Following 50 years of apartheid, South Africa introduced visionary health policy committing to the right to health as part of a primary health care (PHC) approach. Implementation is seriously challenged, however, in an often-dysfunctional health system with scarce resources and a complex burden of avoidable mortality persists. Our aim was to develop a process generating evidence of practical relevance on implementation processes among people excluded from access to health systems. Informed by health policy and systems research, we developed a collaborative learning platform in which we worked as co-researchers with health authorities in a rural province. This article reports on the process and insights brought by health systems stakeholders. Evidence gaps on under-five mortality were identified with a provincial Directorate after which we collected quantitative and qualitative data. We applied verbal autopsy to quantify levels, causes and circumstances of deaths and participatory action research to gain community perspectives on the problem and priorities for action. We then re-convened health systems stakeholders to analyse and interpret these data through which several systems issues were identified as contributory to under-five deaths: staff availability and performance; service organization and infrastructure; multiple parallel initiatives; and capacity to address social determinants. Recommendations were developed ranging from immediate low- and no-cost re-organization of services to those where responses from higher levels of the system or outside were required. The process was viewed as acceptable and relevant for an overburdened system operating ‘in the dark’ in the absence of local data. Institutional infrastructure for evidence-based decision-making does not exist in many health systems. We developed a process connecting research evidence on rural health priorities with the means for action and enabled new partnerships between communities, authorities and researchers. Further development is planned to understand potential in deliberative processes for rural PHC.

BackgroundSeveral West African countries are unlikely to achieve the recommended Global Vaccine Action Plan (GVAP) immunisation coverage and dropout targets in a landscape beset with entrenched intra-country equity gaps in immunisation. Our aim was to assess and compare the immunisation coverage, dropout and equity gaps across 15 West African countries between 2000 and 2017.MethodsWe compared Bacille Calmette Guerin (BCG) and the third dose of diphtheria–tetanus–pertussis (DTP3) containing vaccine coverage between 2000 and 2017 using the WHO and Unicef Estimates of National Immunisation Coverage for 15 West African countries. Estimated subregional median and weighted average coverages, and dropout (DTP1–DTP3) were tracked against the GVAP targets of ≥90% coverage (BCG and DTP3), and ≤10% dropouts. Equity gaps in immunisation were assessed using the latest disaggregated national health survey immunisation data.ResultsThe weighted average subregional BCG coverage was 60.7% in 2000, peaked at 83.2% in 2009 and was 65.7% in 2017. The weighted average DTP3 coverage was 42.3% in 2000, peaked at 70.3% in 2009 and was 61.5% in 2017. As of 2017, 46.7% of countries (7/15) had met the GVAP targets on DTP3 coverage. Average weighted subregional immunisation dropouts consistently reduced from 16.4% in 2000 to 7.4% in 2017, meeting the GVAP target in 2008. In most countries, inequalities in BCG, and DTP3 coverage and dropouts were mainly related to equity gaps of more than 20% points between the wealthiest and the poorest, high coverage regions and low coverage regions, and between children of mothers with at least secondary education and those with no formal education. A child’s sex and place of residence (urban or rural) minimally determined equity gaps.ConclusionsThe West African subregion made progress between 2000 and 2017 in ensuring that its children utilised immunisation services, however, wide equity gaps persist.

B y the end of October 2020, the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic had spread to 6 continents and caused >45 million coronavirus disease (COVID-19) cases and 1.1 million deaths (1). Despite having 15.6% of the worldwide population (2), by October 31, 2020, Africa had only 3.9% (1.76 million) of the world's COVID-19 cases and 3.6% (42,233) of deaths during the pandemic (1). Data suggest that the pandemic is evolving differently in sub-Saharan Africa compared with the rest of the world and that the outbreak started later (3).Of note, severe COVID-19 cases seem to occur less frequently in Africa than in the rest of the world (4). Several factors have been proposed to explain this. Age is likely a major factor because older persons are at higher risk for severe disease, but Africa has an extremely young population; >60% of persons are <25 years of age (5). However, variation of CO-VID-19 severity with age alone does not fully explain the observed differences (4). Clinical cases and deaths in Africa likely are underreported because systematic surveillance is limited and no systematic death registration exists; thus, the true SARS-CoV-2 burden probably is underestimated (4). Nevertheless, local health systems in Africa, which have a lower capacity to deal with COVID-19 patients than healthcare systems in high-resource settings, were not overwhelmed, even at the peak of the epidemic (6). Although potential