Dataset Information

The Global Health Security index and Joint External Evaluation score for health preparedness are not correlated with countries' COVID-19 detection response time and mortality outcome.

ABSTRACT: Global Health Security Index (GHSI) and Joint External Evaluation (JEE) are two well-known health security and related capability indices. We hypothesised that countries with higher GHSI or JEE scores would have detected their first COVID-19 case earlier, and would experience lower mortality outcome compared to countries with lower scores. We evaluated the effectiveness of GHSI and JEE in predicting countries' COVID-19 detection response times and mortality outcome (deaths/million). We used two different outcomes for the evaluation: (i) detection response time, the duration of time to the first confirmed case detection (from 31st December 2019 to 20th February 2020 when every country's first case was linked to travel from China) and (ii) mortality outcome (deaths/million) until 11th March and 1st July 2020, respectively. We interpreted the detection response time alongside previously published relative risk of the importation of COVID-19 cases from China. We performed multiple linear regression and negative binomial regression analysis to evaluate how these indices predicted the actual outcome. The two indices, GHSI and JEE were strongly correlated (r = 0.82), indicating a good agreement between them. However, both GHSI (r = 0.31) and JEE (r = 0.37) had a poor correlation with countries' COVID-19-related mortality outcome. Higher risk of importation of COVID-19 from China for a given country was negatively correlated with the time taken to detect the first case in that country (adjusted R2 = 0.63-0.66), while the GHSI and JEE had minimal predictive value. In the negative binomial regression model, countries' mortality outcome was strongly predicted by the percentage of the population aged 65 and above (incidence rate ratio (IRR): 1.10 (95% confidence interval (CI): 1.01-1.21) while overall GHSI score (IRR: 1.01 (95% CI: 0.98-1.01)) and JEE (IRR: 0.99 (95% CI: 0.96-1.02)) were not significant predictors. GHSI and JEE had lower predictive value for detection response time and mortality outcome due to COVID-19. We suggest introduction of a population healthiness parameter, to address demographic and comorbidity vulnerabilities, and reappraisal of the ranking system and methods used to obtain the index based on experience gained from this pandemic.

SUBMITTER: Haider N

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7506172 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The Global Health Security index and Joint External Evaluation score for health preparedness are not correlated with countries' COVID-19 detection response time and mortality outcome.

Haider Najmul N Yavlinsky Alexei A Chang Yu-Mei YM Hasan Mohammad Nayeem MN Benfield Camilla C Osman Abdinasir Yusuf AY Uddin Md Jamal MJ Dar Osman O Ntoumi Francine F Zumla Alimuddin A Kock Richard R

Epidemiology and infection 20200907

Global Health Security Index (GHSI) and Joint External Evaluation (JEE) are two well-known health security and related capability indices. We hypothesised that countries with higher GHSI or JEE scores would have detected their first COVID-19 case earlier, and would experience lower mortality outcome compared to countries with lower scores. We evaluated the effectiveness of GHSI and JEE in predicting countries' COVID-19 detection response times and mortality outcome (deaths/million). We used two ...[more]

PMID: 32892793

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesThe COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the importance and complexity of a country's ability to effectively respond. The Joint External Evaluation (JEE) assessment was launched in 2016 to assess a country's ability to prevent, detect and respond to public health emergencies. We examined whether JEE indicators could be used to predict a country's COVID-19 response performance to tailor a country's support more effectively.DesignFrom April to August 2020, we conducted interviews with Centers for Disease Control and Prevention country offices that requested COVID-19 support and previously completed the JEE (version 1.0). We used an assessment tool, the 'Emergency Response Capacity Tool' (ERCT), to assess COVID-19 response performance. We analysed 28 ERCT indicators aligned with eight JEE indicators to assess concordance and discordance using strict agreement and weighted kappa statistics. Generalised estimating equation (GEE) models were used to generate predicted probabilities for ERCT scores using JEE scores as the independent model variable.ResultsTwenty-three countries met inclusion criteria. Of the 163 indicators analysed, 42.3% of JEE and ERCT scores were in agreement (p value=0.02). The JEE indicator with the highest agreement (62%) was 'Emergency Operations Center (EOC) operating procedures and plans', while the lowest (16%) was 'capacity to activate emergency operations'. Findings were consistent with weighted kappa statistics. In the GEE model, EOC operating procedures and plans had the highest predicted probability (0.86), while indicators concerning response strategy and coordination had the lowest (≤0.5).ConclusionsOverall, there was low agreement between JEE scores and COVID-19 response performance, with JEE scores often trending higher. JEE indicators concerning coordination and operations were least predictive of COVID-19 response performance, underscoring the importance of not inferring country response readiness from JEE scores alone. More in-depth country-specific investigations are likely needed to accurately estimate response capacity and tailor countries' global health security activities.

Project description:BackgroundNatural and human-made public health emergencies (PHEs), such as armed conflicts, floods, and disease outbreaks, influence health systems including interruption of delivery and utilization of health services, and increased health service needs. However, the intensity and types of impacts of these PHEs vary across countries due to several associated factors. This scoping review aimed to synthesise available evidence on PHEs, their preparedness, impacts, and responses.MethodsWe conducted a scoping review of published evidence. Studies were identified using search terms related to two concepts: health security and primary health care. We used Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines to select studies. We adapted the review framework of Arksey and O'Malley. Data were analyzed using a thematic analysis approach and explained under three stages of PHEs: preparedness, impacts, and responses.ResultsA total of 64 studies were included in this review. Health systems of many low- and middle-income countries had inadequate preparedness to absorb the shocks of PHEs, limited surveillance, and monitoring of risks. Health systems have been overburdened with interrupted health services, increased need for health services, poor health resilience, and health inequities. Strategies of response to the impact of PHEs included integrated services such as public health and primary care, communication and partnership across sectors, use of digital tools, multisectoral coordination and actions, system approach to responses, multidisciplinary providers, and planning for resilient health systems.ConclusionsPublic health emergencies have high impacts in countries with weak health systems, inadequate preparedness, and inadequate surveillance mechanisms. Better health system preparedness is required to absorb the impact, respond to the consequences, and adapt for future PHEs. Some potential response strategies could be ensuring need-based health services, monitoring and surveillance of post-emergency outbreaks, and multisectoral actions to engage sectors to address the collateral impacts of PHEs. Mitigation strategies for future PHEs could include risk assessment, disaster preparedness, and setting digital alarm systems for monitoring and surveillance.

Project description:Women's autonomy and empowerment in their homes, communities, and societies at large have been shown, through many direct and indirect pathways, to be associated with maternal and infant health. A novel global measure-the Women, Peace, and Security (WPS) Index-that bridges insights from gender and development indices with those from peace and security has recently been developed to capture the constructs of women's inclusion, justice, and security, using indicators and targets in the Sustainable Development Goals. This paper adds to the growing literature about the importance of gender inequality to key mortality outcomes for women and children by investigating the associations between nations' WPS Index scores and maternal mortality ratios and infant mortality rates. We use a range of international databases to obtain country-level data from 144 nations on health, demographic, income, and gender equality indicators. The aim is to highlight the role of women's inclusion, justice, and security in explaining national rates of maternal and infant mortality. Fully adjusted Poisson regression models indicate that a one point (0.01) increase on the WPS Index score is associated with a 2.0% reduction in the number of maternal deaths and a 2.3% reduction in the number of infant deaths. For a country such as Sierra Leone, with a maternal mortality ratio of 1360 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births, a one point improvement in the WPS Index would correspond to a maternal mortality ratio of 1,332, or 28 fewer deaths per 100,000 births. These associations are ecological and apply to the average level of mortality at the country level rather than the likelihood or risk faced at the individual level. Although we cannot claim causality for the observed relations in the cross-country regressions, the findings and recurring patterns are both suggestive and encouraging about the potential contributions of women's inclusion, justice, and security to maternal and infant mortality.

Project description:Background The 2015 Lancet Commission on global surgery identified surgery and anaesthesia as indispensable parts of holistic health-care systems. However, COVID-19 exposed the fragility of planned surgical services around the world, which have also been neglected in pandemic recovery planning. This study aimed to develop and validate a novel index to support local elective surgical system strengthening and address growing backlogs. Methods First, we performed an international consultation through a four-stage consensus process to develop a multidomain index for hospital-level assessment (surgical preparedness index; SPI). Second, we measured surgical preparedness across a global network of hospitals in high-income countries (HICs), middle-income countries (MICs), and low-income countries (LICs) to explore the distribution of the SPI at national, subnational, and hospital levels. Finally, using COVID-19 as an example of an external system shock, we compared hospitals' SPI to their planned surgical volume ratio (SVR; ie, operations for which the decision for surgery was made before hospital admission), calculated as the ratio of the observed surgical volume over a 1-month assessment period between June 6 and Aug 5, 2021, against the expected surgical volume based on hospital administrative data from the same period in 2019 (ie, a pre-pandemic baseline). A linear mixed-effects regression model was used to determine the effect of increasing SPI score. Findings In the first phase, from a longlist of 103 candidate indicators, 23 were prioritised as core indicators of elective surgical system preparedness by 69 clinicians (23 [33%] women; 46 [67%] men; 41 from HICs, 22 from MICs, and six from LICs) from 32 countries. The multidomain SPI included 11 indicators on facilities and consumables, two on staffing, two on prioritisation, and eight on systems. Hospitals were scored from 23 (least prepared) to 115 points (most prepared). In the second phase, surgical preparedness was measured in 1632 hospitals by 4714 clinicians from 119 countries. 745 (45·6%) of 1632 hospitals were in MICs or LICs. The mean SPI score was 84·5 (95% CI 84·1–84·9), which varied between HIC (88·5 [89·0–88·0]), MIC (81·8 [82·5–81·1]), and LIC (66·8 [64·9–68·7]) settings. In the third phase, 1217 (74·6%) hospitals did not maintain their expected SVR during the COVID-19 pandemic, of which 625 (51·4%) were from HIC, 538 (44·2%) from MIC, and 54 (4·4%) from LIC settings. In the mixed-effects model, a 10-point increase in SPI corresponded to a 3·6% (95% CI 3·0–4·1; p<0·0001) increase in SVR. This was consistent in HIC (4·8% [4·1–5·5]; p<0·0001), MIC (2·8 [2·0–3·7]; p<0·0001), and LIC (3·8 [1·3–6·7%]; p<0·0001) settings. Interpretation The SPI contains 23 indicators that are globally applicable, relevant across different system stressors, vary at a subnational level, and are collectable by front-line teams. In the case study of COVID-19, a higher SPI was associated with an increased planned surgical volume ratio independent of country income status, COVID-19 burden, and hospital type. Hospitals should perform annual self-assessment of their surgical preparedness to identify areas that can be improved, create resilience in local surgical systems, and upscale capacity to address elective surgery backlogs. Funding National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Global Health Research Unit on Global Surgery, NIHR Academy, Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland, Bowel Research UK, British Association of Surgical Oncology, British Gynaecological Cancer Society, and Medtronic.

Dataset Information

The Global Health Security index and Joint External Evaluation score for health preparedness are not correlated with countries' COVID-19 detection response time and mortality outcome.

Publications

The Global Health Security index and Joint External Evaluation score for health preparedness are not correlated with countries' COVID-19 detection response time and mortality outcome.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets