Background: Vaccination is the most effective method to prevent the spread of infectious diseases. Nevertheless, vaccine hesitancy has been an issue. Parental hesitancy toward vaccines is a major part of the problem. COVID-19 vaccine acceptance is no different, it poses another challenge in facing the pandemic. In Low- and Middle-Income Countries (L&MICs) several studies measured parents' acceptance to vaccinate their children against COVID-19 and resulted in different acceptance proportions.Aims: The paper aims at obtaining a precise estimate of the overall proportion of L&MICs' parents accepting to vaccinate their children against COVID-19 and identifying the main determinant of their decisions.Methods: This meta-analysis follows the PRISMA 2020 statement on updated guidelines and the checklist for reporting systematic reviews. Studies published between December till February 2022 were assessed for inclusion. The final effect size (i.e., the proportion of parents in L&MICs accepting to vaccinate their children against COVID-19) was measured using the Arcsine proportions method. Analysis was done using R program.Results: The proportion of parents in L&MICs accepting to vaccinate their children against COVID-19 is 49%. The major reason for their acceptance is their belief that COVID-19 vaccine is fundamental to the fight against the pandemic while the most common factor for parents' hesitancy to vaccinate their children against COVID-19 is their concerns about vaccine efficacy, safety, and possible side effects.Conclusion: The proportion of parents in L&MICs accepting to vaccinate their children against COVID-19 is lower than the global level. To increase parental acceptance, responsible authorities should concentrate on increasing their population's trust in the government and in vaccine manufacturers. As well as concentrating on increasing acceptance of the vaccine idea in general.

Background: Health equity is an important aspect of responsible governance. COVID-19 exposed existing shortfalls of Global Health Governance (GHG). A considerable amount of related literature is produced. This scoping review aims at mapping the present knowledge and at identifying research gaps. Methods: This scoping review is based on the Joanna Briggs Institute’s guideline for standardized methods and PRISMA-ScR guidelines for reporting. Documents published from December 2019 to October 2021 were searched using PubMed, Scopus, Google Scholar, World cat, and WHO-Global Index Medicus. Two reviewers screened and reviewed eligible studies in three stages: duplicates identification and elimination, title and abstract screening, and full-text assessment. Data was charted and results were classified into conceptual categories. Analysis was done in three stages: open descriptive coding, focused thematic analysis, and frequency, commonality and significance analysis. Results: forty-nine studies met the inclusion criteria. Areas of research were grouped into seven themes: “human rights and inequities”, “solidarity, collaboration and partnership”, “GHG structure change”, “political and economic power and finance”, “approaches to address inequity”, “law and regulations”, and “private investment and public-private partnerships (PPPs) in GHG”. The highest number of papers were in the first theme, “human rights and inequities”. However, the themes are interrelated. Authors who contributed to research were mostly affiliated to developed countries indicating a gap in knowledge and expertise in developing countries. Conclusion: Through this scoping review we found that the seven themes are interconnected. Disciplinary collaboration in research relating GHG to health inequities is solicited. Collaboration in research, information sharing, and research capacity development are in needed in developing countries.

Background: Covid-19 is not the first pandemic to challenge GHG. Preceding outbreaks and epidemics were sources of continuous debate on GHG leadership and structure resulting in its current structure. However, Covid-19 proved the presence of many deficits in the current GHG. The response to the Covid-19 pandemic is a cumulative result of all policies and actions of different governments and agencies active in global health. Assessing how Covid-19 is being handled globally provides lessons for ensuring better performance in facing upcoming outbreaks. This study has three main objectives: first, to evaluate the performance of GHG during Covid-19 in general and in relation to Covid-19 vaccine equity in particular. Second, to identify the reasons behind this performance; and third, to propose prospective changes in GHG for better performance. Methods: A cross-sectional research design using the Delphi method was applied. A panel of experts participated in the three-round Delphi surveys. Their scores were used to perform consensus, performance and correlation analysis. Results: GHG performance limited the achievement of Covid-19 vaccines’ global equity. GHG performance is a product of the existing GHG system, its actors and legal framework. It is a collective result of individual GHG actors’ performance. The most influential actors in decision-making regarding Covid-19 vaccine are the vaccine manufacturers and governments. While the most invoked power to influence decision are economic and political powers. Covid-19 decisions underlying value, although had human right to health at the base, overlooked the concept of health as a global public good and was skewed towards market-oriented values. GHG mal-performance along with its underlying factors calls for four main changes in GHG structure: assigning a clear steward for GHG, enhanced accountability, centralized authority, more equitable representation of actors, and better legal framework. Conclusion: GHG structure, actors’ representation, accountability system, and underlying priorities and value require future modification for GHG to achieve better future performance and higher health equity levels.

Introduction: Inequitable access to COVID-19 vaccines among countries is a pressing global health issue. Factors such as economic power, political power, political stability, and health system strength contribute to disparities in vaccine distribution. This study aims to assess the inequality in vaccine distribution among countries based on these factors and identify their relationship with COVID-19 vaccine distribution.Methods: A Concentration Index (CI) analysis was conducted to evaluate inequalities in the distribution of COVID-19 vaccines among countries based on four separate variables: GDP per capita, political stability (PS), World Power Index (WPI), and Universal Health Coverage (UHC). Additionally, Multiple Linear Regression (MLR) analysis was employed to explore the relationship between vaccine distribution and these independent variables. Two vaccine distribution variables were utilized for result reliability.Results: The analysis revealed significant inequalities in COVID-19 vaccine distribution according to the countries’ GDP/capita, PS, WPI, and UHC. However, the multiple linear regression analysis showed that there is no significant relationship between COVID-19 vaccine distribution and the countries’ GDP/capita and that UHC is the most influential factor impacting COVID-19 vaccine distribution and accessibility.Discussion: The findings underscore the complex interplay between economic, political, and health system factors in shaping vaccine distribution patterns. To improve the accessibility to vaccines in future pandemics, Global Health Governance (GHG) and countries should consider working on three areas; enhance political stabilities in countries, separate the political power from decision-making at the global level and most importantly support countries to achieve UHC.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic exposed persistent weaknesses in global health governance, particularly in preparedness, equity, and accountability. The WHO Pandemic Agreement, adopted in May 2025, aims to address these systemic gaps through a binding international framework. Objective: To identify key challenges in global pandemic preparedness and health governance reported in the literature (2019–2024) through a systematic scoping review, and to evaluate how these challenges are addressed in the provisions of the WHO Pandemic Agreement via qualitative document analysis. Methods: Using Joanna Briggs Institute methodology and PRISMA-ScR guidelines, we systematically identified and thematically analyzed 52 peer-reviewed studies published between 2020 and 2024. The thematic results informed a qualitative document analysis of the WHO Pandemic Agreement text to assess the extent to which its provisions address the identified challenges. Results: Persistent gaps in governance (limited enforceability, fragmented coordination), equity (inequitable access to medical countermeasures), capacity (technology transfer and financing), and accountability were identified. Health systems in low- and middle-income countries continue to face critical resource constraints and lack robust mechanisms to ensure accountability and continuous learning. Document analysis showed the WHO Pandemic Agreement addresses coordination and financing but offers limited advances in enforcement, technology transfer, and independent monitoring. Conclusion: The WHO Pandemic Agreement introduces important institutional and financing measures, but persistent gaps remain in enforcement, technology transfer, and inclusive implementation. Strengthening these domains is crucial to achieving equitable and resilient preparedness. By systematically linking evidence from the pandemic preparedness literature to Treaty provisions, this study offers a novel analytical framework for assessing how global health treaties respond to research-identified challenges.

During pandemics, the ethicists, public health professionals, and human rights advocates raise a red flag about different public health actions that should, at best, be addressed through integrated, global policies. How to rationalize the healthcare resources and prioritize the cases is not a recent challenge but the serious concern about that is how to achieve this while not increasing the vulnerability of the disadvantaged population. Healthcare professionals use different scoring systems as a part of their decision-making so the medical teams and triage committees can allocate resources for predictable health outcomes and prognosis as well as to appropriately triage the patients accordingly. However, the value of the existing scoring systems to manage COVID-19 cases is not well-established yet. Part of this problem includes managing non-COVID patients with chronic medical conditions like non-communicable diseases and addressing their medical needs during the pandemic complex context in a way to avoid worsening their conditions and, on the other hand, avoid hindering the establishment of comprehensive standards for dealing with COVID-19. In this article, we discuss this dilemma as well as how preexisting ethical standards were challenged by COVID-19. We also discuss how monitoring the consistent application of ethical standards during the medical trials of new medications, vaccines, or unproven medical interventions is also a critical issue.