Rev Panam Salud Publica
December 2024
International ethical standards for research involving persons who have diminished decision-making capacity allow for delegation of the decision to participate in research to a representative who can act as a surrogate decision-maker. However, this approach has been questioned by the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), according to which all persons with disabilities, regardless of their mental or neurological condition, always have universal legal capacity to make decisions. The incompatibility between ethical standards and the CRPD is clear and impacts the conduct of research involving people with mental disabilities, which is essential for the improvement of their health and well-being.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFBackground: The COVID-19 pandemic forced governments across the world to consider how to prioritize resource allocation. Most countries produced pandemic preparedness plans that guide and coordinate healthcare, including how to allocate scarce resources such as ventilators, human resources, and therapeutics. The objective of this study was to compare and contrast the extent to which established parameters for effective priority setting (PS) were incorporated into COVID-19 pandemic response planning in several countries around the world.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFGlobal health reciprocal innovation (GHRI) is a recent and more formalised approach to conducting research that recognises and develops innovations (eg, medicines, devices, methodologies) from low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). At present, studies using GHRI most commonly adapt innovations from LMICs for use in high-income countries (HICs), although some develop innovations in LMICs and HICs. In this paper, we propose that GHRI implicitly makes two ethical commitments: (1) to promote health innovations from LMICs, especially in HICs, and (2) to conduct studies on health innovations from LMICs in equitable partnerships between investigators in LMICs and HICs.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFStakeholder participation is a key component of a fair and equitable priority-setting in health. The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the need for fair and equitable priority setting, and hence, stakeholder participation. To date, there is limited literature on stakeholder participation in the development of the pandemic plans (including the priority setting plans) that were rapidly developed during the pandemic.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFBackground: While priority setting is recognized as critical for promoting accountability and transparency in health system planning, its role in supporting rational, equitable and fair pandemic planning and responses is less well understood. This study aims to describe how priority setting was used to support planning in the initial stage of the pandemic response in a subset of countries in the Western Pacific Region (WPR).
Methods: We purposively sampled a subset of countries from WPR and undertook a critical document review of the initial national COVID-19 pandemic response plans.