Proposed new International Health Regulations.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Nicoll A
PROVIDER: S-EPMC548715 | biostudies-literature | 2005 Feb
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Proposed new International Health Regulations.
Nicoll Angus A Jones Jane J Aavitsland Preben P Giesecke Johan J
BMJ (Clinical research ed.) 20050201 7487
Similar Datasets
Project description:The revised International Health Regulations (IHR [2005]) conferred new responsibilities on member states of the World Health Organization, requiring them to develop core capacities to detect, assess, report, and respond to public health emergencies. Many countries have not yet developed these capacities, and poor understanding of the associated costs have created a barrier to effectively marshaling assistance. To help national and international decision makers understand the inputs and associated costs of implementing the IHR (2005), we developed an IHR implementation strategy to serve as a framework for making preliminary estimates of fixed and operating costs associated with developing and sustaining IHR core capacities across an entire public health system. This tool lays the groundwork for modeling the costs of strengthening public health systems from the central to the peripheral level of an integrated health system, a key step in helping national health authorities define necessary actions and investments required for IHR compliance.
| S-EPMC3376815 | biostudies-literature
Project description:INTRODUCTION:Nine events have been assessed for potential declaration of a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC). A PHEIC is defined as an extraordinary event that constitutes a public health risk to other states through international spread and requires a coordinated international response. The WHO Director-General convenes Emergency Committees (ECs) to provide their advice on whether an event constitutes a PHEIC. The EC rationales have been criticised for being non-transparent and contradictory to the International Health Regulations (IHR). This first comprehensive analysis of EC rationale provides recommendations to increase clarity of EC decisions which will strengthen the IHR and WHO's legitimacy in future outbreaks. METHODS:66 EC statements were reviewed from nine public health outbreaks of influenza A, Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus, polio, Ebola virus disease, Zika, yellow fever and coronavirus disease-2019. Statements were analysed to determine which of the three IHR criteria were noted as contributing towards the EC's justification on whether to declare a PHEIC and what language was used to explain the decision. RESULTS:Interpretation of the criteria were often vague and applied inconsistently. ECs often failed to describe and justify which criteria had been satisfied. DISCUSSION:Guidelines must be developed for the standardised interpretation of IHR core criteria. The ECs must clearly identify and justify which criteria have contributed to their rationale for or against PHEIC declaration. CONCLUSION:Striving for more consistency and transparency in EC justifications would benefit future deliberations and provide more understanding and support for the process.
| S-EPMC7299007 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ASBTRACT The spread of infectious disease represents a global threat and therefore remains a priority on the international public health agenda. The International Health Regulations (IHR) (2005) came into effect in June 2007 and provide a legal framework to which the 196 member states of the World Health Assembly agree to abide. 1 These regulations include implementation of protective, control and response measures at points of entry to a country (i.e. land borders, sea and airports), and of notification measures, all of which aim to prevent or limit the spread of disease while minimising disruption to international trade. The World Health Organization can apply and enforce IHR (2005) to any disease considered to pose a significant threat to international public health. This short paper focuses on 2 diseases; yellow fever and poliomyelitis, both of which have the potential to spread internationally. It will discuss the measures applied under IHR (2005) to minimize the threat, and explore the implications for both travelers and travel health advisors.
| S-EPMC5084986 | biostudies-other
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC2464486 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Cooperative bioengagement efforts, as practiced by U.S. government-funded entities, such as the Defense Threat Reduction Agency's Cooperative Biological Engagement Program, the State Department's Biosecurity Engagement Program, and parallel programs in other countries, exist at the nexus between public health and security. These programs have an explicit emphasis on developing projects that address the priorities of the partner country as well as the donor. While the objectives of cooperative bioengagement programs focus on reducing the potential for accidental or intentional misuse and/or release of dangerous biological agents, many partner countries are interested in bioengagement as a means to improve basic public health capacities. This article examines the extent to which cooperative bioengagement projects address public health capacity building under the revised International Health Regulations and alignment with the Global Health Security Agenda action packages.
| S-EPMC4602103 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundInternational Health Regulations (IHR) were developed by the World Health Organization (WHO) to curb the trans-border spread of epidemics. To our knowledge, no airport-based studies have assessed travelers' health practices against a combination of diseases subject to IHR 2005. Therefore, we aimed to generate and describe the baseline travelers' pre-travel health practices towards Cholera, Yellow Fever (YF), and Plague at Murtala Muhammed International Airport (MMIA) in Nigeria.MethodsA cross-sectional study was employed to collect data from 486 international travelers using a multistage sampling technique. Pre-travel health practices (a combination of pre-travel consultation, pre-travel vaccination, and preventive measures against insect bites) were assessed using an interviewer-administered questionnaire. Logistic regression models were used to estimates the association between selected variables and pre-travel health practices. Statistical significance level was set at 5%.ResultsA total of 479 complete questionnaires were analyzed. The median age of respondents was 34.0 years Interquartile range (IQR) = 28.0, 44.0). Of the total respondents, 311 (64.3%) were aware of pre-travel health consultation and sources of information, amongst others, including friends/relatives in 180 (37.6%) travelers, social media/internet in 155 (32.4%) travelers, and health professionals in 102 (21.3%) travelers. Two hundred and seventy-one (56.6%) had pre-travel consultation, 156 (32.6%) had YF vaccination, and 226 (47.2%) were prepared to use preventive measures against insect bites. Only 10.6% had good pre-travel practices against the diseases subject to 2 International Health Regulations (IHR). Travelers with bachelor/college degrees, when compared to those with secondary/high education, had 2.91 times higher odds of having good practices when adjusting for other factors (95% C.I: 1.10, 7.70; p < 0.03). Also, those traveling to destinations endemic for YF infection, when compared to those who are not traveling to endemic countries/areas, had 48% lower odds of having good practices after adjusting for other factors (95% C.I: 1.41, 7.77; p < 0.01).ConclusionsOur study revealed a low prevalence of good pre-travel health practices among participants. Educational level and endemicity of YF at the destination were predictors of pre-travel health practices. Introducing topics on travelers' health into schools' curriculums may have a ripple positive effect on health practices among international travelers. Also, there is a need for public enlightenment programs on pre-travel health practices using social media platforms.
| S-EPMC10696719 | biostudies-literature
Project description:To discuss whether the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak constitutes a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC), World Health Organization (WHO) organized the 15-member International Health Regulations Emergency Committee (EC). On January 22-23 and January 30, 2020, EC convened and discussed whether the situation in China and other countries would constitute PHEIC and issued recommendations for WHO, China and the international community. Based on the recommendations of EC, WHO declared the COVID-19 outbreak a PHEIC. One of the purposes of the declaration of PHEIC was to alarm countries with weak public health infrastructures to prepare promptly for emerging infectious diseases (EID) and provide WHO with a framework for proactively supporting those countries. On February 3, 2020, WHO proposed the 2019 COVID-19 Strategic Preparedness and Response Plan, which includes accelerating research and development (R&D) processes as one of three major strategies. On February 11-12, 2020, WHO held the Global Research and Innovation Forum: Towards a Research Roadmap for COVID-19. The fact that a COVID-19 R&D forum was the first meeting convened after the PHEIC declaration testifies to the importance of R&D in response to EID. Korea has demonstrated a remarkable capacity in its laboratory response by conducting high-throughput COVID-19 testing and utilizing innovative drive-through samplings. These measures for early detection and screening of cases should be followed by full efforts to produce research-based evidence by thoroughly analyzing epidemiological, clinical and immunological data, which will facilitate the development of vaccines and therapeutics for COVID-19. It is expected that Korea plays a global partner for COVID-19 research by actively participating in immediate and mid/long-term priorities jointly led by WHO and global partners.
| S-EPMC7285442 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Every year, Australia identifies 2-3 outbreaks associated with imported foods. To examine national authorities' obligations under the International Health Regulations (2005), we reviewed outbreaks in 2001-2007 that implicated internationally distributed foods. Under these regulations, 6 (43%) [corrected] of 14 outbreaks would have required notification to the World Health Organization.
| S-EPMC2603118 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe 2005 International Health Regulations (IHR (2005)) require States Parties to establish National Focal Points (NFPs) responsible for notifying the World Health Organization (WHO) of potential events that might constitute public health emergencies of international concern (PHEICs), such as outbreaks of novel infectious diseases. Given the critical role of NFPs in the global surveillance and response system supported by the IHR, we sought to assess their experiences in carrying out their functions.MethodsIn collaboration with WHO officials, we administered a voluntary online survey to all 196 States Parties to the IHR (2005) in Africa, Asia, Europe, and South and North America, from October to November 2019. The survey was available in six languages via a secure internet-based system.ResultsIn total, 121 NFP representatives answered the 56-question survey; 105 in full, and an additional 16 in part, resulting in a response rate of 62% (121 responses to 196 invitations to participate). The majority of NFPs knew how to notify the WHO of a potential PHEIC, and believed they have the content expertise to carry out their functions. Respondents found training workshops organized by WHO Regional Offices helpful on how to report PHEICs. NFPs experienced challenges in four critical areas: 1) insufficient intersectoral collaboration within their countries, including limited access to, or a lack of cooperation from, key relevant ministries; 2) inadequate communications, such as deficient information technology systems in place to carry out their functions in a timely fashion; 3) lack of authority to report potential PHEICs; and 4) inadequacies in some resources made available by the WHO, including a key tool - the NFP Guide. Finally, many NFP representatives expressed concern about how WHO uses the information they receive from NFPs.ConclusionOur study, conducted just prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, illustrates key challenges experienced by NFPs that can affect States Parties and WHO performance when outbreaks occur. In order for NFPs to be able to rapidly and successfully communicate potential PHEICs such as COVID-19 in the future, continued measures need to be taken by both WHO and States Parties to ensure NFPs have the necessary authority, capacity, training, and resources to effectively carry out their functions as described in the IHR.
| S-EPMC7936598 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe International Health Regulations (IHRs) (2005) was developed with the aim of governing international responses to public health risks and emergencies. The document requires all 194 World Health Organization (WHO) Member States to detect, assess, notify and report any potential public health emergency of international concern (PHEIC) under specific timelines. Annex 2 of the IHR outlines decision-making criteria for State-appointed National Focal Points (NFP) to report potential PHEICs to the WHO, and is a critical component to the effective functioning of the IHRs.MethodsThe aim of the study was to review and evaluate the functioning of Annex 2 across WHO-reporting States Parties. Specific objectives were to ascertain NFP awareness and knowledge of Annex 2, practical use of the tool, activities taken to implement it, its perceived usefulness and user-friendliness. Qualitative telephone interviews, followed by a quantitative online survey, were administered to NFPs between October, 2009 and February, 2010.ResultsA total of 29 and 133 NFPs participated in the qualitative and quantitative studies, respectively. Qualitative interviews found most NFPs had a strong working knowledge of Annex 2; perceived the tool to be relevant and useful for guiding decisions; and had institutionalized management, legislation and communication systems to support it. NFPs also perceived Annex 2 as human and disease-centric, and emphasized its reduced applicability to potential PHEICs involving bioterrorist attacks, infectious diseases among animals, radio-nuclear and chemical spills, and water- or food-borne contamination. Among quantitative survey respondents, 88% reported having excellent/good knowledge of Annex 2; 77% reported always/usually using Annex 2 for assessing potential PHEICs; 76% indicated their country had some legal, regulatory or administrative provisions for using Annex 2; 95% indicated Annex 2 was always/usually useful for facilitating decisions regarding notifiability of potential PHEICs.ConclusionThis evaluation, including a large sample of WHO-reporting States Parties, found that the IHR's Annex 2 is perceived as useful for guiding decisions about notifiability of potential PHEICs. There is scope for the WHO to expand training and guidance on application of the IHR's Annex 2 to specific contexts. Continued monitoring and evaluation of the functioning of the IHR is imperative to promoting global health security.
| S-EPMC3313850 | biostudies-literature