UNASSIGNED: The WHO emphasises that rehabilitation services must be integrated into primary healthcare as an inherent part of universal health coverage. However, there is limited research on the integration of rehabilitation services in primary healthcare in low- and middle-income countries. The purpose of this paper is to identify and describe the literature on service guidelines, models, and protocols that support the integration of rehabilitation services in primary healthcare in the BRICS countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa).
UNASSIGNED: A scoping review guided by Arksey and O\'Malley\'s framework was conducted. Structured database and website searches identified published and unpublished records from 2010, which were subjected to eligibility criteria. Mendeley, JBI SUMARI, and Microsoft Excel were used to extract and synthesise the data.
UNASSIGNED: The search strategy identified 542 records. Thirty-two records met the inclusion criteria. Shared care and community-based rehabilitation were the most reported practice models, and the implementation of the models, guidelines, and protocols was mostly described in mental health services.
UNASSIGNED: This review discusses BRICS countries\' rehabilitation service guidelines, models, and protocols for primary healthcare integration and implementation challenges. Rehabilitation professionals should rethink, realign, and apply existing models because of the lack of primary healthcare integration directives.
The integration of rehabilitation services in low-resourced and remote settings can be improved by involving community health workers and community rehabilitation workers in transdisciplinary teams.Peer support workers and community health workers can improve rehabilitation outcomes, particularly through shared care models that emphasize peer-to-peer learning, mentoring, and coaching.Self-management interventions can have a positive impact on functional outcomes.Integrated rehabilitation services in primary healthcare can be supported through community-based rehabilitation, which emphasises community involvement and engagement.

The World Health Organization Model List of Essential Medicines has led to at least 137 national lists. Essential medicines should be grounded in evidence-based guideline recommendations and explicit decision criteria. Essential medicines should be available, accessible, affordable, and the supporting evidence should be accompanied by a rating of the certainty one can place in it. Our objectives were to identify criteria and considerations that should be addressed in moving from a guideline recommendation regarding a medicine to the decision of whether to add, maintain, or remove a medicine from an essential medicines list. We also seek to explore opportunities to improve organizational processes to support evidence-based health decision-making more broadly.
We conducted a qualitative study with semistructured interviews of key informant stakeholders in the development and use of guidelines and essential medicine lists (EMLs). We used an interpretive descriptive analysis approach and thematic analysis of interview transcripts in NVIVO v12.
We interviewed 16 key informants working at national and global levels across all WHO regions. We identified five themes: three descriptive/explanatory themes 1) EMLs and guidelines, the same, but different; 2) EMLs can drive price reductions and improve affordability and access; 3) Time lag and disconnect between guidelines and EMLs; and two prescriptive themes 4) An \"evidence pipeline\" could improve coordination between guidelines and EMLs; 5) Facilitating the link between the WHO Model List of Essential Medicines (WHO EML) and national EMLs could increase alignment.
We found significant overlap and opportunities for alignment between guideline and essential medicine decision processes. This finding presents opportunities for guideline and EML developers to enhance strategies for collaboration. Future research should assess and evaluate these strategies in practice to support the shared goal of guidelines and EMLs: improvements in health.

UNASSIGNED: Standard Treatment Guidelines (STGs) are time-tested tool to improve healthcare quality and patient safety. This study was done to review the available guidelines and assess their essential attributes using AGREE reporting checklist 2016.
UNASSIGNED: Publications from PubMed, World Health Organization, Global Health Regional Libraries, Index Medicus, Google, Google Scholar, and insurers, state/central government portals were searched.
UNASSIGNED: In total, 241 STGs met the inclusion criteria. A range of developers with a varying focus and priorities developed these guidelines (government mostly under national programs 134 (56%); professional associations 67 (28%), academic/research institutions 36 (15%); international agencies 4 [2%]). The government-led guidelines focused on program operations (mainly infections, maternal, and childcare), whereas insurers focused on surgical procedures for protection against fraudulent intentions for claims. The available STGs varied largely in terms of development process rigor, end-user involvement, updation, applicability, etc.; 12% guidelines developed documented GRADE criteria for evidence. Most guidelines focused on the primary care, and only 27 and 7% included treatment at tertiary and secondary levels, respectively, focused on general practitioners.
UNASSIGNED: There is a need for coordinated, and collaborative efforts to generate evidence-based guidelines, facilitate periodic revisions, standardized development process, and the standards for monitoring embedded in the guidelines. A single designated authority for the standard treatment guidelines development and a central web-based repository with free access for clinicians/users will ensure wide access to quality guidelines enhancing acceptance and stewardship.

As part of the WHO Rehabilitation 2030 call for action, the WHO Rehabilitation Programme is developing its Package of Interventions for Rehabilitation (PIR) to support ministries of health around the globe in integrating rehabilitation services into health systems. As a vital step for this PIR development, we conducted a systematic review of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for dementia to identify interventions for rehabilitation and related evidence.
Following WHO Rehabilitation Programme and Cochrane Rehabilitation\'s methodology, quality CPGs published in English between January 2010 and March 2020 were identified using PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, PEDro, Google Scholar, guideline databases, and professional society websites. Guideline quality was assessed using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (II).
Of the 22 CPGs that met the selection criteria, 6 satisfied the quality evaluation. Three hundred and thirty rehabilitation-related recommendations were identified, mostly concentrated in the areas of cognition, emotion, and carer support. There were many strong interventions, with moderate- to high-quality evidence that could be easily introduced in routine practice. However, major limitations were found both in the quality of evidence and scope, especially in areas such as education and vocation, community and social life, and lifestyle modifications.
Further rigorous research is needed to build quality evidence in dementia rehabilitation in general, and especially in neglected areas for rehabilitation. Future work should also focus on the development of CPGs for dementia rehabilitation. A multipronged approach is needed to achieve Universal Health Coverage for dementia rehabilitation.

The purpose of this consensus paper was to convene leaders and scholars from eight Expert Panels of the American Academy of Nursing and provide recommendations to advance nursing\'s roles and responsibility to ensure universal access to palliative care. Part I of this consensus paper herein provides the rationale and background to support the policy, education, research, and clinical practice recommendations put forward in Part II. On behalf of the Academy, the evidence-based recommendations will guide nurses, policy makers, government representatives, professional associations, and interdisciplinary and community partners to integrate palliative nursing services across health and social care settings. The consensus paper\'s 43 authors represent eight countries (Australia, Canada, England, Kenya, Lebanon, Liberia, South Africa, United States of America) and extensive international health experience, thus providing a global context for the subject matter. The authors recommend greater investments in palliative nursing education and nurse-led research, nurse engagement in policy making, enhanced intersectoral partnerships with nursing, and an increased profile and visibility of palliative nurses worldwide. By enacting these recommendations, nurses working in all settings can assume leading roles in delivering high-quality palliative care globally, particularly for minoritized, marginalized, and other at-risk populations.

The purpose of this consensus paper was to convene leaders and scholars from eight Expert Panels of the American Academy of Nursing and provide recommendations to advance nursing\'s roles and responsibility to ensure universal access to palliative care. On behalf of the Academy, these evidence-based recommendations will guide nurses, policy makers, government representatives, professional associations, and interdisciplinary and community partners to integrate palliative nursing services across health and social care settings. Through improved palliative nursing education, nurse-led research, nurse engagement in policy making, enhanced intersectoral partnerships with nursing, and an increased profile and visibility of palliative care nurses worldwide, nurses can assume leading roles in delivering high-quality palliative care globally, particularly for minoritized, marginalized, and other at-risk populations. Part II herein provides a summary of international responses and policy options that have sought to enhance universal palliative care and palliative nursing access to date. Additionally, we provide ten policy, education, research, and clinical practice recommendations based on the rationale and background information found in Part I. The consensus paper\'s 43 authors represent eight countries (Australia, Canada, England, Kenya, Lebanon, Liberia, South Africa, United States of America) and extensive international health experience, thus providing a global context for the subject matter.

The WHO Consultative Group on Equity and Universal Health Coverage published a comprehensive report titled \"Making Fair Choices on the Path to Universal Health Coverage\" detailing strategies that countries should adopt when moving towards providing healthcare coverage to the entire population. The report provides detailed guidelines on how to expand coverage to more people, what services should be covered, and how to prioritize these healthcare resources in achieving universal healthcare coverage (UHC). The main goal of this WHO report is to ensure fair and equitable access for all population groups within a country during the implementation of UHC. In principle, the group\'s approach is sound and fair, but we argue that each country must take into account its own unique situations in designing a pathway towards UHC. China has achieved near UHC but did so by an approach that would have been deemed completely unacceptable based on this group\'s recommendations. In this article, we provide a brief review of the Chinese healthcare system and argue that the implementation of the recommendations in the report is not always feasible. We argue that there are alternate pathways towards achieving UHC and there are good reasons for China\'s departure from the approach outlined by the WHO report. Nevertheless, we acknowledge substantial inequities still exist for various segments of the population and among the diverse areas of China in accessing healthcare services and make suggestions on how to reduce such inequities within the system.

BACKGROUND: Heterogeneous government responses have been reported in reaction to COVID-19. The aim of this study is to generate an exploratory review of healthcare policies published during COVID-19 by health-care institutions in Mexico. Analyzing policies within different health sub-systems becomes imperative in the Mexican case due to the longstanding fragmentation of the health-care system and health inequalities.
METHODS: Policies purposely included in the analysis were published by four public health institutions (IMSS, ISSSTE, SSA and PEMEX) during the COVID-19 epidemic in Mexico (from February 29th to June 15th, 2020) on official institutional websites. Researchers reviewed each document and classified them into seven policy categories set by the Rapid Research Evaluation and Appraisal Lab (RREAL): public health response, health-care delivery, human resources, health-system infrastructure and supplies, clinical response, health-care management, and epidemiological surveillance.
RESULTS: Policy types varied by health institution. The largest number of policies were aimed at public health responses followed by health-care delivery and human resources. Policies were mainly published during the community transmission phase.
CONCLUSIONS: The pandemic exposed underlying health-care system inequalities and a reactive rather than prepared response to the outbreak. Additionally, this study outlines potential policy gaps and delays in the response that could be avoided in the future.

BACKGROUND: China has achieved near-universal health coverage (UHC) for 95 percent of its population (>1.3 billion lives) as a result of healthcare reforms that began in 2009. However, one of many remaining issues in the Chinese healthcare system is the need to better optimize the allocation and use of healthcare resources in order to meet growing healthcare demands.
OBJECTIVE: The goals are to highlight the components of the China Guidelines for Pharmacoeconomic Evaluations (CGPE) 2020 Edition and discuss its future development for UHC in China.
METHODS: We review the development process of the CGPE 2020 edition, discuss the contemporary practice of the CGPE for UHC in China, describe new opportunities and challenges to the CGPE, and provide suggestions on the future development of the CGPE based on the current state of the healthcare system in China.
RESULTS: Pharmacoeconomics provides tools to evaluate the health returns and economic costs of pharmaceutical products in a scientific way for the optimal allocation of healthcare resources. Considering the great potential of pharmacoeconomics in China, demonstrated by its rapid development and recognition as a research field in the past decade, the standardization of pharmacoeconomic evaluations has become particularly important to improve the accuracy of evaluation results used for drug selection, price negotiations and adjustments.
CONCLUSIONS: Suggestions are made for the integration of CGPE into current framework of UHC in China, including standardizing the pharmacoeconomic evaluation process and updating CGPE on topics such as ethics and real-world research. The CGPE 2020 edition offers a standard to improve the quality of pharmacoeconomic evaluation research and enhance the value and efficiency of UHC in China.

Definitions of health systems strengthening (HSS) have been limited in their inclusion of communities, despite evidence that community involvement improves program effectiveness for many health interventions. We review 15 frameworks for HSS, highlighting how communities are represented and find few delineated roles for community members or organizations. This review raises the need for a cohesive definition of community involvement in HSS and well-described activities that communities can play in the process. We discuss how communities can engage with HSS in four different areas-planning and priority-setting; program implementation; monitoring, evaluation, and quality improvement; and advocacy-and how these activities could be better incorporated into key HSS frameworks. We argue for more carefully designed interactions between health systems policies and structures, planned health systems improvements, and local communities. These interactions should consider local community inputs, strengths, cultural and social assets, as well as limitations in and opportunities for increasing capacity for better health outcomes.