Health system resilience has never been more important than with the COVID-19 pandemic. There is need to identify feasible measures of resilience, potential strategies to build resilience and weaknesses of health systems experiencing shocks. The purpose of this systematic review is to examine how the resilience of health systems has been measured across various health system shocks. Following PRISMA guidelines, with double screening at each stage, the review identified 3175 studies of which 68 studies were finally included for analysis. Almost half (46%) were focused on COVID-19, followed by the economic crises, disasters and previous pandemics. Over 80% of studies included quantitative metrics. The most common WHO health system functions studied were resources and service delivery. In relation to the shock cycle, most studies reported metrics related to the management stage (79%) with the fewest addressing recovery and learning (22%). Common metrics related to staff headcount, staff wellbeing, bed number and type, impact on utilisation and quality, public and private health spending, access and coverage, and information systems. Limited progress has been made with developing standardised qualitative metrics particularly around governance. Quantitative metrics need to be analysed in relation to change and the impact of the shock. The review notes problems with measuring preparedness and the fact that few studies have really assessed the legacy or enduring impact of shocks.

Health systems worldwide are experiencing profound shocks resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic, with increased attention to health system resilience and researching ways to endure shocks. Pre-COVID-19, Ireland had begun a ten-year programme of reform, Sláintecare, aiming to deliver universal, timely access to integrated care. This study examines whether and how the Irish government's pandemic response contributed to health system reform and increased resilience including delivering universal healthcare. Documentary analysis identified and critiqued relevant government, health system and budgetary documents, published March 2020 - May 2021. Thirteen national policy documents were found, showing increased policy rhetoric and intent to implement reform, demonstrated by increased policy alignment with and budgetary allocation to Sláintecare, alongside implementation of key innovations. Ireland's health system response to COVID-19 offers a unique opportunity to advance understanding of government efforts to reform amidst a global pandemic. It indicated policy intent and funding to manage the Irish COVID-19 crisis, but to also build health system resilience through implementing Sláintecare. This case study has international significance, enabling policy development with potential for long-term health system transformation.

Background: Workforce is a fundamental health systems building block, with unprecedented measures taken to meet extra demand and facilitate surge capacity during the COVID-19 pandemic, following a prolonged period of austerity. This case study examines trends in Ireland’s publicly funded health service workforce, from the global financial crisis, through the Recovery period and into the COVID-19 pandemic, to understand resource allocation across community and acute settings. Specifically, this paper aims to uncover whether skill-mix and staff capacity are aligned with policy intent and the broader reform agenda to achieve universal access to integrated healthcare, in part, by shifting free care into primary and community settings. Methods: Secondary analysis of anonymised aggregated national human resources data was conducted over a period of almost 14 years, from December 31st 2008 to August 31st 2021. Comparative analysis was conducted, by professional cadre, across three keys periods: ‘Recession period’ December 31st 2008–December 31st 2014; ‘Recovery period’ December 31st 2014–December 31st 2019; and the ‘COVID-19 period’ December 31st 2019–August 31st 2021. Results: During the Recession period there was an overall decrease of 8.1% (n = 9333) between December 31st 2008 and December 31st 2014, while the Recovery period saw the overall staff levels rebound and increase by 15.2% (n = 16,789) between December 31st 2014 and December 31st 2019. These figures continued to grow, at an accelerated rate during the most recent COVID-19 period, increasing by a further 8.9% (n = 10,716) in under 2 years. However, a notable shift occurred in 2013, when the number of staff in acute services surpassed those employed in community services (n = 50,038 and 49,857, respectively). This gap accelerated during the Recovery and COVID-19 phase. By August 2021, there were 13,645 more whole-time equivalents in acute settings compared to community, a complete reverse of the 2008 situation. This was consistent across all cadres. Workforce absence trends indicate short-term spikes resulting from shocks while COVID-19 redeployment disproportionately impacted negatively on primary care and community services. Conclusions: This paper clearly demonstrates the prioritisation of staff recruitment within acute services—increasing needed capacity, without the same commitment to support government policy to shift care into primary and community settings. Concerted action including the permanent redistribution of personnel is required to ensure progressive and sustainable responses are learned from recent shocks.

Background: The Great Recession, following the 2008 financial crisis, led many governments to adopt programmes of austerity. This had a lasting impact on health system functionality, resources, staff (numbers, motivation and morale) and patient outcomes. This study aimed to understand how health system resilience was impacted and how this affects readiness for subsequent shocks. Methods: A realist review identified legacies associated with austerity (proximal outcomes) and how these impact the distal outcome of health system resilience. EMBASE, CINAHL, MEDLINE, EconLit and Web of Science were searched (2007– May’21), resulting in 1,081 articles. Further theory-driven searches resulted in an additional 60 studies. Descriptive, inductive, deductive and retroductive realist analysis (utilising excel and Nvivo) aided the development of Context, Mechanism, Outcomes Configurations (CMOCs), alongside stakeholder engagement to confirm or refute emerging results. Causal pathways, and the interplay between context and mechanisms that led to proximal and distal outcomes, were revealed. The refined CMOCs and policy recommendations focused primarily on workforce resilience. Results: Five CMOCs demonstrated how austerity-driven policy decisions can impact health systems when driven by the priorities of external agents. This created a real or perceived shift away from the values and interests of health professionals, a distrust in decision-making processes and resistance to change. Their values were at odds with the realities of implementing such policy decisions within sustained restrictive working conditions (rationing of staff, consumables, treatment options). A diminished view of the profession and an inability to provide high-quality, equitable, and needs-led care, alongside stagnant or degraded working conditions, led to moral distress. This can forge legacies that may adversely impact resilience when faced with future shocks. Conclusion: This review reveals the importance of transparent, open communication, in addition to co-produced policies in order to avoid scenarios that can be detrimental to workforce and health system resilience.

The concept of health system resilience has never been more important, as a means to navigate our way through current and future shocks. This handbook provides invaluable insights from the theory and practice of evaluating and strengthening health system resilience drawing on the expertise and insights of leading international authors in the field. In this introduction the editors outline the scope of the handbook which involves examining the evolution and challenges facing health system resilience, understanding the current range of health system resilience research and new breakthroughs and showcasing cutting edge research including innovative methods. The Handbook is divided into five sections that evaluate: (i) different streams of theory, (ii) different perspectives on health system resilience; (iii) how resilience relates to health system functions; (iv) what can be learned from different shocks and (v) preparing for what comes next. For each section the editors highlight overarching themes and author contributions. In particular, the Handbook hosts a wealth of case study material with crises ranging from pandemics to economic austerity, and climate and conflict-related shocks. The final chapter outlines some recommendations for action and research to meet the growing challenges facing health systems now and in the future.

Background: The journey towards Universal Health Coverage (UHC) began decades ago but has recently moved to centre stage in global health discourses with its inclusion in the Sustainable Development Goals. As part of this renewed interest, 193 countries have committed to introducing UHC by 2030. However, its implementation often necessitates far-reaching health system reforms. This, coupled with the struggles countries face in relation to health financing, as well as distinct political, social and cultural contexts, means there are significant challenges to UHC implementation. This article contributes new knowledge to these discourses by identifying key contexts and mechanisms that facilitate the successful implementation of UHC reforms, as well as barriers that can impede progress. Methods: This realist review identifies key contexts and mechanisms that can facilitate the successful implementation of UHC reforms. Embase, Medline and Web of Science were searched, (1995-2022), resulting in 957 articles with the protocol published through Prospero (PROSPERO 2023: CRD42023394427). Further theory-driven searches resulted in an additional 988 studies. Descriptive, inductive, deductive and retroductive realist analysis aided the development of Context-Mechanism-Outcome Configurations, along with stakeholder engagement to confirm or refute results. Causal pathways, and the interplay between contexts and mechanisms that triggered outcomes, were revealed. Results: How each country goes about implementing UHC reforms depends on its context. Cohesion across all systems, as well as the functions of financing, governance and service delivery, facilitates these reforms. Implementation can also be facilitated through political commitment, communication between stakeholders in the public health system and the development of a strong primary care sector. Conversely, fragmentation across these functions pose significant barriers to UHC reforms. Conclusion: Examining international experiences of UHC reforms supports learning around the mechanisms that support or hinder implementation processes. These learnings can empower policy makers and health system leaders by providing roadmaps for reform implementation.