Dataset Information

Gaps in health security related to wildlife and environment affecting pandemic prevention and preparedness, 2007-2020.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To describe and quantify the extent of wildlife and environment sector inclusion in country evaluation and prioritization tools for health security, and to provide practical recommendations for global and national action to improve pandemic prevention and preparedness.

Methods

To assess coverage of wildlife and other environmental aspects, we reviewed major health security reports (including World Organisation for Animal Health Performance of Veterinary Services reports, and World Health Organization Joint External Evaluations and follow-on National Action Plans for Health Security) published by 107 countries and territories. We extracted information on stated coverage gaps, wildlife surveillance systems and priority diseases. We also searched National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans published by 125 countries to assess whether disease surveillance or prevention activities were included.

Findings

We noted that the occurrence frequency of keywords indicative of wildlife, environment, biodiversity and climate factors varied with type of report and between countries. We found that more than half (57.9%, 62/107) of the reporting countries did not provide any evidence of a functional wildlife health surveillance programme. Most countries (83.2%, 89/107) indicated specific gaps in operations, coordination, scope or capacity. Only eight of the 125 countries (6.4%) publishing a National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan reported tangible activities related to wildlife health or zoonotic disease.

Conclusion

Overall, despite their importance for pandemic prevention, wildlife and environmental considerations are neglected in health security priorities and plans. Strengthening wildlife health capacity and operations should be emphasized in One Health efforts to monitor and mitigate known and novel disease risks.

SUBMITTER: Machalaba C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8061663 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:The attainment of global health security goals and universal health coverage will remain a mirage unless African health systems are adequately funded to improve resilience to public health emergencies. The COVID-19 pandemic exposed the global inequity in accessing medical countermeasures, leaving African countries far behind. As we anticipate the next pandemic, improving investments in health systems to adequately finance pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response (PPPR) promptly, ensuring equity and access to medical countermeasures, is crucial. In this article, we analyze the African and global pandemic financing initiatives and put ways forward for policymakers and the global health community to consider. This article is based on a rapid literature review and desk review of various PPPR financing mechanisms in Africa and globally. Consultation of leaders and experts in the area and scrutinization of various related meeting reports and decisions have been carried out. The African Union (AU) has demonstrated various innovative financing mechanisms to mitigate the impacts of public health emergencies in the continent. To improve equal access to the COVID-19 medical countermeasures, the AU launched Africa Medical Supplies Platform (AMSP) and Africa Vaccine Acquisition Trust (AVAT). These financing initiatives were instrumental in mitigating the impacts of COVID-19 and their lessons can be capitalized as we make efforts for PPPR. The COVID-19 Response Fund, subsequently converted into the African Epidemics Fund (AEF), is another innovative financing mechanism to ensure sustainable and self-reliant PPPR efforts. The global initiatives for financing PPPR include the Pandemic Emergency Financing Facility (PEF) and the Pandemic Fund. The PEF was criticized for its inadequacy in building resilient health systems, primarily because the fund ignored the prevention and preparedness items. The Pandemic Fund is also being criticized for its suboptimal emphasis on the response aspect of the pandemic and non-inclusive governance structure. To ensure optimal financing for PPPR, we call upon the global health community and decision-makers to focus on the harmonization of financing efforts for PPPR, make regional financing mechanisms central to global PPPR financing efforts, and ensure the inclusivity of international finance governance systems.

Project description:ObjectiveTo rank and score 180 countries according to COVID-19 cases and fatality in 2020 and compare the results to existing pandemic vulnerability prediction models and results generated by standard epidemiological scoring techniques.SettingOne hundred and eighty countries' patients with COVID-19 and fatality data representing the healthcare system preparedness and performance in combating the pandemic in 2020.DesignUsing the retrospective daily COVID-19 data in 2020 broken into 24 half-month periods, we applied unsupervised machine learning techniques, in particular, hierarchical clustering analysis to cluster countries into five groups within each period according to their cumulative COVID-19 fatality per day over the year and cumulative COVID-19 cases per million population per day over the half-month period. We used the average of the period scores to assign countries' final scores for each measure.Primary outcomeThe primary outcomes are the COVID-19 cases and fatality grades in 2020.ResultsThe United Arab Emirates and the USA with F in COVID-19 cases, achieved A or B in the fatality scores. Belgium and Sweden ranked F in both scores. Although no African country ranked F for COVID-19 cases, several African countries such as Gambia and Liberia had F for fatality scores. More developing countries ranked D and F in fatality than in COVID-19 case rankings. The classic epidemiological measures such as averages and rates have a relatively good correlation with our methodology, but past predictions failed to forecast the COVID-19 countries' preparedness.ConclusionCOVID-19 fatality can be a good proxy for countries' resources and system's resilience in managing the pandemic. These findings suggest that countries' economic and sociopolitical factors may behave in a more complex way as were believed. To explore these complex epidemiological associations, models can benefit enormously by taking advantage of methods developed in computer science and machine learning.