its legitimacy and governance are weakened by disagreements about purpose, unequal Member State influence, and inadequate accountability. Contestation of goals and strategies constrain planning. Structure and workforce deficiencies limit coordination, agility, and competence. WHO has technical and normative authority, but insufficient independence and legal power to influence uncooperative states. WHO's identity claims transparency, independence, and courage, but these aspirations are betrayed in times of need. Most articles (88%) were commentaries without specified methods. More than three-quarters (76%) originated from the US, the UK, or Switzerland. A quarter of papers (25%) focused on international infectious disease outbreaks, and another 25% advocated for WHO reform generally. Many criticisms cite wide-ranging performance problems, some of which may relate to obstructive behavior by Member States. This literature is incomplete in the geographic representation of authors, evidence, methods, and topics. We offer ideas for developing more rigorous and inclusive academic debate on WHO.

A 'whole of United Nations approach' to tackle antimicrobial resistance? A mapping of the mandate and activities of international organisations

The 2015 World Health Organization Global Action Plan and other international policy documents have stressed the need for a 'whole of United Nations approach' in addressing antimicrobial resistance (AMR). As several years have passed, the goal of this paper is to take stock of the current role, mandate, and activities of international organisations and other global stakeholders on AMR. Relevant information is identified through a web-based search and a review of policy documents from international organisations. Based on the assessment of 78 organisations, 21 have AMR-specific activities in the broader sense, although for many of these organisations, their involvement is limited in scope, and 36 have AMR-sensitive activities reflecting the wide scope of AMR. An interdisciplinary framework based on six relevant challenges of global collective actions regarding AMR as well as the main functions of international organisations in global governance is used to organise the findings into several ‘clusters’. AMR is not a priority for many international organisations, but some of them can leverage current efforts to tackle AMR while contributing to their core agenda. Overall, a ‘whole of UN approach’ to AMR within the framework of Sustainable Development Goals is critical to move the global governance of AMR forward.

How can WHO transform its approach to social determinants of health?

WHO has a pivotal role in reducing health inequities but faces five fundamental constraints to progress, argue Unni Gopinathan and Kent Buse

Promoting Intersectoral Collaboration Through the Evaluations of Public Health Interventions: Insights From Key Informants in 6 European Countries

BACKGROUND

Intersectoral collaboration is critical to the successful implementation of many public health interventions (PHIs). Little attention has been paid to whether and how processes at the stage of evaluation can promote intersectoral collaboration. The objective of this study was to examine European experiences and views on whether and how the evaluation of PHIs promote intersectoral collaboration.

METHODS

A qualitative study design was used. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 15 individuals centrally involved in the evaluation of PHIs in 6 European countries (Austria, Denmark, England, Germany, Norway, and Switzerland). Questions pertained to current processes for evaluating PHIs in the country and current and potential strategies for promoting intersectoral collaboration. Transcripts were analyzed using thematic analysis to identify key themes responding to our primary objective.

RESULTS

Experiences with promoting intersectoral collaboration through the evaluation of PHIs could be summarized in 4 themes: (1) Early involvement of non-health sectors in the evaluative process and inclusion of non-health benefits can promote intersectoral collaboration, but should be combined with greater influence of these sectors in shaping PHIs; (2) Harmonization of methodological approaches may enable comparison of results and facilitate intersectoral collaboration, but should not be an overriding goal; (3) Involvement in health impact assessments (HIAs) can promote intersectoral collaboration, but needs to be incentivized and be conducted without putting overwhelming demands on non-health sectors; (4) A designated body for evaluating PHIs may promote intersectoral collaboration, but its design needs to take account of realities of policy-making.

CONCLUSION

The full potential for promoting intersectoral collaboration through the evaluation of PHIs appears currently unrealized in the settings we studied. To further promote intersectoral collaboration, evaluators and decision-makers may consider the full range of strategies characterized in this study. This may be most effective if the strategies are deployed so that they reinforce each other, value outcomes beyond health, and are tailored to maximize political priority for PHIs across sectors.

The financial sustainability of the World Health Organization and the political economy of global health governance: a review of funding proposals

The World Health Organization (WHO) continues to experience immense financial stress. The precarious financial situation of the WHO has given rise to extensive dialogue and debate. This dialogue has generated diverse technical proposals to remedy the financial woes of the WHO and is intimately tied to existential questions about the future of the WHO in global health governance. In this paper, we review, categorize, and synthesize the proposals for financial reform of the WHO. It appears that less contentious issues, such as convening financing dialogue and establishing a health emergency programme, received consensus from member states. However, member states are reluctant to increase the assessed annual contributions to the WHO, which weakens the prospect for greater autonomy for the organisation. The WHO remains largely supported by earmarked voluntary contributions from states and non-state actors. We argue that while financial reform requires institutional changes to enhance transparency, accountability and efficiency, it is also deeply tied to the political economy of state sovereignty and ideas about the leadership role of the WHO in a crowded global health governance context.

Institutionalising an evidence-informed approach to guideline development: progress and challenges at the World Health Organization

This study explored experiences, perceptions and views among World Health Organization (WHO) staff about the changes, progress and challenges brought by the guideline development reforms initiated in 2007. Thirty-five semistructured interviews were conducted with senior WHO staff. Sixteen of the interviewees had in-depth experience with WHO's formal guideline development process. Thematic analysis was conducted to identify key themes in the qualitative data, and these were interpreted in the context of the existing literature on WHO's guideline development processes. First, the reforms were seen to have transformed and improved the quality of WHO's guidelines. Second, independent evaluation and feedback by the Guidelines Review Committee (GRC) was described to have strengthened the legitimacy of WHO's recommendations. Third, WHO guideline development processes are not yet designed to systematically make use of all types of research evidence needed to inform decisions about health systems and public health interventions. For example, several interviewees expressed dissatisfaction with the insufficient attention paid to qualitative evidence and evidence from programme experience, and how the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) process evaluates the quality of evidence from non-randomised study designs, while others believed that GRADE was just not properly understood or applied. Fourth, some staff advocated for a more centralised quality assurance process covering all outputs from WHO's departments and scientific advisory committees, especially to eliminate strategic efforts aimed at bypassing the GRC's requirements. Overall, the 'culture change' senior WHO staff called for over 10 years ago appears to have gradually spread throughout the organisation. However, at least two major challenges remain: (1) ensuring that all issued advice benefits from independent evaluation, monitoring and feedback for quality and (2) designing guideline development processes to better acquire, assess, adapt and apply the full range of evidence that can inform recommendations on health systems and public health interventions.

Scientific Advisory Committees at the World Health Organization: A Qualitative Study of How Their Design Affects Quality, Relevance, and Legitimacy

Governments and international organizations frequently convene scientific advisory committees (SACs) to support decision-making with scientific advice. In this study, thematic analysis of interviews with 35 senior WHO staff identified five main themes characterizing WHO's experience with designing SACs to ensure quality, relevance, and legitimacy of scientific advice. First, in addition to technical matters, SACs are established to serve broader strategic objectives, including consensus building to promote high-level political messages. Second, for SACs to be fully independent, they must have autonomy from the institutions convening or funding them, from the institutions from where SAC members are recruited, and from the institutions to whom the advice is directed. Third, since choices affecting quality, relevance, and legitimacy are closely linked, designing SACs often require trade-offs among these three attributes. Fourth, staff supporting SACs need to balance between safeguarding SACs from external influence and being receptive to the external political environment. Fifth, the design of SACs need to balance the involvement of stakeholders with the power to act on recommendations against the need to protect the independence and integrity of the scientific process. Overall, this study highlights key choices conveners of SACs must make when seeking to promote quality, relevance, and legitimacy of scientific advice.

Global governance and the broader determinants of health: A comparative case study of UNDP's and WTO's engagement with global health

This comparative case study investigated how two intergovernmental organisations without formal health mandates - the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and the World Trade Organization (WTO) - have engaged with global health issues. Triangulating insights from key institutional documents, ten semi-structured interviews with senior officials, and scholarly books tracing the history of both organisations, the study identified an evolving and broadened engagement with global health issues in UNDP and WTO. Within WTO, the dominant view was that enhancing international trade is instrumental to improving global health, although the need to resolve tensions between public health objectives and WTO agreements was recognised. For UNDP, interviewees reported that the agency gained prominence in global health for its response to HIV/AIDS in the 1990s and early 2000s. Learning from that experience, the agency has evolved and expanded its role in two respects: it has increasingly facilitated processes to provide global normative direction for global health issues such as HIV/AIDS and access to medicines, and it has expanded its focus beyond HIV/AIDS. Overall, the study findings suggest the need for seeking greater integration among international institutions, closing key global institutional gaps, and establishing a shared global institutional space for promoting action on the broader determinants of health.

Delays in Global Disease Outbreak Responses: Lessons from H1N1, Ebola, and Zika

In global disease outbreaks, there are significant time delays between the source of an outbreak and collective action. Some delay is necessary, but recent delays have been extended by insufficient surveillance capacity and time-consuming efforts to mobilize action. Three public health emergencies of international concern (PHEICs)-H1N1, Ebola, and Zika-allow us to identify and compare sources of delays and consider seven hypotheses about what influences the length of delays. These hypotheses can then motivate further research that empirically tests them. The three PHEICs suggest that deferred global mobilization is a greater source of delay than is poor surveillance capacity. These case study outbreaks support hypotheses that we see quicker responses for novel diseases when outbreaks do not coincide with holidays and when US citizens are infected. They do not support hypotheses that we see quicker responses for more severe outbreaks or those that threaten larger numbers of people. Better understanding the reason for delays can help target policy interventions and identify the kind of global institutional changes needed to reduce the spread and severity of future PHEICs.

Barriers to global health development: An international quantitative survey

BACKGROUND

Global health's goal of reducing low-and-middle-income country versus high-income country health disparities faces complex challenges. Although there have been discussions of barriers, there has not been a broad-based, quantitative survey of such barriers.

METHODS

432 global health professionals were invited via email to participate in an online survey, with 268 (62%) participating. The survey assessed participants' (A) demographic and global health background, (B) perceptions regarding 66 barriers' seriousness, (C) detailed ratings of barriers designated most serious, (D) potential solutions.

RESULTS

Thirty-four (of 66) barriers were seen as moderately or more serious, highlighting the widespread, significant challenges global health development faces. Perceived barrier seriousness differed significantly across domains: Resource Limitations mean = 2.47 (0-4 Likert scale), Priority Selection mean = 2.20, Corruption, Lack of Competence mean = 1.87, Social and Cultural Barriers mean = 1.68. Some system-level predictors showed significant but relatively limited relations. For instance, for Global Health Domain, HIV and Mental Health had higher levels of perceived Social and Cultural Barriers than other GH Domains. Individual-level global health experience predictors had small but significant effects, with seriousness of (a) Corruption, Lack of Competence, and (b) Priority Selection barriers positively correlated with respondents' level of LMIC-oriented (e.g., weeks/year spent in LMIC) but Academic Global Health Achievement (e.g., number of global health publications) negatively correlated with overall barrier seriousness.

CONCLUSIONS

That comparatively few system-level predictors (e.g., Organization Type) were significant suggests these barriers may be relatively fundamental at the system-level. Individual-level and system-level effects do have policy implications; e.g., Priority Selection barriers were among the most serious, yet effects on seriousness of how LMIC-oriented a professional was versus level of academic global health achievement ran in opposite directions, suggesting increased discussion of priorities between LMIC-based and other professionals may be useful. It is hoped the 22 suggested solutions will provide useful ideas for addressing global health barriers.

Mapping global policy discourse on antimicrobial resistance

The rising importance of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) to the global health agenda is associated with a growing number of parties voicing their concern about the issue. With more recommendations and policies appearing, understanding the policy process requires making sense of the views, values, interests and goals of each participant. Policy frame analysis provides a method to understand both the scientific view and the actions advocated by global health actors to tackle AMR. Here we review and refine policy frame analyses of AMR using a deductive approach. Among several policy frames previously defined in the field of global health, we identify 'AMR as healthcare', 'AMR as development', 'AMR as innovation' and 'AMR as security' as frequent frames used in dealing with AMR. In addition, we found that 'AMR as One Health' constitutes a recent framing of the topic that seeks to provide an integrated understanding between human and animal health. Each frame originates in distinct scientific fields, conceptualises the main causes of AMR and prioritises different interventions and measurements. Better understanding and integration of these frames into an overarching social and ecological framework will support policy progress in tackling AMR.

Civil society: the catalyst for ensuring health in the age of sustainable development

Sustainable Development Goal Three is rightly ambitious, but achieving it will require doing global health differently. Among other things, progressive civil society organisations will need to be recognised and supported as vital partners in achieving the necessary transformations. We argue, using illustrative examples, that a robust civil society can fulfill eight essential global health functions. These include producing compelling moral arguments for action, building coalitions beyond the health sector, introducing novel policy alternatives, enhancing the legitimacy of global health initiatives and institutions, strengthening systems for health, enhancing accountability systems, mitigating the commercial determinants of health and ensuring rights-based approaches. Given that civil society activism has catalyzed tremendous progress in global health, there is a need to invest in and support it as a global public good to ensure that the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development can be realised.