Significant efforts were invested in halting the recent Ebola virus disease outbreak in West Africa. Now, studies are emerging on the magnitude of the indirect health effects of the outbreak in the affected countries and the aim of this study is to systematically assess the results of these publications. The methodology for this review adhered to the Prisma guidelines for systematic reveiws. A total of 3354 articles were identified for screening and while 117 articles were read in full, 22 studies were included in the final review. Utilization of maternal health services decreased during the outbreak. The number of Caesarean sections and facility-based deliveries declined and followed a similar pattern in Guinea, Liberia and Sierra Leone. A change in the utilization of antenatal and postnatal care and family planning services was also seen, as well as a drop in utilization of children’s health services, especially in terms of vaccination coverage. In addition, the uptake of HIV/AIDS and malaria services, general hospital admissions and major surgeries decreased as well. Interestingly, it was the uptake of health service provision by the population that decreased, rather than the volume of Health service provision. Estimates from the various studies suggest that non-Ebola morbidity and mortality have increased after the onset of the outbreak in Sierra Leone, Guinea and Liberia. Reproductive, maternal and child health services was especially affected, and the decrease in facility deliveries, Caesarean sections and volume of antenatal and postnatal care visits might have significant adverse effects on maternal and newborn health. The impact of Ebola stretches far beyond Ebola cases and deaths. This review indicates that indirect health service effects are substantial and both short and long-term, and highlights the importance of support to maintain routine health service delivery and the maintenance of vaccination programs as well as preventative and curative malaria programs, both in general but especially in times of a disaster.

Background: Health systems are based on 6 functions that need to work together at all times to effectively deliver safe and quality health services. These functions are vulnerable to shocks and changes; if a health system is unable to withstand the pressure from a shock, it may cease to function or collapse. The concept of resilience has been introduced with the goal of strengthening health systems to avoid disruption or collapse. The concept is new within health systems research, and no common description exists to describe its meaning. The aim of this study is to summarize and characterize the existing descriptions of health system resilience to improve understanding of the concept. Methods and Analysis: A scoping review was undertaken to identify the descriptions and characteristics of health system resilience. Four databases and gray literature were searched using the keywords "health system" and "resilience" for published documents that included descriptions, frameworks or characteristics of health system resilience. Additional documents were identified from reference lists. Four expert consultations were conducted to gain a broader perspective. Descriptions were analysed by studying the frequency of key terms and were characterized by using the World Health Organization (WHO) health system framework. The scoping review identified eleven sources with descriptions and 24 sources that presented characteristics of health system resilience. Frequently used terms that were identified in the literature were shock, adapt, maintain, absorb and respond. Change and learning were also identified when combining the findings from the descriptions, characteristics and expert consultations. Leadership and governance were recognized as the most important building block for creating health system resilience. Discussion: No single description of health system resilience was used consistently. A variation was observed on how resilience is described and to what depth it was explained in the existing literature. The descriptions of health system resilience primarily focus on major shocks. Adjustments to long-term changes and the element of learning should be considered for a better understating of health system resilience.

Introduction: How the burden of disease varies during different phases after floods and after storms is essential in order to guide a medical response, but it has not been well-described. The objective of this review was to elucidate the health problems following flood and storm disasters.Methods: A literature search of the databases Medline (US National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health; Bethesda, Maryland USA); Cinahl (EBSCO Information Services; Ipswich, Massachusetts USA); Global Health (EBSCO Information Services; Ipswich, Massachusetts USA); Web of Science Core Collection (Thomson Reuters; New York, New York USA); Embase (Elsevier; Amsterdam, Netherlands); and PubMed (National Center for Biotechnology Information, National Institutes of Health; Bethesda, Maryland USA) was conducted in June 2015 for English-language research articles on morbidity or mortality and flood or storm disasters. Articles on mental health, interventions, and rescue or health care workers were excluded. Data were extracted from articles that met the eligibility criteria and analyzed by narrative synthesis.Results: The review included 113 studies. Poisonings, wounds, gastrointestinal infections, and skin or soft tissue infections all increased after storms. Gastrointestinal infections were more frequent after floods. Leptospirosis and diabetes-related complications increased after both. The majority of changes occurred within four weeks of floods or storms.Conclusion: Health changes differently after floods and after storms. There is a lack of data on the health effects of floods alone, long-term changes in health, and the strength of the association between disasters and health problems. This review highlights areas of consideration for medical response and the need for high-quality, systematic research in this area. Saulnier DD , Brolin Ribacke K , von Schreeb J .No calm after the storm: a systematic review of human health following flood and storm disasters.Prehosp Disaster Med.2017;32(5):568–579.

Background: Health systems resilience (HSR) research is a rapidly expanding field, in which key concepts are discussed and theoretical frameworks are emerging with vibrant debate. Fragile and conflict-affected settings (FCAS) are contexts exposed to compounding stressors, for which resilience is an important characteristic. However, only limited evidence has been generated in such settings. We conducted a scoping review to: (a) identify the conceptual frameworks of HSR used in the analysis of shocks and stressors in FCAS; (b) describe the representation of different actors involved in health care governance and service provision in these settings; and (c) identify health systems operations as they relate to absorption, adaptation, and transformation in FCAS. Methods: We used standard, extensive search methods. The search captured studies published between 2006 and January 2022. We included all peer reviewed and grey literature that adopted a HSR lens in the analysis of health responses to crises. Thematic analysis using both inductive and deductive approaches was conducted, adopting frameworks related to resilience characteristics identified by Kruk et al., and the resilience capacities described by Blanchet et al. Results: Thirty-seven studies met our inclusion criteria. The governance-centred, capacity-oriented framework for HSR emerged as the most frequently used lens of analysis to describe the health responses to conflict and chronic violence specifically. Most studies focused on public health systems’ resilience analysis, while the private health sector is only examined in complementarity with the former. Communities are minimally represented, despite their widely acknowledged role in supporting HSR. The documentation of operations enacting HSR in FCAS is focused on absorption and adaptation, while transformation is seldom described. Absorptive, adaptive, and transformative interventions are described across seven different domains: safety and security, society, health system governance, stocks and supplies, built environment, health care workforce, and health care services. Conclusions: Our review findings suggest that the governance-centred framework can be useful to better understand HSR in FCAS. Future HSR research should document adaptive and transformative strategies that advance HSR, particularly in relation to actions intended to promote the safety and security of health systems, the built environment for health, and the adoption of a social justice lens.

Health system resilience, known as the ability for health systems to absorb, adapt or transform to maintain essential functions when stressed or shocked, has quickly gained popularity following shocks like COVID-19. The concept is relatively new in health policy and systems research and the existing research remains mostly theoretical. Research to date has viewed resilience as an outcome that can be measured through performance outcomes, as an ability of complex adaptive systems that is derived from dynamic behaviour and interactions, or as both. However, there is little congruence on the theory and the existing frameworks have not been widely used, which as diluted the research applications for health system resilience. A global group of health system researchers were convened in March 2021 to discuss and identify priorities for health system resilience research and implementation based on lessons from COVID-19 and other health emergencies. Five research priority areas were identified: (1) measuring and managing systems dynamic performance, (2) the linkages between societal resilience and health system resilience, (3) the effect of governance on the capacity for resilience, (4) creating legitimacy and (5) the influence of the private sector on health system resilience. A key to filling these research gaps will be longitudinal and comparative case studies that use cocreation and coproduction approaches that go beyond researchers to include policy-makers, practitioners and the public.

Background: Research on health systems resilience has focused primarily on the theoretical development of the concept and its dimensions. There is an identified knowledge gap in the research on how to build resilience in health systems in practice and ‘what works’ in different contexts. The aim of this study is to identify practical strategies for building resilient health systems from the empirical research on health systems resilience. Methods: A scoping review included empirical research on health systems resilience from peer-reviewed literature. The search in the electronic databases PubMed, Web of Science, Global Health was conducted during January to March 2021 for articles published in English between 2013 to February 2021. A total of 1771 articles were screened, and data was extracted from 22 articles. The articles included empirical, applied research on strategies for resilience, that observed or measured resilience during shocks or chronic stress through collection of primary data or analysis of secondary data, or if they were a review study of empirical research. A narrative summary was done by identifying action-oriented strategies, comparing them, and presenting them by main thematic areas. Results: The results demonstrate examples of strategies used or recommended within nine identified thematic areas; use of community resources, governance and financing, leadership, surveillance, human resources, communication and collaboration, preparedness, organizational capacity and learning and finally health system strengthening. Conclusions: The findings emphasize the importance of improved governance and financing, empowered middle-level leadership, improved surveillance systems and strengthened human resources. A re-emphasized focus on health systems strengthening with better mainstreaming of health security and international health regulations are demonstrated in the results as a crucial strategy for building resilience. A lack of strategies for recovery and lessons learnt from crises are identified as gaps for resilience in future.