Community health systems (CHSs) have historically been approached from multiple perspectives, with different purposes and methodological and disciplinary orientations. The terrain is, on the one hand, vast and diverse. On the other hand, under the banner of universal health coverage (UHC) and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), a streamlined version of 'community health' is increasingly being consolidated in global health and donor communities. With the view to informing debate and practice, this paper seeks to synthesise approaches to the CHS into a set of 'lenses, ' drawing on the collective and multi-disciplinary knowledge (both formal and experiential) of the authors, a collaborative network of 23 researchers from seven institutions across six countries (spanning low, middle and high income). With a common view of the CHS as a complex adaptive system, we propose four key lenses, referred to as programmatic, relational, collective action and critical lenses. The lenses represent different positionalities in community health, encompassing macro-level policy-maker, front-line and community vantage points, and purposes ranging from social justice to instrumental goals. We define and describe the main elements of each lens and their implications for thinking about policy, practice and research. Distilling a set of key lenses offers a way to make sense of a complex terrain, but also counters what may emerge as a dominant, single narrative on the CHS in global health. By making explicit and bringing together different lenses on the CHS, the limits and possibilities of each may be better appreciated, while promoting integrative, systems thinking in policy, practice and research.

This paper reports a study from Cape Town, South Africa, that tested an existing framework of everyday health system resilience (EHSR) in examining how a local health system responded to the chronic stress of large-scale organizational change. Over two years (2017–18), through cycles of action-learning involving local managers and researchers, the authorial team tracked the stress experienced, the response strategies implemented and their consequences. The paper considers how a set of micro-governance interventions and mid-level leadership practices supported responses to stress whilst nurturing organizational resilience capacities. Data collection involved observation, in-depth interviews and analysis of meeting minutes and secondary data. Data analysis included iterative synthesis and validation processes. The paper offers five sets of insights that add to the limited empirical health system resilience literature: 1) resilience is a process not an end-state; 2) resilience strategies are deployed in combination rather than linearly, after each other; 3) three sets of organizational resilience capacities work together to support collective problem-solving and action entailed in EHSR; 4) these capacities can be nurtured by mid-level managers’ leadership practices and simple adaptations of routine organizational processes, such as meetings; 5) central level actions must nurture EHSR by enabling the leadership practices and micro-governance processes entailed in everyday decision-making.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has exposed the wide gaps in South Africa’s formal social safety net, with the country’s high levels of inequality, unemployment and poor public infrastructure combining to produce devastating consequences for a vast majority in the country living through lockdown. In Cape Town, a movement of self-organising, neighbourhood-level community action networks (CANs) has contributed significantly to the community-based response to COVID-19 and the ensuing epidemiological and social challenges it has wrought. This article describes and explains the organising principles that inform this community response, with the view to reflect on the possibilities and limits of such movements as they interface with the state and its top-down ways of working, often producing contradictions and complexities. This presents an opportunity for recognising and understanding the power of informal networks and collective action in community health systems in times of unprecedented crisis, and brings into focus the importance of finding ways to engage with the state and its formal health system response that do not jeopardise this potential.

Lucy Gilson and colleagues draw on experiences from Kenya and South Africa to consider the practice, benefits, and challenges of research co-production for strengthening health systems