The aim of this paper is to introduce an operational checklist to serve as a tool for policymakers in the WHO European Region to strengthen primary health care (PHC) services and address the COVID-19 pandemic more effectively and to present the results from piloting the tool in Armenia.

PHC has the potential to play a fundamental role in countries’ responses to COVID-19. However, this potential remains unrealized in many countries. To assist countries, the WHO Regional Office for Europe developed a guidance document – Strengthening the Health Systems Response to COVID-19: Adapting Primary Health Care Services to more Effectively Address COVID-19 – that identifies strategic actions countries can take to strengthen their PHC response to the pandemic. Based on this guidance document, an operational checklist was developed to serve as a tool for policymakers to operationalize the recommended actions.

The operational checklist was developed by transforming key points in the guidance document into questions in order to identify potentially modifiable factors to strengthen PHC in response to COVID-19. The operational checklist was then piloted in Armenia in June 2020 as part of a WHO mission to provide technical advice on strengthening Armenia’s PHC response to COVID-19. Two WHO experts performed semi-structured, face-to-face interviews with nine key informants (both facility managers and clinical staff) in three PHC facilities (two in a rural and one in an urban area). The data collected were analyzed to identify underlying challenges limiting PHC providers’ ability to effectively and efficiently respond to COVID-19 and maintain essential health services.

The paper finds that making adjustments only to health services delivery will be insufficient to address most of the challenges identified by PHC providers in the context of COVID-19 in Armenia. In particular, strategic responses to the pandemic were missed, due, in part, to the absence of COVID-19 management teams at the facility level. Furthermore, the absence of PHC experts in Armenia’s national pandemic response team meant that health system issues identified at the facility level could not easily be communicated to or addressed by policymakers. The checklist therefore helps policymakers identify critical challenges – at both the facility and health system level – that need to be addressed to strengthen the PHC response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Evidence syntheses perform rigorous investigations of the primary literature and they have played a vital role in generating evidence-based recommendations for governments worldwide during the Covid-19 pandemic. However, there has not yet been an attempt to organize them by topic and other characteristics. This study performed a systematic mapping exercise of non-clinical evidence syntheses pertaining to Covid-19.

This study conducted a systematic search on December 5, 2020 across 10 databases and servers: CINAHL (EBSCO Information Services, Ipswich, Massachusetts, United States), Embase (Elsevier, Aalborg, Denmark), Global Health (EBSCO Information Services, Ipswich, Massachusetts, United States), Healthstar (NICHSR and AHA, Bethesda, United States), MEDLINE (NLM, Bethesda, United States), PsychINFO (APA, Washington, DC, United States), Web of Science (Clarivate Analytics, London, UK), Research Square (Research Square, Durham, North Carolina), MEDRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, New York, United States), and PROSPERO (NIHR, York, United Kingdom). Only full evidence syntheses published in a peer-reviewed journal or preprint server were included.

This study classified all evidence syntheses in the following topics: health service delivery (n = 280), prevention and behavior (n = 201), mental health (n = 140), social epidemiology (n = 31), economy (n = 22), and environment (n = 19). This study provides a comprehensive resource of all evidence syntheses categorized according to topic.

This study proposes the following research priorities: governance, the impact of Covid-19 on different populations, the effectiveness of prevention and control methods across contexts, mental health, and vaccine hesitancy.

To examine health professionals’ views and practices relating to the specific barriers to communication that arise at the time of mental health diagnosis, and the strategies used to support individuals throughout this process.

An online survey of the beliefs and practices of 131 mental health clinicians working in different clinical settings across Australia was conducted.

Exploratory factor analysis of the items relating to barriers to communication resulted in three latent factors (‘stigma, diagnosis and risk’; ‘service structure’; and ‘individual circumstances’ such as the person receiving the diagnosis being young, having a culturally and linguistically diverse background or being unwell at the time of conversation). Using linear regression it was found that variance in ‘stigma, diagnosis and risk’ was significantly explained by whether participating clinicians had medical training, their experience working with serious mental health problems, their confidence handling distress and attitude towards diagnosis. Variance in ‘individual circumstances’ was significantly explained by participating clinicians’ confidence handling distress. The most frequently used strategies to support diagnostic discussions centred on the health professionals’ communication skills, gauging the individual's perception of their circumstances, responding with empathy, following-up after discussion, addressing stigma concerns, using collaborative practice and setting up for the conversation.

Three main areas for health professionals to reflect on, plan for and ultimately address when discussing news with the individual concerned emerged (‘stigma, diagnosis and risk’; ‘service structure’; and ‘individual circumstances’). Variations in practice indicate that practitioners should be cognisant of their own beliefs and background and how this impacts their communication practice.