Da'ar Omar B, Kalmey Farah
Department of Health Systems Management, College of Public Health and Health Informatics, King Saud bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
King Abdullah International Medical Research Center, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Health Econ Rev. 2023 Mar 14;13(1):16. doi: 10.1186/s13561-023-00428-9.
The global health security (GHS) Index assesses countries' level of preparedness to health risks. However, there is no evidence on how and whether the effects of health systems building blocks and socioeconomic indicators on the level of preparedness differ for low and high prepared countries. The aim of this study was to examine the contributions of health systems building blocks and socioeconomic indicators to show differences in the level of preparedness to health risks. The study also aimed to examine trends in the level of preparedness and the World Health Organization (WHO) regional differences before and during the Covid-19 pandemic. We used the 2021 GHS index report data and employed quantile regression, log-linear, double-logarithmic, and time-fixed effects models. As robustness checks, these functional form specifications corroborated with one another, and interval validity tests confirmed. The results show that increases in effective governance, supply chain capacity in terms of medicines and technologies, and health financing had positive effects on countries' level of preparedness to health risks. These effects were considerably larger for countries with higher levels of preparedness to health risks. The positive gradient trends signaled a sense of capacity on the part of countries with higher global health security. However, the health workforce including doctors, and health services including hospital beds, were not statistically significant in explaining variations in countries' level of preparedness. While economic factors had positive effects on the level of preparedness to health risks, their impacts across the distribution of countries' level of preparedness to health risks were mixed. The effects of Social Development Goals (SDGs) were greater for countries with higher levels of preparedness to health risks. The effect of the Human Development Index (HDI) was greatest for countries whose overall GHS index lies at the midpoint of the distribution of countries' level of preparedness. High-income levels were associated with a negative effect on the level of preparedness, especially if countries were in the lower quantiles across the distributions of preparedness. Relative to poor countries, middle- and high-income groups had lower levels of preparedness to health risks, an indication of a sense of complacency. We find the pandemic period (year 2021) was associated with a decrease in the level of preparedness to health risks in comparison to the pre-pandemic period. There were significant WHO regional differences. Apart from the Eastern Mediterranean, the rest of the regions were more prepared to health risks compared to Africa. There was a negative trend in the level of preparedness to health risks from 2019 to 2021 although regional differences in changes over time were not statistically significant. In conclusion, attempts to strengthen countries' level of preparedness to health shocks should be more focused on enhancing essentials such as supply chain capacity in terms of medicines and technologies; health financing, and communication infrastructure. Countries should also strengthen their already existing health workforce and health services. Together, strengthening these health systems essentials will be beneficial to less prepared countries where their impact we find to be weaker. Similarly, boosting SDGs, particularly health-related sub-scales, will be helpful to less prepared countries. Moreover, there is a need to curb complacency in preparedness to health risks during pandemics by high-income countries. The negative trend in the level of preparedness to health risks would suggest that there is a need for better preparedness during pandemics by conflating national health with global health risks. This will ensure the imperative of having a synergistic response to global health risks, which is understood by and communicated to all countries and regions.
全球卫生安全(GHS)指数评估各国应对健康风险的准备水平。然而,对于卫生系统组成要素和社会经济指标对准备水平的影响在准备水平低和高的国家之间如何以及是否存在差异,尚无证据。本研究的目的是检验卫生系统组成要素和社会经济指标对健康风险准备水平差异的贡献。该研究还旨在考察在新冠疫情之前和期间准备水平的趋势以及世界卫生组织(WHO)区域差异。我们使用了2021年GHS指数报告数据,并采用了分位数回归、对数线性、双对数和时间固定效应模型。作为稳健性检验,这些函数形式规范相互印证,并通过了区间有效性检验。结果表明,有效治理、药品和技术方面的供应链能力以及卫生筹资的提升对各国应对健康风险的准备水平产生了积极影响。对于应对健康风险准备水平较高的国家,这些影响要大得多。正向梯度趋势表明全球卫生安全水平较高的国家具有一定的能力。然而,包括医生在内的卫生人力以及包括医院床位在内的卫生服务在解释各国准备水平差异方面并无统计学意义。虽然经济因素对应对健康风险的准备水平有积极影响,但其在各国应对健康风险准备水平分布中的影响参差不齐。社会发展目标(SDGs)对应对健康风险准备水平较高的国家影响更大。人类发展指数(HDI)对总体GHS指数处于各国准备水平分布中点的国家影响最大。高收入水平对应对准备水平有负面影响,特别是如果国家在准备水平分布的较低分位数。相对于贫穷国家,中等收入和高收入群体应对健康风险的准备水平较低,这表明存在自满情绪。我们发现,与疫情前时期相比,疫情期间(2021年)各国应对健康风险的准备水平有所下降。WHO各区域存在显著差异。除东地中海地区外,其他地区相对于非洲应对健康风险的准备更充分。2019年至2021年应对健康风险的准备水平呈负趋势,尽管随时间变化的区域差异无统计学意义。总之,加强各国应对健康冲击准备水平的努力应更侧重于提升药品和技术方面的供应链能力、卫生筹资和通信基础设施等要素。各国还应加强现有的卫生人力和卫生服务。共同加强这些卫生系统要素将有利于准备不足的国家,我们发现这些要素对它们的影响较弱。同样,推动可持续发展目标,特别是与健康相关的子量表,将有助于准备不足的国家。此外,高收入国家需要在疫情期间抑制应对健康风险的自满情绪。应对健康风险准备水平的负趋势表明,有必要通过将国家卫生与全球健康风险相结合,在疫情期间做好更充分的准备。这将确保对全球健康风险做出协同应对的必要性,并让所有国家和地区都理解并传达这一点。