Background: Emerging research suggests that the novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic and associated public health restrictions have caused psychological distress in many contexts. In order for public health authorities and policy makers to effectively address the psychological distress associated with the pandemic, it is important to determine the prevalence and correlates of mental disorders, including depression. Objectives: We aimed to determine the prevalence, and demographic, social, clinical and other COVID-19 related correlates of major depressive disorder symptoms among the general population in Ghana during the COVID-19 pandemic. Method: The study was a cross-sectional survey using online data collection methods. The survey assessed demographic, social and clinical variables as well as COVID-19 related variables. Major depressive disorder symptoms were assessed using the Patient Health Questionnaire-9. The survey link was distributed primarily through WhatsApp-based platforms. Data were analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistics. Results: The overall prevalence of likely MDD symptoms among the sample population was 12.3%. Variables such as employment, loss of jobs during the pandemic and rate of exposure to COVID-related news were independently and significantly associated with the likelihood that respondents had likely MDD. Variables such as gender, relationship, housing status and having a family member or friend who was sick from COVID-19 were not independently significantly associated with the likelihood that respondents had likely MDD, when all other factors in the model were controlled. Conclusion: This study has identified the prevalence and correlates of depression symptoms in Ghana during the COVID-19 pandemic. There is the urgent need for mental health policy makers and the government of Ghana to have policies in place to alleviate the potential threat to the mental health of the population.

Despite continued investment, Maternal, Newborn and Child Health (MNCH) indicators in low and middle income countries have remained relatively poor. This could, in part, be explained by inadequate resources to adequately address these problems, inappropriate allocation of the available resources, or lack of implementation of the most effective interventions. Systematic priority setting and resource allocation could contribute to alleviating these limitations. There is a paucity of literature that follows through MNCH prioritization processes to implementation, making it difficult for policy makers to understand the impact of their decision-making on population health. The overall objective of this paper was to describe and evaluate priority setting for maternal, newborn and child health interventions in Uganda. Fifty-four key informant interviews and a review of policies and media reports were used to describe priority setting for MNCH in Uganda. Kapiriri and Martin’s conceptual framework was used to evaluate priority setting for MNCH. There were three main prioritization exercises for maternal, newborn and child health in Uganda. The processes were participatory and were guided by explicit tools, evidence, and criteria, however, the public and the districts were insufficiently involved in the priority setting process. While there were conducive contextual factors including strong political support, implementation was constrained by the presence of competing actors, with varying priorities, an unequal allocation of resources between child health and maternal health interventions, limited financial and human resources, a weak health system and limited institutional capacity. Stronger institutional capacity at the Ministry of Health and equitable engagement of key stakeholders in decision-making processes, especially the public, and implementers, would improve understanding, satisfaction and compliance with the priority setting process. Availability of financial and human resources that are appropriately allocated would facilitate the implementation of well-developed policies.

While there has been progress in controlling the HIV epidemic, HIV still remains a disease of global concern. Some of the progress has been attributed to increased public awareness and uptake of public health interventions, as well as increased access to anti- retroviral treatment and the prevention of vertical HIV transmission. These interventions would not have been possible without substantial investments in HIV programs. However, donor fatigue introduces the need for low income countries to maximize the benefits of the available resources. This necessitates identification of priorities that should be funded. Evaluating prioritization processes would enable decision makers to assess the effectiveness of their processes, thereby designing intervention strategies. To date most evaluations have focused on cost-benefit analyses, which overlooks additional critical impacts of priority setting decisions. Kapiriri & Martin (2010) developed and validated a comprehensive framework for evaluating PS in low income countries. The objective of this paper report findings from a comprehensive evaluation of priority setting for HIV in Uganda, using the framework; and to identify lessons of good practice and areas for improvement. This was a qualitative study based on forty interviews with decision makers and policy document review. Data were analysed using INVIVO 10, and based on the parameters in Kapiriri et al’s evaluation framework. We found that HIV enjoys political support, which contributes to the availability of resources, strong planning institutions, and participatory prioritization process based on some criteria. Some of the identified limitations included; undue donor and political influence, priorities not being publicized, and lack of mechanisms for appealing the decisions. HIV prioritization had both positive and negative impacts on the health system. The framework facilitated a more comprehensive evaluation of HIV priority setting. While there were successful areas, the process could be strengthened by minimizing undue influence of external actors, and support the legitimate institutions to set priorities and implement them. These should also institute mechanisms for publicizing the decisions, appeals and increased accountability. While this paper looked at HIV, the framework is flexible enough to be used in evaluating priority setting for other health programs within similar context.

This paper explores how context and actors influence processes and content efforts to co-create gender transformative primary health care systems for adolescents in West Africa and draws out lessons for co-creation of effective adolescent mental, sexual, and reproductive health and rights (AMSRHR) interventions in low and middle income countries. The study design was a multi-country case study with the case defined as "processes, context, actors and content of co-creation of gender-transformative adolescent mental, sexual, and reproductive health interventions". Data are from mixed qualitative sources in two research phases: a situational/context analysis and co-creation/data validation workshops. Findings reveal that while national AMSRHR policies promote gender-sensitive approaches, actual programmes remain largely gender-neutral or gender-blind. Important considerations in co-creating AMSRHR interventions include how to effectively engage powerful stakeholders with diverse positions, pay attention to gendered power imbalances in co-creation processes, and raise critical consciousness of complex AMSRHR issues through non-threatening, participatory approaches.

Objectives: To explore governance, coordination and implementation actors, structures and processes, facilitators, and barriers within local government and between central and local government in Ghana’s COVID-19 response during the first wave of the outbreak.Design: Cross-sectional single case study. Data collection involved a desk review of media, policy and administrative documents and key informant in-depth interviews.Setting: Two municipalities in the Greater Accra region of GhanaParticipants: Local government decentralised decision makers and officials of decentralised departments.Interventions: None.Main Outcome Measures: NoneResults: Coordination between the national and local government involved the provision of directives, guidelines, training, and resources. Most of the emergency response structures at the municipal level were functional except for some Public Health Emergency Management Committees. Inadequate resources challenged all aspects of the response. Coordination between local government and district health directorates in risk communication was poor. During the distribution of relief items, a biased selection process and a lack of a bottom-up approach in planning and implementation were common and undermined the ability to target the most vulnerable beneficiaries.Conclusions: Adequate financing and equipping of frontline health facilities and workers for surveillance, laboratory and case management activities, transparent criteria to ensure effective targeting and monitoring of the distribution of relief items, and a stronger bottom-up approach to the planning and implementation of interventions need to be given high priority in any response to health security threats such as COVID-19.