Dataset Information

[Expert committees in German public health policymaking during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic: a document analysis].

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

During the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, policymakers have to make far-reaching decisions that should be supported by scientific evidence. This presents a major challenge, given the limited availability of evidence, especially in the early phases of the pandemic. Decision-makers thus turned to scientific experts to help to convey and contextualize the evidence for public health policymaking. The way in which these experts were consulted varied widely. Some decision-makers called on expert committees in which they convened multiple experts from different disciplines. However, the composition and role of these committees have raised questions of transparency and representation. This study examines whether and how expert committees in Germany were convened at the federal and national level to advise governments and ministries during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. We investigated the disciplinary composition, gender representation and the transparency related to the convening of these bodies, work processes and the accessibility of results.

Methods

We performed a multi-stage document analysis. Between May and July 2020, we submitted freedom-of-information requests to the governmental institutions at both a federal and a national level. In addition to analysing the responses to these requests, we conducted a thorough search and analysis of the i) pandemic preparedness plans, (ii) official press releases and (iii) minor interpellations ("Kleine Anfragen") at the federal and state level. We included documents on expert committees in the SARS-CoV-2 context for the period from January to the beginning of December 2020 and carried out a qualitative content analysis.

Results

We identified a total of 21 expert committees that were established in ten federal states and four federal ministries. In eleven committees, the members were known by name with women making up 26 % of the members. Biomedical disciplines such as virology, hygiene, medicine, and biology were the most commonly represented. Other disciplines including economics, law and sociology, and non-scientific experts were represented in seven federal states. The members of ten committees were not known by name. These committees covered different thematic areas (school and day-care, civil participation, medicine and care, economic topics), and their members were more commonly practitioners or affected populations.

Discussion

The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has led to an increased consultation of experts in public health policymaking. However, expert committees in Germany are not sufficiently representative and interdisciplinary to take different perspectives into account and ultimately advise politicians in complex pandemic situations. Furthermore, the work of these committees is not sufficiently transparent because access to information is limited.

Conclusion

Due to this lack of transparency, it is unclear whether and how the expert committees exerted an influence on politics. Transparency of political decision-making processes and the consideration of pluralistic perspectives are considered essential for the legitimation and quality of political decisions in a pandemic and should therefore be strengthened in pandemic management in Germany.

SUBMITTER: Sell K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8404986 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:The Zika virus is a mosquito-borne virus spread primarily by Aedes mosquitoes. Zika cases have been detected throughout the mosquito's range, with an epidemic occurring from 2015 to 2017 in Brazil. Many Zika cases are mild or asymptomatic, but infections in pregnant women can cause microcephaly in children, and a small percentage of cases result in Guillan-Barré syndrome. There is currently little systematic information surrounding the municipal spread of the Zika Virus in Brazil. This article uses coarsened exact matching with negative binomial estimation and ordinary least squares estimation to assess the determinants of Zika incidence across the ~280,000 cases confirmed and recorded by Brazil's Ministry of Health in 2016 and 2017. These data come from Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests in Brazil and have not been published. We use data on the universe of individual Zika cases in Brazil and Geographic Information Systems (GIS) software to examine the virus at the municipal level across 5570 municipalities and construct a unique, unusually rich dataset covering daily Zika transmission. Additionally, our dataset includes corresponding local data on democratic governance, mosquito control efforts, and environmental conditions to estimate their relationship to Zika transmission. The results demonstrate that the presence of subnational democratic, participatory policymaking institutions and high levels of local state capacity are associated with low rates of Zika contraction. These models control for local healthcare spending and economic conditions, among other factors, that also influence Zika contraction rates. In turn, these findings provide a better understanding of what works for local health governance and mosquito control and makes important data public so that scholars and practitioners can perform their own analyses. Stronger models of Zika transmission will then inform mosquito abatement efforts across the Global South, as well as provide a blueprint for combatting Dengue fever, which is also transmitted by Aedes mosquitoes.

Project description:Importance During the pandemic, the number of United States adults reporting clinically significant symptoms of anxiety and depression sky-rocketed, up from 11% in 2020 to more than 40% in 2021. Our current mental healthcare system cannot adequately accommodate the current crisis; it is therefore important to identify opportunities for public mental health interventions. Objective Assess whether modifiable emotional factors may offer a point of intervention for the mental health crisis. Design, setting, and participants From January 13 to 15, 2022, adults living in the United States were recruited via Amazon Mechanical Turk to complete an anonymous survey. Main outcomes and measures Linear regressions tested whether the primary outcomes during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic (depressive and anxiety symptoms, burnout) were associated with hypothesized modifiable risk factors (loneliness and need for closure) and hypothesized modifiable protective factors (the ability to perceive emotions and connect with others emotionally; emotion-regulation efficacy; and resilience, or the ability to “bounce back” after negative events). Results The sample included 1,323 adults (mean [SD] age 41.42 [12.52] years; 636 women [48%]), almost half of whom reported clinically significant depressive (29%) and/or anxiety (15%) symptoms. Approximately 90% of participants indicated feeling burned out at least once a year and nearly half of participants (45%) felt burned out once a week or more. In separate analyses, depressive symptoms (Model A), anxiety symptoms (Model B), and burnout (Model C) were statistically significantly associated with loneliness (βModel A, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.33–0.43; βModel B, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.26–0.36; βModel C, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.28–0.41), need for closure (βModel A, 0.09; 95% CI, 1.03–1.06; βModel B, 0.13; 95% CI, 0.97–0.17; βModel C, 0.11; 95% CI, 0.07–0.16), recent stressful life events (βModel A, 0.14; 95% CI, 0.10–0.17; βModel B, 0.14; 95% CI, 0.11–0.18; βModel C, 0.10; 95% CI, 0.06–0.15), and resilience (βModel A, −0.10; 95% CI, −0.15 to −0.05; βModel B, −0.18; 95% CI, −0.23 to −0.13; βModel C, −0.11; 95% CI, −0.17 to −0.05). In addition, depressive and anxiety symptoms were associated with emotional self-efficacy (βModel A, −0.17; 95% CI, −0.22 to −0.12; βModel B, −0.11; 95% CI, −0.17 to −0.06), and beliefs about the malleability of emotions (βModel A, −0.08; 95% CI, −0.12 to −0.03; βModel B, −0.09; 95% CI, −0.13 to −0.04). Associations between loneliness and symptoms were weaker among those with more emotional self-efficacy, more endorsement of emotion malleability beliefs, and greater resilience, in separate models. Analyses controlled for recent stressful life events, optimism, and social desirability. Conclusion and relevance Public mental health interventions that teach resilience in response to negative events, emotional self-efficacy, and emotion-regulation efficacy may protect against the development of depressive symptoms, anxiety, and burnout, particularly in the context of a collective trauma. Emotional self-efficacy and regulation efficacy may mitigate the association between loneliness and mental health, but loneliness prevention research is also needed to address the current mental health crisis.