Global health governance performance during Covid-19, what needs to be changed? a delphi survey study

Abstract

Background Covid-19 is not the first pandemic to challenge GHG. Preceding outbreaks and epidemics were sources of continuous debate on GHG leadership and structure resulting in its current structure. However, Covid-19 proved the presence of many deficits in the current GHG. The response to the Covid-19 pandemic is a cumulative result of all policies and actions of different governments and agencies active in global health. Assessing how Covid-19 is being handled globally provides lessons for ensuring better performance in facing upcoming outbreaks. This study has three main objectives: first, to evaluate the performance of GHG during Covid-19 in general and in relation to Covid-19 vaccine equity in particular. Second, to identify the reasons behind this performance; and third, to propose prospective changes in GHG for better performance. Methods A cross-sectional research design using the Delphi method was applied. A panel of experts participated in the three-round Delphi surveys. Their scores were used to perform consensus, performance and correlation analysis. Results GHG performance limited the achievement of Covid-19 vaccines’ global equity. GHG performance is a product of the existing GHG system, its actors and legal framework. It is a collective result of individual GHG actors’ performance. The most influential actors in decision-making regarding Covid-19 vaccine are the vaccine manufacturers and governments. While the most invoked power to influence decision are economic and political powers. Covid-19 decisions underlying value, although had human right to health at the base, overlooked the concept of health as a global public good and was skewed towards market-oriented values. GHG mal-performance along with its underlying factors calls for four main changes in GHG structure: assigning a clear steward for GHG, enhanced accountability, centralized authority, more equitable representation of actors, and better legal framework. Conclusion GHG structure, actors’ representation, accountability system, and underlying priorities and value require future modification for GHG to achieve better future performance and higher health equity levels.

China and the WHO pandemic treaty: a dive into stance, underpinnings, and implications

“…The data also reveals that China consistently advocates differentiated obligations calibrated to countries' economic development levels and capacities. In INB2, China called for 2). This emphasis on differentiated commitments tailored to countries' capacities reflects China's overarching concern about equity and avoiding undue burden on the developing world.…”

“…The COVID-19 pandemic, which brought the world to an unprecedented standstill, unveiled substantial gaps in global health governance architecture (1)(2)(3)(4). This prompted global leaders to consider innovative legal instruments to manage future pandemics more effectively (5,6).…”

COVID-19 vaccine intercountry distribution inequality and its underlying factors: a combined concentration index analysis and multiple linear regression analysis

“…One of the major health equity concerns at the global level was the inequitable access to the COVID-19 vaccine, especially in the period following the start of COVID-19 vaccine production and before it became abundant. Global health governance (GHG) is responsible for the coordination of COVID-19 vaccine distribution equitably; however, this was not the case ( 15 , 16 ). According to the Our World in Data website on 7 April 2022, the share of fully vaccinated people in high-income countries (HICs) and upper-middle-income countries (UMICs) reached 74.1% and 76.68%, respectively.…”

Strategizing global health governance: unpacking opportunities and challenges for least developed nations within the WHO pandemic treaty framework

“…Such cooperative endeavors are quintessential for a plethora of reasons, enveloping the mutual exchange of resources, acumen, and expertise; the orchestration of synchronized response strategies; and the mitigation of the multifaceted social and economic reverberations engendered by pandemics (3). The COVID-19 pandemic, which began in 2019, unveiled a multitude of frailties in the international community's proficiency in adeptly navigating public health emergencies (4,5). For instance, the contentiously dilatory response to the initial outbreak in Wuhan, China, accentuated a conspicuous absence of a robust early warning system, during which the virus permeated international borders in the ensuing weeks prior to its identification (6).…”