Abstract
BackgroundVariation in the approaches taken to contain the SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) pandemic at country level has been shaped by economic and political considerations, technical capacity, and assumptions about public behaviours. To address the limited application of learning from previous pandemics, this study aimed to analyse perceived facilitators and inhibitors during the pandemic and to inform the development of an assessment tool for pandemic response planning.MethodsA cross-sectional electronic survey of health and non-health care professionals (5 May - 5 June 2020) in six languages, with respondents recruited via email, social media and website posting. Participants were asked to score inhibitors (-10 to 0) or facilitators (0 to +10) impacting country response to COVID-19 from the following domains – Political, Economic, Sociological, Technological, Ecological, Legislative, and wider Industry (the PESTELI framework). Participants were then asked to explain their responses using free text. Descriptive and thematic analysis was followed by triangulation with the literature and expert validation to develop the assessment tool, which was then compared with four existing pandemic planning frameworks.Results928 respondents from 66 countries (57% health care professionals) participated. Political and economic influences were consistently perceived as powerful negative forces and technology as a facilitator across high- and low-income countries. The 103-item tool developed for guiding rapid situational assessment for pandemic planning is comprehensive when compared to existing tools and highlights the interconnectedness of the 7 domains.ConclusionsThe tool developed and proposed addresses the problems associated with decision making in disciplinary silos and offers a means to refine future use of epidemic modelling.
Highlights
Copyright: City Research Online aims to make research outputs of City, University of London available to a wider audience
This is the supplemental version of the paper
Reuse: Copies of full items can be used for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-profit purposes without prior permission or charge
Summary
This is the supplemental version of the paper. This version of the publication may differ from the final published version. Copyright: City Research Online aims to make research outputs of City, University of London available to a wider audience. URLs from City Research Online may be freely distributed and linked to. Reuse: Copies of full items can be used for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-profit purposes without prior permission or charge. Title and full bibliographic details are credited, a hyperlink and/or URL is given for the original metadata page and the content is not changed in any way
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have