Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) is the most common cause of acute lower respiratory infection in young children. We previously estimated that in 2015, 33·1 million episodes of RSV-associated acute lower respiratory infection occurred in children aged 0-60 months, resulting in a total of 118 200 deaths worldwide. Since then, several community surveillance studies have been done to obtain a more precise estimation of RSV associated community deaths. We aimed to update RSV-associated acute lower respiratory infection morbidity and mortality at global, regional, and national levels in children aged 0-60 months for 2019, with focus on overall mortality and narrower infant age groups that are targeted by RSV prophylactics in development.

The UN has declared universal health coverage an urgent global goal. Efforts to achieve this goal have been supported by rigorous research on the scientific, technical, and administrative aspects of health systems design. Yet a substantial portion of the world's population does not have access to essential health services. There is growing recognition that achieving universal health coverage is a political challenge. However, fundamental concepts from the political science discipline are often overlooked in the health literature. This Series paper draws on political science research to highlight the ways in which politics can facilitate, or stymie, policy reform. Specifically, we present a framework of analysis that explores how interests, ideas, and institutions shape universal health coverage. We then examine key considerations relating to the implementation of relevant policies. This Series paper shows that a political understanding of universal health coverage is needed to achieve health for all.

Over the past two decades, global health diplomacy, foreign policy for health, and global health policy have changed substantially. Diplomacy is a constitutive part of the system of global health governance. COVID-19 hit the world when multilateral cooperation was subject to major challenges, and global health has since become integral to geopolitics. The importance of global health diplomacy, especially at WHO, in keeping countries jointly committed to improving health for everyone, has once again been shown. Through a systematic review, this Series paper explores how international relations concepts and theories have been applied to better understand the role of power in shaping positions, negotiations, and outcomes in global health diplomacy. We apply an international relations perspective to reflect on the effect that those concepts and theories have had on global health diplomacy over the past two decades. This Series paper argues that a more central role of international relations concepts and theories in analysing global health diplomacy would help develop a more nuanced understanding of global health policy making. However, the world has changed to an extent that was not envisioned in academic discourse. This shift calls for new international relations concepts and theories to inform global health diplomacy.

Health issues vary in the amount of attention and resources they receive from global health organisations and national governments. How issues are framed could shape differences in levels of priority. We reviewed scholarship on global health policy making to examine the role of framing in shaping global health priorities. The review provides evidence of the influence of three framing processes-securitisation, moralisation, and technification. Securitisation refers to an issue's framing as an existential threat, moralisation as an ethical imperative, and technification as a wise investment that science can solve. These framing processes concern more than how issues are portrayed publicly. They are socio-political processes, characterised by contestation among actors in civil society, government, international organisations, foundations, and research institutions. These actors deploy various forms of power to advance particular frames as a means of securing attention and resources for the issues that concern them. The ascription of an issue as a security concern, an ethical imperative, or a wise investment is historically contingent: it is not inevitable that any given issue will be framed in one or more of these ways. A health issue's inherent characteristics-such as the lethality of a pathogen that causes it-also shape these ascriptions, but do not fully determine them. Although commonly facing resistance, global health elites often determine which frames prevail, raising questions about the legitimacy of priority-setting processes. We draw on the review to offer ideas on how to make these processes fairer than they are at present, including a call for democratic representation even as necessary space is preserved for elite expertise.