Introduction While health is one of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), many other ‘health-related’ goals comprise determinants of health. Integrated implementation across SDGs is needed for the achievement of Agenda 2030. While existing literature is rich in normative recommendations about potentially useful approaches, evidence of implementation strategies being adopted by countries is limited. Methods We conducted a systematic review with qualitative synthesis of findings using peer reviewed and grey literature from key databases. We included publications examining implementation of health and health-related SDGs (HHSDGs) at national or subnational level published between June 2013 and July 2019. Results Of the 32 included publications, 24 provided information at the national level while eight provided information for multiple countries or regions. Our findings indicate that high-level political commitment is evident in most countries and HHSDGs are being aligned with existing national development strategies and plans. A multisectoral, integrated approach is being adopted in institutional setups but evidence on effectiveness of these approaches is limited. Funding constraints are a major challenge for many countries. HHSDGs are generally being financed from within existing funded plans and, in some instances, through SDG-specific budgeting and tracking; additional funding is being mobilised by increasing domestic taxation and subsidisation, and by collaborating with development partners and private sector. Equity is being promoted by improving health service access through universal health coverage and social insurance schemes, especially for disadvantaged populations. Governments are collaborating with development partners and UN agencies for support in planning, institutional development and capacity building. However, evidence on equity promotion, capacity building initiatives and implementation approaches at subnational level is limited. Lack of coordination among various levels of government emerges as a key challenge. Conclusion strengthening implementation of multisectoral work, capacity building, financial sustainability and data availability are key considerations to accelerate implementation of HHSDGs.

Background: Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the leading cause of death and disability worldwide. Health research is crucial to managing disease burden. Previous work has highlighted marked discrepancies in research output and disease burden between high-income countries (HICs) and low- and lower-middle-income countries (LI-LMICs) and there is little data to understand whether this gap has bridged in recent years. We conducted a global, country level bibliometric analysis of CVD publications with respect to trends in disease burden and county development indicators.Methods: A search filter with a precision and recall of 0.92 and 0.91 respectively was developed to extract cardiovascular publications from the Web of Science (WOS) for the years 2008–2017. Data for disease burden and country development indicators were extracted from the Global Burden of Disease and the World Bank database respectively.Results: Our search revealed 847,708 CVD publications for the period 2008–17, with a 43.4% increase over the decade. HICs contributed 81.1% of the global CVD research output and accounted for 8.1% and 8.5% of global CVD DALY losses deaths respectively. LI-LMICs contributed 2.8% of the total output and accounted for 59.5% and 57.1% global CVD DALY losses and death rates.Conclusions: A glaring disparity in research output and disease burden persists. While LI-LMICs contribute to the majority of DALYs and mortality from CVD globally, their contribution to research output remains the lowest. These data call on national health budgets and international funding support to allocate funds to strengthen research capacity and translational research to impact CVD burden in LI-LMICs.

Tuberculosis (TB) is a leading cause of mortality in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). TB multimorbidity [TB and ≥1 non-communicable diseases (NCDs)] is common, but studies are sparse. Cross-sectional, community-based data including adults from 21 low-income countries and 27 middle-income countries were utilized from the World Health Survey. Associations between 9 NCDs and TB were assessed with multivariable logistic regression analysis. Years lived with disability (YLDs) were calculated using disability weights provided by the 2017 Global Burden of Disease Study. Eight out of 9 NCDs (all except visual impairment) were associated with TB (odds ratio (OR) ranging from 1.38–4.0). Prevalence of self-reported TB increased linearly with increasing numbers of NCDs. Compared to those with no NCDs, those who had 1, 2, 3, 4, and ≥5 NCDs had 2.61 (95% confidence interval (CI) = 2.14–3.22), 4.71 (95%CI = 3.67–6.11), 6.96 (95%CI = 4.95–9.87), 10.59 (95%CI = 7.10–15.80), and 19.89 (95%CI = 11.13–35.52) times higher odds for TB. Among those with TB, the most prevalent combinations of NCDs were angina and depression, followed by angina and arthritis. For people with TB, the YLDs were three times higher than in people without multimorbidity or TB, and a third of the YLDs were attributable to NCDs. Urgent research to understand, prevent and manage NCDs in people with TB in LMICs is needed.

Evidence on early achievements, challenges and opportunities would help low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) accelerate implementation of health and health-related sustainable development goals (HHSDGs). A series of country-specific and multicountry consultative meetings were conducted during 2018–2019 that involved 15 countries across five regions to determine the status of implementation of HHSDGs. Almost 120 representatives from health and non-health sectors participated. The assessment relied on a multidomain analytical framework drawing on existing public health policy frameworks. During the first 5 years of the sustainable development goals (SDGs) era, participating LMICs from South and Central Asia, East Africa and Latin America demonstrated growing political commitment to HHSDGs, with augmentation of multisectoral institutional arrangements, strengthening of monitoring systems and engagement of development partners. On the other hand, there has been limited involvement of civic society representatives and academia, relatively few capacity development initiatives were in place, a well-crafted communication strategy was missing, and there is limited evidence of additional domestic financing for implementing HHSDGs. While the momentum towards universal health coverage is notable, explicit linkages with non-health SDGs and integrated multisectoral implementation strategies are lacking. The study offers messages to LMICs that would allow for a full decade of accelerated implementation of HHSDGs, and points to the need for more implementation research in each domain and for testing interventions that are likely to work before scale-up.

Many countries are adopting essential packages of health services (EPHS) to implement universal health coverage (UHC), which are mostly financed and delivered by the public sector, while the potential role of the private health sector (PHS) remains untapped. Currently, many low-income and lower middle-income countries (LLMICs) have devised EPHS; however, guidance on translating these packages into quality, accessible and affordable services is limited. This paper explores the role of PHS in achieving UHC, identifies key concerns and presents the experience of the Diseases Control Priorities 3 Country Translation project in Afghanistan, Ethiopia, Pakistan, Somalia, Sudan and Zanzibar. There are key challenges to engagement of the PHS, which include the complexity and heterogeneity of private providers, their operation in isolation of the health system, limitations of population coverage and equity when left to PHS’s own choices, and higher overall cost of care for privately delivered services. Irrespective of the strategies employed to involve the PHS in delivering EPHS, it is necessary to identify private providers in terms of their characteristics and contribution, and their response to regulatory tools and incentives. Strategies for regulating private providers include better statutory control to prevent unlicensed practice, self-regulation by professional bodies to maintain standards of practice and accreditation of large private hospitals and chains. Potentially, purchasing delivery of essential services by engaging private providers can be an effective ‘regulatory approach’ to modify provider behaviour. Despite existing experience, more research is needed to better explore and operationalise the role of PHS in implementing EPHS in LLMICs.

Objective To explore healthcare provider’s perspectives and experiences of the barriers and facilitators to treat and manage COVID-19 cases. Design and setting We conducted an exploratory qualitative study using a purposive sampling approach, at a private tertiary care teaching hospital in Karachi, Pakistan. Study data were analysed manually using the conventional content analysis technique. Participants Key-informant interviews (KIIs) were conducted with senior management and hospital leadership and in-depth interviews (IDIs) were conducted with front-line healthcare providers. Results A total of 31 interviews (KIIs=19; IDIs=12) were conducted, between April and May 2020. Three overarching themes emerged. The first was ‘challenges faced by front-line healthcare providers working in COVID-19 wards. Healthcare workers experienced increased anxiety due to the fear of acquiring infection and transmitting it to their family members. They felt overwhelmed due to the exhaustive donning and doffing process, intense work and stigmatisation. The second theme was ‘enablers supporting healthcare providers to deal with the COVID-19 pandemic’. Front liners pointed out several enabling factors that supported hospital staff including a safe hospital environment, adequate training, a strong system of information sharing and supportive management. The third theme was ‘recommendations to support the healthcare workforce during the COVID-19 crisis’. Healthcare workers recommended measures to mitigate current challenges including providing risk allowance to front-line healthcare providers, preparing a backup health workforce, and establishing a platform to address the mental health needs of the healthcare providers. Conclusion This study provides an initial evidence base of healthcare providers’ experiences of managing patients with COVID-19 in the early stage of the pandemic and highlights measures needed to address the encountered challenges. It offers lessons for hospitals in low-income and middle-income countries to ensure a safe working environment for front-line workers in their fight against COVID-19.