Seye Abimbola and co-authors argue for a transformation in global health research and practice in the post-COVID-19 world.

Power is a growing area of study for researchers and practitioners working in the field of health policy and systems research (HPSR). Theoretical development and empirical research on power are crucial for providing deeper, more nuanced understandings of the mechanisms and structures leading to social inequities and health disparities; placing contemporary policy concerns in a wider historical, political and social context; and for contributing to the (re)design or reform of health systems to drive progress towards improved health outcomes. Nonetheless, explicit analyses of power in HPSR remain relatively infrequent, and there are no comprehensive resources that serve as theoretical and methodological starting points. This paper aims to fill this gap by providing a consolidated guide to researchers wishing to consider, design and conduct power analyses of health policies or systems. This practice article presents a synthesis of theoretical and conceptual understandings of power; describes methodologies and approaches for conducting power analyses; discusses how they might be appropriately combined; and throughout reflects on the importance of engaging with positionality through reflexive praxis. Expanding research on power in health policy and systems will generate key insights needed to address underlying drivers of health disparities and strengthen health systems for all.

Objective: We provide an in-depth understanding of how governance and decision-making during the COVID-19 pandemic has been empirically characterized in the literature to identify gaps in research and highlight areas that require further inquiry.Methods: We searched peer-reviewed publications using empirical data published between Jan 1, 2020 and Jan 31, 2022 in three electronic databases to examine the process of governance and decision-making during the COVID-19 pandemic. Two authors independently screened the records and 24 publications were extracted for the review.Results: Governance is analyzed by its level at national, sub-national, community and by its aspects of process, determinants and performance. While different methodological approaches are used, governance is conceptualized in four ways 1) characteristics and elements, 2) leadership, 3) application of power and 4) models or arrangements of governance.Conclusion: For future pandemic preparedness, there is a need for more empirical research using a unified conceptual approach to governance, which integrates decision-making processes and can guide governance structures and mechanisms across different countries and contexts. We call for more inclusivity in who performs the research on governance and where.

Background: Uncertainty is defined as limited knowledge or lack of predictability about past, present or future events. The COVID-19 pandemic management was significantly impacted by uncertainty, as the gaps between existing information and the necessary knowledge hindered decision-making. Current uncertainty literature primarily focuses on natural disasters, leaving a gap in understanding decision-making under uncertainty in times of public health emergencies. Analysing strategies for making decisions under uncertainty during the pandemic is crucial for future pandemic preparedness. Methods: Using a comparative research design, we study the strategies governments used to make decisions under uncertainty during the COVID-19 pandemic. We collected data through desk reviews, stakeholder interviews and focus group discussions with stakeholders from government, academia and civil society from six purposefully selected countries: Nigeria, Singapore, South Africa, Bangladesh, Jordan and the UK. Results: Regardless of political, geographic and economic context, all six countries adopted common strategies to make decisions under three types of uncertainties. Decision-making under epistemic uncertainty involved seeking expert advice and collecting evidence from other countries and international organisations. Decision-making under strategic uncertainty involved coordination, collaboration and communication. Decision-making under institutional uncertainty involved using or adapting pre-existing experiences, structures and relationships and establishing new institutions and processes. Conclusions: We contribute to the theory and practice of public health crisis decision-making by presenting a unified national-level applied decision-making framework for events involving uncertainty. We provide practical guidance for approaches to enhance decision-making in future health crises that could also be used for other emergencies.

Background Decision-making during health crises differs from routine decision-making and is constrained by ambiguity about evolving epidemiological situations, urgency of response, lack of evidence, and fear. Recent analyses of governance and decision-making during COVID-19, focusing on leadership qualities, involvement of specific stakeholders, and effective resource management, do not adequately address a persisting gap in understanding the determinants of decision-making during health crises at the national level. Methods We undertook a study to understand the processes and characteristics of decision-making during the COVID-19 pandemic in Singapore. We used a case study approach and collected empirical evidence about public health decision-making, using a combination of key informant interviews and focus group discussions with stakeholders from government, academia and civil society organizations. Findings We argue that administrative centralization and political legitimacy played important roles in agile governance and decision-making during the pandemic in Singapore. We demonstrate the role of the Singapore government ' s centralization in creating a unified and coherent governance model for emergency response and the People ' s Action Party ' s (PAP) legitimacy in facilitating people ' s trust in the government. Health system resilience and fi nancial reserves further facilitated an agile response, yet community participation and prioritization of vulnerable migrant populations were insuff i cient in the governance processes. Interpretation Our analysis contributes to the theory and practice of crisis decision-making by highlighting the role of political and administrative determinants in agile crisis decision-making. Funding This study is funded by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention through a Cooperative Research Agreement (NU2HGH2020000037). Copyright (c) 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).