METHODS: Eligible studies were included if they used any models to assess the impact of COVID-19 disruptions on any health services. Articles published from January 2020 to December 2022 were identified from PubMed, Embase and CINAHL, using detailed searches with key concepts including COVID-19, modelling and healthcare disruptions. Two reviewers independently extracted the data in four domains. A descriptive analysis of the included studies was performed under the format of a narrative report.
RESULTS: This scoping review has identified a total of 52 modelling studies that employed several models (n=116) to assess the potential impact of disruptions to essential health services. The majority of the models were simulation models (n=86; 74.1%). Studies covered a wide range of health conditions from infectious diseases to non-communicable diseases. COVID-19 has been reported to disrupt supply of health services, demand for health services and social change affecting factors that influence health. The most common outcomes reported in the studies were clinical outcomes such as mortality and morbidity. Twenty-five studies modelled various mitigation strategies; maintaining critical services by ensuring resources and access to services are found to be a priority for reducing the overall impact.
CONCLUSION: A number of models were used to assess the potential impact of disruptions to essential health services on various outcomes. There is a need for collaboration among stakeholders to enhance the usefulness of any modelling. Future studies should consider disparity issues for more comprehensive findings that could ultimately facilitate policy decision-making to maximise benefits to all.
METHODS: A systematic search for published documents on COVID-19 and masks/PPE was conducted across six databases: PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, ERIC, ASSIA and Psycinfo. Reviews, policy documents, briefs related to COVID-19 and masks/PPE were included in the review. To assess the extent of incorporation of equity in the policy documents, a guidance framework known as 'PROGRESS-Plus': Place of residence, Race/ethnicity, Occupation, Gender/sex, Religion, Education, Socioeconomic status, Social capital, Plus (age, disability etc.) was utilized.
RESULTS: This review included 212 policy documents. Out of 212 policy documents, 190 policy documents (89.62%) included at least one PROGRESS-plus component. Most of the policy documents (n = 163, 85.79%) focused on "occupation" component of the PROGRESS-plus followed by personal characteristics associated with discrimination (n = 4;2.11%), place of residence (n = 2;1.05%) and education (n = 1;0.53%). Subgroup analysis revealed that most of the policy documents (n = 176, 83.01%) were focused on "workers" such as healthcare workers, mortuary workers, school workers, transportation workers, essential workers etc. Of the remaining policy documents, most were targeted towards whole population (n = 30; 14.15%). Contrary to "worker focused" policy documents, most of the 'whole population focused' policy documents didn't have a PROGRESS-plus equity component rendering them equity limiting for the society.
CONCLUSION: Our review highlights even if policies considered health inequity during the design/implementation, this consideration was often one dimensional in nature. In addition, population wide policies should be carefully designed and implemented after identifying relevant equity related barriers in order to produce better outcomes for the whole society.
METHODS: Twenty-seven Latin Americans working in London (UK) participated in Group Concept Mapping; a participatory mixed-method where qualitative data are collected to define a concept's content and then analysed using quantitative methods to generate a structured conceptual framework. Participants generated statements describing the concept content during brainstorming sessions, and structured them during sorting-rating exercises. Multi-Dimensional Scaling and Cluster Analysis were performed, generating a conceptual framework that clarified the dimensions, subdimensions and constituent statements of the concept of labour exploitation from migrant workers' perspectives.
RESULTS: Three key dimensions were identified: 'poor employment conditions and lack of protection', covering contractual arrangements and employment relations; 'disposability and abuse of power' (or 'dehumanisation') covering mechanisms or means which make migrant workers feel disposable and abused; and 'health and safety and psychosocial hazards' encompassing issues from physical and psychosocial hazards to a lack of health and social protection. 'Dehumanisation' has not been included in mainstream tools assessing exploitation, despite its importance for study participants who also described harsh situations at work including sexual, physical and verbal abuse.
CONCLUSION: Our study provides a conceptual framework of labour exploitation that gives voice to migrant workers and can be operationalised into a measure of migrant labour exploitation. It also calls for the dimension 'dehumanisation' and structural forms of coercion to be integrated into mainstream conceptualisations, and their workplace hazards to be urgently addressed.
METHODS: A scoping review was conducted to locate where gender does, or does not, appear within the decolonising global health literature. The authors reviewed the decolonising global health literature available on Scopus and PubMed online databases to identify peer-reviewed papers with the search terms "(decoloni* or de-coloni*) OR (neocolonial or neo-colonial) AND 'global health'" in their title, abstract or keywords published by December 2022.
RESULTS: Out of 167 papers on decolonising global health, only 53 (32%) had any reference to gender and only 26 (16%) explicitly engaged with gender as it intersects with (de)coloniality. Four key themes emerged from these 26 papers: an examination of coloniality's racialised and gendered nature; how this shaped and continues to shape hierarchies of knowledge; how these intertwining forces drive gendered impacts on health programmes and policies; and how a decolonial gender analysis can inform action for change.
CONCLUSION: Historical legacies of colonisation continue to shape contemporary global health practice. The authors call for the integration of a decolonial gender analysis in actions and initiatives that aim to decolonise global health, as well as within allied movements which seek to confront the root causes of power asymmetries and inequities.
STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: This guidance was developed based on a series of methodological meetings, review of internationally renowned guidance such as the Cochrane Handbook and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis for equity-focused systematic reviews (PRISMA-Equity) guideline. We identified Exemplar rapid reviews by searching COVID-19 databases and requesting examples from our team.
RESULTS: We proposed the following key steps: 1. involve relevant stakeholders with lived experience in the conduct and design of the review; 2. reflect on equity, inclusion and privilege in team values and composition; 3. develop research question to assess health inequities; 4. conduct searches in relevant disciplinary databases; 5. collect data and critically appraise recruitment, retention and attrition for populations experiencing inequities; 6. analyse evidence on equity; 7. evaluate the applicability of findings to populations experiencing inequities; and 8. adhere to reporting guidelines for communicating review findings. We illustrated these methods through rapid review examples.
CONCLUSION: Implementing this guidance could contribute to improving equity considerations in rapid reviews produced in public health emergencies, and help policymakers better understand the distributional impact of diseases on the population.