Background: In 2015, six indicators were proposed to evaluate global progress towards access to safe, affordable and timely surgical and anaesthesia care. Although some have been adopted as core global health indicators, none has been evaluated systematically. The aims of this study were to assess the availability, comparability and utility of the indicators, and to present available data and updated estimates. Methods: Nationally representative data were compiled for all World Health Organization (WHO) member states from 2010 to 2016 through contacts with official bodies and review of the published and grey literature, and available databases. Availability, comparability and utility were assessed for each indicator: access to timely essential surgery, specialist surgical workforce density, surgical volume, perioperative mortality, and protection against impoverishing and catastrophic expenditure. Where feasible, imputation models were developed to generate global estimates. Results: Of all WHO member states, 19 had data on the proportion of the population within 2h of a surgical facility, 154 had data on workforce density, 72 reported number of procedures, and nine had perioperative mortality data, but none could report data on catastrophic or impoverishing expenditure. Comparability and utility were variable, and largely dependent on different definitions used. There were sufficient data to estimate that worldwide, in 2015, there were 2 038 947 (i.q.r. 1 884 916–2 281 776) surgeons, obstetricians and anaesthetists, and 266·1 (95 per cent c.i. 220·1 to 344·4) million operations performed. Conclusion: Surgical and anaesthesia indicators are increasingly being adopted by the global health community, but data availability remains low. Comparability and utility for all indicators require further resolution.

Background: Indicators to evaluate progress towards timely access to safe surgical, anaesthesia, and obstetric (SAO) care were proposed in 2015 by the Lancet Commission on Global Surgery. These aimed to capture access to surgery, surgical workforce, surgical volume, perioperative mortality rate, and catastrophic and impoverishing financial consequences of surgery. Despite being rapidly taken up by practitioners, data points from which to derive the indicators were not defined, limiting comparability across time or settings. We convened global experts to evaluate and explicitly define—for the first time—the indicators to improve comparability and support achievement of 2030 goals to improve access to safe affordable surgical and anaesthesia care globally. Methods and findings: The Utstein process for developing and reporting guidelines through a consensus building process was followed. In-person discussions at a 2-day meeting were followed by an iterative process conducted by email and virtual group meetings until consensus was reached. The meeting was held between June 16 to 18, 2019; discussions continued until August 2020. Participants consisted of experts in surgery, anaesthesia, and obstetric care, data science, and health indicators from high-, middle-, and low-income countries. Considering each of the 6 indicators in turn, we refined overarching descriptions and agreed upon data points needed for construction of each indicator at current time (basic data points), and as each evolves over 2 to 5 (intermediate) and >5 year (full) time frames. We removed one of the original 6 indicators (one of 2 financial risk protection indicators was eliminated) and refined descriptions and defined data points required to construct the 5 remaining indicators: geospatial access, workforce, surgical volume, perioperative mortality, and catastrophic expenditure. A strength of the process was the number of people from global institutes and multilateral agencies involved in the collection and reporting of global health metrics; a limitation was the limited number of participants from low- or middle-income countries—who only made up 21% of the total attendees. Conclusions: To track global progress towards timely access to quality SAO care, these indicators—at the basic level—should be implemented universally as soon as possible. Intermediate and full indicator sets should be achieved by all countries over time. Meanwhile, these evolutions can assist in the short term in developing national surgical plans and collecting more detailed data for research studies.

Non-communicable diseases (NCDs) are the leading cause of morbidity and mortality globally. We aimed to analyse trends in implementation of WHO-recommended population-level policies and associations with national geopolitical characteristics. We calculated cross-sectional NCD policy implementation scores for all 194 WHO member states from the 2015, 2017, and 2020 WHO progress monitor reports, and examined changes over time as well as average implementation by geographical and geopolitical region and income level. We developed a framework of indicators of national characteristics hypothesised to influence policy implementation, including democracy, corporate permeation (an indicator of corporate influence), NCD burden, and risk factor prevalence. We used multivariate regression models to test our hypotheses. On average, countries had fully implemented a third (32·8%, SD 18·2) of the 19 policies in 2020. Using aggregate policy scores, which include partially implemented policies, mean implementation had increased from 39·0% (SD 19·3) in 2015 to 45·9% (19·2) in 2017 and 47·0% (19·8) in 2020. Implementation was lowest for policies relating to alcohol, tobacco, and unhealthy foods, and had reversed for a third of all policies. Low-income and less democratic countries had the lowest policy implementation. Our model explained 64·8% of variance in implementation scores. For every unit increase in corporate permeation, implementation decreased by 5·0% (95% CI -8·0 to -1·9, p=0·0017), and for every 1% increase in NCD mortality burden, implementation increased by 0·9% (0·2 to 1·6, p=0·014). Democracy was positively associated with policy implementation, but only in countries with low corporate permeation. Implementation of NCD policies is uneven, but broadly improving over time. Urgent action is needed to boost implementation of policies targeting corporate vectors of NCDs, and to support countries facing high corporate permeation. The National Institutes for Health Research, the Swedish Research Council, the Fulbright Commission, and the Swedish Society of Medicine.