Improving an integrative framework of health system resilience and climate change: Lessons from Bangladesh and Haiti

The analysis of health system resilience has advanced considerably, yet a wide range of conceptual frameworks continues to be employed. The ClimHB conceptual framework, developed in 2019, combines two influential models: the Levesque model of healthcare access and the DFID’s resilience framework. It is designed to examine health system resilience in response to climate-induced events. What sets the ClimHB framework apart is its emphasis on the population as an active participant on the demand side, complementing the supply side represented by healthcare services and providers. The framework is defined by three key dimensions – exposure, sensitivity, adaptive capacity. Its dual focus on demand and supply highlights their dynamic interaction in shaping health system resilience. A workshop and the World Café method refined the ClimHB framework by incorporating empirical data from Haiti and Bangladesh with findings from a literature review. The updated framework offers a dynamic perspective on resilience, focusing on the interconnected nature of its elements to guide decision-making across all levels of health systems. Key enhancements include greater emphasis on contextual factors, highlighting the influence of socio-economic and ecological conditions. It also features strengthened connections between resilience outcomes and contextual variables, improving the understanding of how context affects results. Governance and professional awareness were highlighted as critical elements for improving health system responses, and feedback loops were integrated in the supply side to enhance adaptability and decision-making processes. Empirical studies have demonstrated the ClimHB framework’s adaptability and capacity to create synergy between theoretical concepts and practical implementation. However, challenges remain in operationalising the framework for policymakers. These challenges highlight the need for further validation of the framework, the development of standardised measures, and a deeper understanding of resilience dynamics. Future research should prioritise the framework’s implications for structural management, workforce training, and resource allocation, addressing critical gaps in resilience research.