Dataset Information

Towards defining core principles of public health emergency preparedness: scoping review and Delphi consultation among European Union country experts.

ABSTRACT:

Background

European Member States, the European Commission and its agencies work together to enhance preparedness and response for serious cross-border threats to health such as Ebola. Yet, common understanding of public health emergency preparedness across EU/EEA countries is challenging, because preparedness is a relatively new field of activity and is inherently fraught with uncertainty. A set of practical, widely accepted and easy to use recommendations for generic preparedness that bundles the activities described in separate guidance documents supports countries in preparing for any possible health threat. The aim of this consensus procedure was to identify and seek consensus from national-level preparedness experts from EU/EEA countries on key recommendations of public health emergency preparedness.

Methods

To identify key recommendations and to prioritize the recommendations we started with a literature consensus procedure, followed by a modified Delphi method for consultation of public health emergency preparedness leaders of EU/EEA countries. This consisted of six consecutive steps: a questionnaire to achieve consensus on a core set of recommendations, a face-to-face consultation, preselection of prioritized recommendations, a questionnaire to achieve consensus on the prioritized set and a face-to-face consensus meeting to further prioritize recommendations.

Results

As a result, EU/EEA experts selected 149 recommendations as core preparedness principles and prioritized 42. The recommendations were grouped in the seven domains: governance (57), capacity building and maintenance (11), surveillance (19), risk-assessment (16), risk- and crisis management (35), post-event evaluation (6) and implementation of lessons learned (5).

Conclusions

This prioritised set of consensus principles can provide a foundation for countries aiming to evaluate and improve their preparedness for public health emergencies. The recommendations are practical, support generic preparedness planning, and can be used by all countries irrespective of their current level of preparedness.

SUBMITTER: Belfroid E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7527265 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundEffective public health emergency preparedness and response systems are important in mitigating the impact of all-hazards emergencies on population health. The evidence base for public health emergency preparedness (PHEP) is weak, however, and previous reviews have noted a substantial proportion of anecdotal event reports. To investigate the body of research excluding the anecdotal reports and better understand primary and analytical research for PHEP, a scoping review was conducted with two objectives: first, to develop a thematic map focused on primary research; and second, to use this map to inform and guide an understanding of knowledge gaps relevant to research and practice in PHEP.MethodsA scoping review was conducted based on established methodology. Multiple databases of indexed and grey literature were searched based on concepts of public health, emergency, emergency management/preparedness and evaluation/evidence. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied iteratively. Primary research studies that were evidence-based or evaluative in nature were included in the final group of selected studies. Thematic analysis was conducted for this group. Stakeholder consultation was undertaken for the purpose of validating themes and identifying knowledge gaps. To accomplish this, a purposive sample of researchers and practicing professionals in PHEP or closely related fields was asked to complete an online survey and participate in an in-person meeting. Final themes and knowledge gaps were synthesized after stakeholder consultation.ResultsDatabase searching yielded 3015 citations and article selection resulted in a final group of 58 articles. A list of ten themes from this group of articles was disseminated to stakeholders with the survey questions. Survey findings resulted in four cross-cutting themes and twelve stand-alone themes. Several key knowledge gaps were identified in the following themes: attitudes and beliefs; collaboration and system integration; communication; quality improvement and performance standards; and resilience. Resilience emerged as both a gap and a cross-cutting theme. Additional cross-cutting themes included equity, gender considerations, and high risk or at-risk populations.ConclusionsIn this scoping review of the literature enhanced by stakeholder consultation, key themes and knowledge gaps in the PHEP evidence base were identified which can be used to inform future practice-oriented research in PHEP.

Project description:BackgroundThe use and implementation of novel tools for malaria control such as long lasting impregnated bednets (LLINs) and Indoor Residual Spraying (IRS) over the last decade has contributed to a substantial reduction in malaria burden globally. However numerous challenges exist particularly in relation to vector control in emergency settings. This study seeks to explore expert opinion on the utility of existing tools within the emergency context setting and to better understand the attitude towards emerging and innovative tools (including Genetically Modified Mosquitoes) to augment current approaches.Methods80 experts in the field of malaria and vector control were invited to participate in a two-round Delphi survey. They were selected through a combination of literature (academic and policy publications) review and snowball sampling reflecting a range of relevant backgrounds including vector control experts, malaria programme managers and emergency response specialists. The survey was conducted online through a questionnaire including the possibility for free text entry, and concentrated on the following topics: 1. Utility and sustainability of current vector control tools, both in and outside emergency settings 2. Feasibility, utility and challenges of emerging vector control tools, both in and outside emergency settings 3. Current and unmet research priorities in malaria vector control and in malaria control in general.Results37 experts completed the first round and 31 completed the second round of the survey. There was a stronger consensus about the increased utility of LLIN compared to IRS in all settings, while insecticide-treated covers and blankets ranked very high only in emergency settings. When considering the combination of tools, the ones deemed most interesting always involved LLINs and IRS regardless of the setting, and the acceptability and the efficacy at reducing transmission are essential characteristics. Regarding perceptions of tools currently under development, consensus was towards improvement of existing tools rather than investing in novel approaches and the majority of respondents expressed distrust for genetic approaches.ConclusionMalaria vector control experts expressed more confidence for tools whose efficacy is backed up by epidemiological evidence, hence a preference for the improvement rather than the combination of existing tools. Moreover, while several novel tools are under development, the majority of innovative approaches did not receive support, particularly in emergency settings. Stakeholders involved in the development of novel tools should involve earlier and raise awareness of the potential effectiveness amongst a wider range of experts within the malaria community to increase acceptability and improve early adoption once the evidence base is established.

Project description:BackgroundInvesting in health emergency preparedness is critical to the safety, welfare and stability of communities and countries worldwide. Despite the global push to increase investments, questions remain around how much should be spent and what to focus on. We conducted a systematic review and analysis of studies that costed improvements to health emergency preparedness to help to answer these questions.MethodsWe searched for studies that estimated the costs of improving health emergency preparedness and that were published between 1 January 2000 and 14 May 2021, using PubMed, Web of Science, Google Scholar, EconLit, and National Health Service Economic Evaluation Databases (PROSPERO CRD42021254428). We also searched grey literature repositories and contacted subject experts. We included studies that estimated the costs of improving preparedness at the global level and/or at the national level across at least ten countries, covered two or more technical areas in the WHO Benchmarks for International Health Regulations (IHR) Capacities, and included activities focused on human health. We mapped costs across technical areas in the WHO Benchmarks for IHR Capacities.FindingsTen studies met our inclusion criteria. Costing methods varied substantially across included studies and cost estimates ranged from US$1·6 billion per year to improve capacities across 139 low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) to US$43 billion per year to support national-level activities worldwide and implement global-level initiatives, such as research and development for health technologies (diagnostics, therapeutics, and vaccines). Two recent studies estimated costs by drawing on IHR Monitoring and Evaluation Framework country capacity data, with one study estimating costs across 67 LMICs of US$15·4 billion per year (US$29·1 billion including upfront capital costs) and the other calculating costs for the 196 States Parties to the IHR of US$24·8 billion per year. Differences in included studies' methods, and the characteristics of countries considered, mean it is difficult to make like-for-like comparisons of the absolute costs or per-capita costs estimated by studies.InterpretationImproving health emergency preparedness worldwide will require substantial and sustained increases in investments. Further guidance on estimating the size of those investments can help to standardise methods, allowing greater interpretation and comparison across studies/countries. As well as greater transparency and detail in the reporting of methods by studies focused on this topic, this can help support estimates of global resource requirements and facilitate investments towards improving preparedness for future pandemics.FundingNone.

Project description:BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic continues to demonstrate the risks and profound health impacts that result from infectious disease emergencies. Emergency preparedness has been defined as the knowledge, capacity and organizational systems that governments, response and recovery organizations, communities and individuals develop to anticipate, respond to, or recover from emergencies. This scoping review explored recent literature on priority areas and indicators for public health emergency preparedness (PHEP) with a focus on infectious disease emergencies.MethodsUsing scoping review methodology, a comprehensive search was conducted for indexed and grey literature with a focus on records published from 2017 to 2020 onward, respectively. Records were included if they: (a) described PHEP, (b) focused on an infectious emergency, and (c) were published in an Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development country. An evidence-based all-hazards Resilience Framework for PHEP consisting of 11 elements was used as a reference point to identify additional areas of preparedness that have emerged in recent publications. The findings were analyzed deductively and summarized thematically.ResultsThe included publications largely aligned with the 11 elements of the all-hazards Resilience Framework for PHEP. In particular, the elements related to collaborative networks, community engagement, risk analysis and communication were frequently observed across the publications included in this review. Ten emergent themes were identified that expand on the Resilience Framework for PHEP specific to infectious diseases. Planning to mitigate inequities was a key finding of this review, it was the most frequently identified emergent theme. Additional emergent themes were: research and evidence-informed decision making, building vaccination capacity, building laboratory and diagnostic system capacity, building infection prevention and control capacity, financial investment in infrastructure, health system capacity, climate and environmental health, public health legislation and phases of preparedness.ConclusionThe themes from this review contribute to the evolving understanding of critical public health emergency preparedness actions. The themes expand on the 11 elements outlined in the Resilience Framework for PHEP, specifically relevant to pandemics and infectious disease emergencies. Further research will be important to validate these findings, and expand understanding of how refinements to PHEP frameworks and indicators can support public health practice.

Project description:BackgroundThe major emerging infectious diseases (MEIDs) have occurred frequently and become increasingly serious in the world. Sufficient personal emergency preparedness is critical for the general people in efficiently responding to and recovering from MEIDs. Nevertheless, few specific indicators are available for assessing the individual emergency preparedness of the general public during these periods. Therefore, the aim of this study was to construct an index system for comprehensively evaluating the personal emergency preparedness of the public regarding MEIDs.MethodsBased on the global national-level emergency preparedness index framework and a literature review, a preliminary index system was constructed. From June 2022 to September 2022, a panel of 20 experts from nine provinces and municipalities across multiple research areas participated in this Delphi study. They rated the importance of pre-defined indicators using a five-point Likert scale and provided their qualitative comments. According to the feedback of each round of experts, the indicators of the evaluation index system were revised.ResultsAfter two rounds of expert consultation the evaluation index system reached a consensus, containing five first-level indicators, cooperating with prevention and control work, improving emergency response capacity, securing supplies and equipment, preparing economic resources, maintaining physical and mental health with affiliated 20 s-level indicators and 53 third-level indicators. The expert authority coefficient of consultation was 0.88 and 0.90. The Kendall's coefficient of concordance of expert consultations was 0.294 and 0.322, respectively. The differences were statistically significant (P < 0.05).ConclusionA valid, reliable and scientific evaluation index system was established. This personal emergency preparedness index system, as a precursor form, will further lay the foundation for the formation of an assessment instrument. At the same time, it could provide a reference for future education and training of emergency preparedness for the general public.

Project description:IntroductionRetrospective trauma scores are often used to categorise trauma, however, they have little utility in the prehospital or hyper-acute setting and do not define major trauma to non-specialists. This study employed a Delphi process in order to gauge degrees of consensus/disagreement amongst expert panel members to define major trauma.MethodA two round modified Delphi technique was used to explore subject-expert consensus and identify variables to define major trauma through systematically collating questionnaire responses. After initial descriptive analysis of variables, Kruskal-Wallis tests were used to determine statistically significant differences (p < 0.05) in response to the Delphi statements between professional groups. A hierarchical cluster analysis was undertaken to identify patterns of similarity/difference of response. A grounded theory approach to qualitative analysis of data allowed for potentially multiple iterations of the Delphi process to be influenced by identified themes.ResultsOf 55 expert panel members invited to participate, round 1 had 43 participants (Doctor n = 20, Paramedic n = 20, Nurse n = 5, other n = 2). No consistent patterns of opinion emerged with regards to professional group. Cluster analysis identified three patterns of similar responses and coded as trauma minimisers, the middle ground and the risk averse. Round 2 had 35 respondents with minimum change in opinion between rounds. Consensus of > 70% was achieved on many variables which included the identification of life/limb threatening injuries, deranged physiology, need for intensive care interventions and that extremes of age need special consideration. It was also acknowledged that retrospective injury severity scoring has a role to play but is not the only method of defining major trauma. Various factors had a majority of agreement/disagreement but did not meet the pre-set criteria of 70% agreement. These included the topics of burns, spinal immobilisation and whether a major trauma centre is the only place where major trauma can be managed.ConclusionBased upon the output of this Delphi study, major trauma may be defined as: "Significant injury or injuries that have potential to be life-threatening or life-changing sustained from either high energy mechanisms or low energy mechanisms in those rendered vulnerable by extremes of age".