Background: There is a large and growing unmet need for rehabilitation – a diverse category of services that aim to improve functioning across the life course – particularly in low- and middle-income countries. Yet despite urgent calls to increase political commitment, many low- and middle-income country governments have dedicated little attention to expanding rehabilitation services. Existing policy scholarship explains how and why health issues reach the policy agenda and offers applicable evidence to advance access to physical, medical, psychosocial, and other types of rehabilitation services. Drawing from this scholarship and empirical data on rehabilitation, this paper proposes a policy framework to understand national-level prioritization of rehabilitation in low- and middle-income countries. Methods: We conducted key informant interviews with rehabilitation stakeholders in 47 countries, complemented by a purposeful review of peer-reviewed and gray literature to achieve thematic saturation. We analyzed the data abductively using a thematic synthesis methodology. Rehabilitation-specific findings were triangulated with policy theory and empirical case studies on the prioritization of other health issues to develop the framework. Results: The novel policy framework includes three components which shape the prioritization of rehabilitation on low- and middle-income countries’ national government’s health agendas. First, rehabilitation lacks a consistent problem definition, undermining the development of consensus-driven solutions which could advance the issue on policy agendas. Second, governance arrangements are fragmented within and across government ministries, between the government and its citizens, and across national and transnational actors engaged in rehabilitation service provision. Third, national legacies – particularly from civil conflict – and weaknesses in the existing health system influences both rehabilitation needs and implementation feasibility. Conclusions: This framework can support stakeholders in identifying the key components impeding prioritization for rehabilitation across different national contexts. This is a crucial step for ultimately better advancing the issue on national policy agendas and improving equity in access to rehabilitation services.

Recent calls for global health decolonization suggest that addressing the problems of global health may require more than ‘elevating country voice’. We employed a frame analysis of the diagnostic, prognostic, and motivational framings of both discourses and analyzed the implications of convergence or divergence of these frames for global health practice and scholarship. We used two major sources of data–a review of literature and in-depth interviews with actors in global health practice and shapers of discourse around elevating country voice and decolonizing global health. Using NVivo 12, a deductive analysis approach was applied to the literature and interview transcripts using diagnostic, prognostic and motivational framings as themes. We found that calls for elevating country voice consider suppressed low- and middle-income country (LMIC) voice in global health agenda-setting and lack of country ownership of health initiatives as major problems; advancing better LMIC representation in decision making positions, and local ownership of development initiatives as solutions. The rationale for action is greater aid impact. In contrast, calls for decolonizing global health characterize colonialityas the problem. Its prognostic framing, though still in a formative stage, includes greater acceptance of diversity in approaches to knowledge creation and health systems, and a structural transformation of global health governance. Its motivational framing is justice. Conceptually and in terms of possible outcomes, the frames underlying these discourses differ. Actors’ origin and nature of involvement with global health work are markers of the frames they align with. In response to calls for country voice elevation, global health institutions working in LMICs may prioritize country representation in rooms near or where power resides, but this falls short of expectations of decolonizing global health advocates. Whether governments, organizations, and communities will sufficiently invest in public health to achieve decolonization remains unknown and will determine the future of the call for decolonization and global health practice at large.

Background ‘Resilience’, ‘self-reliance’ and ‘increasing country voice’ are widely used terms in global health. However, the terms are understood in diverse ways by various global health actors. We analyse how these terms are understood and why differences in understanding exist. Methods Drawing on scholarship concerning ideology, framing and power, we employ a case study of a USAID-sponsored suite of awards called MOMENTUM. Applying a meta-ethnographic approach, we triangulate data from peer-reviewed and grey literature, as well as 27 key informant interviews with actors at the forefront of shaping these discourses and those associated with MOMENTUM, working in development agencies, implementing organisations, low-income and middle-income country governments, and academia. Results The lack of common understanding of these three terms is in part a result of differences in two perspectives in global health—reformist and transformational—which are animated by fundamentally different ideologies. Reformists, reflecting neoliberal and liberal democratic ideologies, largely take a technocratic approach to understanding health problems and advance incremental solutions, working within existing global and local health systems to effect change. Transformationalists, reflecting threads of neo-Marxist ideology, see the problems as inherently political and seek to overhaul national and global systems and power relations. These ideologies shape differences in how actors define the problem, its solutions and attribute responsibility, resulting in nuanced differences among global health actors in their understanding of resilience, self-reliance and increasing country voice. Conclusions Differences in how these terms are employed and framed are not just linguistic; the language that is used is reflective of underlying ideological differences among global health actors, with implications for the way programmes are designed and implemented, the knowledge that is produced and engagement with stakeholders. Laying these distinct ideologies bare may be crucial for managing actor differences and advancing more productive discussions and actions towards achieving global health equity.

COVID-19 demanded urgent responses by all countries, with wide variations in the scope and sustainability of those responses. Scholarship on resilience has increasingly emphasized relational considerations such as norms and power and how they influence health systems’ responses to evolving challenges. In this study, we explored what influenced countries’ national pandemic responses over time considering a country’s capacity to test for COVID-19. To identify countries for inclusion, we used daily reports of COVID-19 cases and testing from 184 countries between 21st January 2020 and 31st December 2020. Countries reporting test data consistently and for at least 105 days were included, yielding a sample of 52 countries. We then sampled five countries representing different geographies, income levels and governance structures (Belgium, Ethiopia, India, Israel and Peru) and conducted semi-structured key informant interviews with stakeholders working in, or deeply familiar with, national responses. Across these five countries, we found that existing health systems capacities and political leadership determined how responses unfolded, while emergency plans or pandemic preparedness documents were not fit-for-purpose. While all five countries were successful at reducing COVID-19 infections at a specific moment in the pandemic, political economy factors complicated the ability to sustain responses, with all countries experiencing larger waves of the virus in 2021 or 2022. Our findings emphasize the continued importance of foundational public health and health systems capacities, bolstered by clear leadership and multisectoral coordination functions. Even in settings with high-level political leadership and a strong multisectoral response, informants wished that they—and their country’s health system—were more prepared to address the pandemic and maintain an effective response over time. Our findings challenge emergency preparedness as the dominant frame in pandemic preparedness and call for a continued emphasis on health systems strengthening to respond to future health shocks and a pandemic moving to endemic status.

Background: Despite growing interest in and commitment to integration, or integrated care, the concept is ill-defined and the resulting evidence base fragmented, particularly in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Underlying this challenge is a lack of coherent approaches to measure the extent of integration and how this influences desired outcomes. The aim of this scoping review is to identify measurement approaches for integration in LMICs and map them for future use. Methods: Arksey and O’Malley’s framework for scoping reviews was followed. We conducted a systematic search of peer-reviewed literature measuring integration in LMICs across three databases and screened identified papers by predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria. A modified version of the Rainbow Model for Integrated Care guided charting and analysis of the data. Results: We included 99 studies. Studies were concentrated in the Africa region and most frequently focused on the integration of HIV care with other services. A range of definitions and methods were identified, with no single approach for the measurement of integration dominating the literature. Measurement of clinical integration was the most common, with indicators focused on measuring receipt of two or more services provided at a single point of time. Organizational and professional integration indicators were focused on inter- and intra-organizational communication, collaboration, coordination, and continuity of care, while functional integration measured common information systems or patient records. Gaps were identified in measuring systems and normative integration. Few tools were validated or publicly available for future use. Conclusion: We identified a wide range of recent approaches used to measure integration in LMICs. Our findings underscore continued challenges with lack of conceptual cohesion and fragmentation which limits how integration is understood in practice.