Pandemic Response Plan Research Articles

Pandemic preparedness: analyzing national plans for respiratory pathogen pandemics in the Americas region.

The International Health Regulations (2005) (IHR), requires that States Parties develop their capacities to detect, assess, and respond to public health threats and report to the World Health Assembly through the States Parties Annual Report (SPAR). The National Pandemic Preparedness and Response Plans (PPRP) contribute to countries capacities however there are some discrepancies between both tools. To identify gaps and define priority actions to strengthen pandemic plans, we assessed the concordance between national pandemic preparedness and response plans for respiratory pathogens against the pandemic checklist published in 2023 and the SPAR. In this retrospective, semi-quantitative study, conducted in August 2024, we reviewed the most recent respiratory pandemic plans for 35 PAHO member states and assessed their concordance with (1) actionable guidelines in the World Health Organization pandemic checklist and (2) IHR (2005) core capacities using the latest SPAR tool. We developed 25 tracking questions to identify gaps, strengths, and opportunities for improvement in the pandemic plans, using the pandemic checklist built on the capacities and capabilities described in the WHO's Preparedness and Resilience for Emerging Threats (PRET) Module 1. We used a five-point scale (from 1, when the subcomponent was not mentioned, to 5, when the subcomponent was described at all levels), and we calculated the average pandemic plans score (PP score) for each component. Data from pandemic plans (2005-2024) were compiled, selected, analyzed, and scored. We compared the average SPAR score and the PP score to assess areas of convergence and variance between preparedness and capacities. The analysis was carried out using R and Excel. We analyzed 35 respiratory pandemic plans: 29 were influenza-specific, five were COVID-19-specific, and one was not pathogen-specific. Most current national plans showed limited alignment with the content recommended in the PRET pandemic checklist. At regional level, the lowest concordance between plans and pandemic checklist was in the following subcomponents Public Health and Social Measures (80% of the plans had a score of 1); Emergency, Logistics and Supply Chain Management (74%); and Research and Development (71%). Conversely, the strongest subcomponents (≥40% of plans with a score of 4 or 5) were: Policy, Legal, and Normative Instruments (45%); Coordination (46%); and Surveillance: early detection and assessment (43%). In most countries, the SPAR scores tended to be higher than PP scores, except for Argentina (the newest plan reviewed) for which the pattern was reversed, and the PP scores exceeded the SPAR scores. Given the gaps identified between current plans and the global standards espoused by the PRET Module 1 initiative, it is recommended that countries build on the strengths of their national pandemic preparedness and response plans and update them using PRET module 1. This will support countries advance the capacities required by the IHR.

COVID-19: Lessons from the Past to Inform the Future of Healthcare

The emergence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and its global spread have left an indelible mark, disrupting multiple aspects of human life. It is therefore crucial to retrospectively analyze the factors that have contributed more to the initial inefficiency of the global response, thus enhancing preparedness and proactively addressing the risk of similar events occurring in the future. Critical areas were identified based on our expertise. Relevant bibliographic references were subsequently gathered through an open search of scientific databases to substantiate the concepts discussed in this article. The key issues that hindered an effective response to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are numerous and multifaceted, and some of these will be critically examined in this article, including delayed identification of the pathogen, inadequate public health preparedness, inadequate therapeutic management, and deficiencies in laboratory diagnostics. From this analysis, key areas for improvement emerge to ensure more efficient responses to future health crises, including (i) enhancing and strengthening health information systems, (ii) improving pandemic preparedness and response planning, (iii) developing a resilient healthcare workforce, (iv) increasing investment in research and development, (v) expanding the use of telemedicine and digital health, (vi) ensuring universal access to healthcare, and (vii) improving public health communication and trust.

Challenging the role of resilience and vulnerability in narratives of well-being

During the COVID-19 pandemic, there was significant emphasis on building resilience to address the vulnerability felt at both individual and collective levels. This focus on resilience was critiqued by scholars who saw the discourse as stemming from neoliberal governance. In this paper, we critique the political roots of neoliberalism, particularly the ideal liberal state citizen, the autonomous individual who views reliance on others as vulnerability. We use the concept of relational autonomy, which has influenced fields like bioethics and health studies, to explore how vulnerability relates to interpersonal, social, and political dimensions of autonomy. We propose a typology where vulnerability can emerge as positive or self-affirming, or negative, as self-undermining, circumstantial, and/or pathogenic. The latter forms require significant political engagement to address the conditions that foster it. We apply this typology to two related case studies: Australia’s National Mental Health and Wellbeing Pandemic Response Plan and the Victorian State Government’s lockdown of public housing towers in inner Melbourne. These case studies reveal how vulnerability can be used as a tool of governmental control within resilience discourse, risking circumstantial and pathogenic vulnerability due to state securitization of protection. We conclude by proposing a reframing of vulnerability within a relational autonomy framework of well-being, emphasizing care for interpersonal relationships and care as a public practice to enhance democratic participation in pursuing health and social good.

Disability and Vulnerable Groups Inclusion in COVID-19 Policy and Planning in Sub-Sahara African Countries

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has caused an excess burden of disease in disabled and vulnerable populations. These populations may face an increased risk of contracting COVID-19, greater demand for services and social support, and reduced access to treatment. Despite various national and international efforts towards disability rights and inclusion, substantial gaps exist between disability rights legislation and its implementation. Aims: To assess the inclusion of people with disability and other vulnerable groups in policy and planning documents related to the COVID-19 pandemic response in sub-Sahara Africa. Methods: We conducted content analysis using the EquiFrame policy analysis tool and assessed commitment to 12 vulnerable groups and 21 core human rights in policy and planning documents related to the COVID-19 pandemic. We included documents on general pandemic response, stakeholder engagement, risk communication, and the COVID-19 vaccine from five sub-Saharan African countries, including Nigeria, South Africa, Ethiopia, Kenya, and Zambia. Results: The study highlights the varying degrees to which countries integrate disability, vulnerable groups, and other core human rights concepts into their COVID-19 health policies and planning documents. Only Kenya mentioned disability in their pandemic response plan. However, all countries have explicitly mentioned disability in their stakeholder engagement plans. Except for Kenya, all countries have included disability in their risk communication plans. Notably, South Africa and Zambia demonstrated extensive disability inclusion in their stakeholder engagement and vaccine plan. Thus, these countries have the potential for comprehensive and inclusive health policymaking. In contrast, Nigeria and Ethiopia lag, therefore highlighting areas of improvement across all policy domains. Conclusion: The findings emphasize the critical importance of not only mentioning disability and other vulnerable groups, but also ensuring the depth and quality of this inclusion. While there are positive strides in certain areas, there remains a consistent need for deeper and broader inclusion across all policy domains. Received: 10 September 2024 | Reviewed: 16 October 2024 | Revised: 03 November 2024 | Accepted: 05 November 2024.

Are prison settings included in national preparedness plans?

Abstract With the aim to explore the extent to which places of detention are considered in national preparedness planning in the WHO European Region, a desktop review was conducted and combined with responses to the Health in Prisons European Database (HIPED) survey from Member States referring to 2020. In both searches, the aim was to identify the existence of: 1) national pandemic preparedness plans written prior to the COVID-19 pandemic; and 2) national pandemic preparedness and response plans specific to the COVID-19 pandemic. Where prisons were included, all aspects of pandemic preparedness relating to prisons were extracted and collated as per the main domains of the WHO checklist for influenza pandemic preparedness plans. The desktop review found that 30 Member States had pandemic plans accessible online, but only seven included any mention of prisons. Responses to the HIPED survey suggested wide dissemination of a COVID-19 preparedness and/or response plan, but only six out of 36 Member States referred to prisons or the vulnerabilities of people living in places of detention. The combined findings suggest that prisons are rarely considered in national planning and that lessons from previous pandemics have not led to a change in recognizing that prisons are high-risk environments for pathogen transmission and that failing to consider them in national planning may lead to impacts that affect the wider community.

Environment, climate, socio-economics & restrictions impact on COVID-19 in Northen Italy

Abstract Up to now, studies on environmental, climatic, socio-economic factors, and non-pharmacological interventions (NPI) show diverse associations, often contrasting, with COVID-19 spread or severity. Most studies used large-scale, aggregated data, with limited adjustment for individual factors, and most of them focused on viral spread rather than severe outcomes. Moreover, evidence simultaneously evaluating variables belonging to different exposure domains is scarce, and none analysing their collective impact on an individual level. Our population-based retrospective cohort study aimed to assess the comprehensive role played by exposure variables belonging to four different domains, environmental, climatic, socio-economic, and non-pharmacological interventions (NPI), on individual COVID-19-related risk of hospitalization and death, analysing data from all patients (n.68472) tested positive to a SARS-CoV-2 swab in Modena Province (Northern Italy) between February 2020 and August 2021. Using adjusted Cox proportional hazard models, we estimated the risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes, investigating dose-response relationships through restricted cubic spline modelling for hazard ratios. Several significant associations emerged: long-term exposure to air pollutants (NO2, PM10, PM2.5) was linked to hospitalization risk in a complex way and showed an increased risk for death; while humidity was inversely associated; temperature showed a U-shaped risk; wind speed showed a linear association with both outcomes. Precipitation increased hospitalization risk but decreased mortality. Socio-economic and NPI indices showed clear linear associations, respectively negative and positive, with both outcomes. Our findings offer insights for evidence-based policy decisions, improving precision healthcare practices, and safeguarding public health in future pandemics. Refinement of pandemic response plans by healthcare authorities could benefit significantly. Key messages • Evaluating simultaneously four exposure domains on COVID-19 outcomes informs public health policy for future pandemic management. • The comprehension of risk factors associated with severe outcomes, such as hospitalization and mortality, is pivotal for planning responses to similar health emergencies in the future.

Environmental, climatic, socio-economic factors and non-pharmacological interventions: A comprehensive four-domain risk assessment of COVID-19 hospitalization and death in Northern Italy

IntroductionUp to now, studies on environmental, climatic, socio-economic factors, and non-pharmacological interventions (NPI) show diverse associations, often contrasting, with COVID-19 spread or severity. Most studies used large-scale, aggregated data, with limited adjustment for individual factors, most of them focused on viral spread than severe outcomes. Moreover, evidence simultaneously evaluating variables belonging to different exposure domains is scarce, and none analysing their collective impact on an individual level. MethodsOur population-based retrospective cohort study aimed to assess the comprehensive role played by exposure variables belonging to four different domains, environmental, climatic, socio-economic, and non-pharmacological interventions (NPI), on individual COVID-19-related risk of hospitalization and death, analysing data from all patients (no. 68472) tested positive to a SARS-CoV-2 swab in Modena Province (Northern Italy) between February 2020 and August 2021.Using adjusted Cox proportional hazard models, we estimated the risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes, investigating dose-response relationships through restricted cubic spline modelling for hazard ratios. ResultsSeveral significant associations emerged: long-term exposure to air pollutants (NO2, PM10, PM2.5) was linked to hospitalization risk in a complex way and showed an increased risk for death; while humidity was inversely associated; temperature showed a U-shaped risk; wind speed showed a linear association with both outcomes. Precipitation increased hospitalization risk but decreased mortality. Socio-economic and NPI indices showed clear linear associations, respectively negative and positive, with both outcomes. ConclusionsOur findings offer insights for evidence-based policy decisions, improving precision healthcare practices, and safeguarding public health in future pandemics. Refinement of pandemic response plans by healthcare authorities could benefit significantly.

Pandemic Action Plan: Phase 3-Lessons Learned from Implementation. "What Did We Learn?"

The COVID-19 pandemic created critical challenges for hospitals and health care providers. Suddenly clinics were forced to close; elective procedures were delayed; scheduled visits were canceled; emergency rooms were overcrowded; hospital beds, equipment, and personal protective equipment (PPE) were in short supply; and staff were faced with rapidly changing circumstances, care protocols, trauma, and personal risk. To better address challenges of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and prepare for future pandemics, the National Telemedicine Technology Assessment Resource Center (TTAC) was asked to develop a Pandemic Response Action Plan that would allow its users to address critical issues with available telemedicine and related technologies. The project was constructed in 3 phases. Phase 1-Develop a Pandemic Response Action Plan and a Pandemic Response Action Plan Policy and Regulatory Summary, which identifies the regulatory challenges as well as policy recommendations. Phase 2-Publish the Action Plan and the Policy and Regulatory Summary. Phase 3-Look at health care providers who used the approaches, tools, and technology in the Pandemic Action Plan and document the results. This document represents Phase 3. This document is Phase 3. In this report we look back at health care providers who used the approaches in the Phase 1 Pandemic Response Action Plan as published in Phase 2. In this document we report on the challenges and results of implementing parts of the Pandemic Action Plan. It records the findings, conclusions, and recommendations resulting from the experience of health care providers and the professional experiences of the team and their organizations in implementing parts or all of the plan. Methods: The same multidisciplinary team that constructed Phase 1 and Phase 2 were engaged to develop this Phase 3 report. The members of the team represent leadership expertise and key stakeholders in health care delivery during a pandemic (administration, infection control, physicians, nurses, public health, contingency planning, disaster response, and information technology) as well as a facilitator. For Phase 3, the group used structured brainstorming to define the findings, issues, and results of their own organizations' digital health response to the pandemic. In addition, eight health care providers (hospitals) identified by the Telemedicine Resource Centers' (TRCs) organizations, who used the Pandemic response Plan (created in Phases 1 and 2), were interviewed. All interviews were conducted by the same facilitator with leaders (CEO, and leaders of the telemedicine programs) in each of the eight programs, using a standard questionnaire created by the team. Current literature references are included in this report to illustrate when findings are known to have broader applicability. Conclusions: The impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic was severe and identified multiple critical challenges and weaknesses. Applying the approaches, tools, and technology outlined in the Pandemic Response Action Plan proved to be effective in addressing critical provider challenges. However, implementing these tools during a crisis was difficult unless the organization had experience with the tools and necessary workflows in advance. Implementing these tools as part of standard workflows and everyday operations increased the capabilities and resilience of these organizations in the provision of care during this and for future pandemics.

A case study of the Philippines' COVID-19 after action review.

This Brief Report recounts the process undertaken to conduct the COVID-19 AAR in the Philippines and the subsequent Pandemic Preparedness, Response and Resilience Plan writing workshop that took place in June and July 2023, respectively. It suggests that other countries may find similar benefits in employing the methodology to reflect on their COVID-19 responses and devise strategies to institutionalize best practices and identify critical areas for improvement in order to be better prepared for future pandemics or health emergencies.

Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome and COVID-19 Under the Urban Hierarchy of Municipalities in the State of Rondônia (Western Amazon)

Analyzing the SARS data can provide insights into the severe form of COVID-19, contributing to short, medium, and long-term pandemic response planning. The virus entered Brazilian through air travel, spreading via airport connections. The spatial diffusion of COVID-19 transmission is linked to the territorial division of labor (referring to characteristic daily activities), as reflected in the urban hierarchical network, which serves as a framework for analyzing COVID-19 transmission. This analysis covers mobility aspects such as density, connectivity and the movement of people at different scales. The objective is to evaluate the transmission of SARS and COVID-19 in the state of Rondônia, Western Amazon, between 2020 and 2021, using geoprocessing techniques for spatiotemporal analysis. Maps depicting the urban hierarchy (understood as cities organized by size, from smallest to largest) of the municipalities of Rondônia, along with SARS incidence rates and their standard deviation, were created using QGIS program, version 2.18.20. Spatiotemporal analysis was conducted using Kulldorff statistics to identify clusters of SARS cases in each municipality. A higher concentration of SARS rates ​​was observed in municipalities in the northwestern part of the state. Six spatiotemporal clusters were identified, but no clear pattern of spatial distribution was observed. The spatial diffusion of COVID-19 transmission is linked to the territorial division of labor (i.e., the spatial classification based on the predominant economic activity in each area), as evidenced by the urban hierarchical network, which serves as a reference for analyzing COVID-19 transmission.

Pandemic preparedness and health system resilience in 14 European countries.

To assess national pandemic preparedness and response plans from a health system perspective to determine the extent to which implementation strategies that support health system performance have been included. We systematically mapped pandemic preparedness and response implementation strategies that improve resilience to pandemics onto the Health System Performance Assessment Framework for Universal Health Coverage. Using this framework, we conducted a document analysis of 14 publicly available national influenza pandemic preparedness plans, submitted to the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control, to assess how well health system functions are accounted for in each plan. Implementation strategies found in national influenza pandemic preparedness plans do not systematically consider all health system functions. Instead, they mostly focus on specific aspects of governance. In contrast, little to no mention is made of implementation strategies that aim to strengthen health financing. There was also a lack of implementation strategies to strengthen the health workforce, ensure availability of medical equipment and infrastructure, govern the generation of resources and ensure delivery of public health services. While national influenza pandemic preparedness plans often include provisions to support health system governance, implementation strategies that support other health system functions, namely, resource generation, service delivery, and in particular, financing, are given less attention. These oversights in key planning documents may undermine health system resilience when public health emergencies occur.

Was priority setting considered in COVID-19 response planning? A global comparative analysis

BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic forced governments across the world to consider how to prioritize resource allocation. Most countries produced pandemic preparedness plans that guide and coordinate healthcare, including how to allocate scarce resources such as ventilators, human resources, and therapeutics. The objective of this study was to compare and contrast the extent to which established parameters for effective priority setting (PS) were incorporated into COVID-19 pandemic response planning in several countries around the world. MethodsWe used the Kapriri and Martin framework for effective priority setting and performed a quantitative descriptive analysis to explore whether and how countries’ type of health system, political, and economic contexts impacted the inclusion of those parameters in their COVID-19 pandemic plans. We analyzed 86 country plans across six regions of the World Health Organization. ResultsThe countries sampled represent 40% of nations in AFRO, 54.5% of EMRO, 45% of EURO, 46% of PAHO, 64% of SEARO, and 41% of WPRO. They also represent 39% of all HICs in the world, 39% of Upper-Middle, 54% of Lower-Middle, and 48% of LICs. No pattern in attention to parameters of PS emerged by WHO region or country income levels. The parameters: evidence of political will, stakeholder participation, and use of scientific evidence/ adoption of WHO recommendations were each found in over 80% of plans. We identified a description of a specific PS process in 7% of the plans; explicit criteria for PS in 36.5%; inclusion of publicity strategies in 65%; mention of mechanisms for appealing decisions or implementing procedures to improve internal accountability and reduce corruption in 20%; explicit reference to public values in 15%; and a description of means for enhancing compliance with the decisions in 5%. ConclusionThe findings provide a basis for policymakers to reflect on their prioritization plans and identify areas that need to be strengthened. Overall, there is little consideration for explicit prioritization processes and tools and restricted attention to equity considerations; this may be a starting point for policymakers interested in improving future preparedness and response planning. Although the study focused on the COVID-19 pandemic, priority setting remains one of the policymakers’ most prominent challenges. Policymakers should consider integrating systematic priority setting in their routine decision-making processes.

Canada's approach to SARS-CoV-2 sero-surveillance: Lessons learned for routine surveillance and future pandemics.

In Canada's federated healthcare system, 13 provincial and territorial jurisdictions have independent responsibility to collect data to inform health policies. During the COVID-19 pandemic (2020-2023), national and regional sero-surveys mostly drew upon existing infrastructure to quickly test specimens and collect data but required cross-jurisdiction coordination and communication. There were 4 national and 7 regional general population SARS-CoV-2 sero-surveys. Survey methodologies varied by participant selection approaches, assay choices, and reporting structures. We analyzed Canadian pandemic sero-surveillance initiatives to identify key learnings to inform future pandemic planning. Over a million samples were tested for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies from 2020 to 2023 but siloed in 11 distinct datasets. Most national sero-surveys had insufficient sample size to estimate regional prevalence; differences in methodology hampered cross-regional comparisons of regional sero-surveys. Only four sero-surveys included questionnaires. Sero-surveys were not directly comparable due to different assays, sampling methodologies, and time-frames. Linkage to health records occurred in three provinces only. Dried blood spots permitted sample collection in remote populations and during stay-at-home orders. To provide timely, high-quality information for public health decision-making, routine sero-surveillance systems must be adaptable, flexible, and scalable. National capability planning should include consortiums for assay design and validation, defined mechanisms to improve test capacity, base documents for data linkage and material transfer across jurisdictions, and mechanisms for real-time communication of data. Lessons learned will inform incorporation of a robust sero-survey program into routine surveillance with strategic sampling and capacity to adapt and scale rapidly as a part of a comprehensive national pandemic response plan.

A Complex Interplay: Navigating the Crossroads of Tobacco Use, Cardiovascular Disease, and the COVID-19 Pandemic: A WHF Policy Brief.

The Coronavirus Disease 2019, commonly referred to as COVID-19, is responsible for one of the deadliest pandemics in human history. The direct, indirect and lasting repercussions of the COVID-19 pandemic on individuals and public health, as well as health systems can still be observed, even today. In the midst of the initial chaos, the role of tobacco as a prognostic factor for unfavourable COVID-19 outcomes was largely neglected. As of 2023, numerous studies have confirmed that use of tobacco, a leading risk factor for cardiovascular and other diseases, is strongly associated with increased risks of severe COVID-19 complications (e.g., hospitalisation, ICU admission, need for mechanical ventilation, long COVID, etc.) and deaths from COVID-19. In addition, evidence suggests that COVID-19 directly affects multiple organs beyond the respiratory system, disproportionately impacting individuals with comorbidities. Notably, people living with cardiovascular disease are more prone to experiencing worse outcomes, as COVID-19 often inherently manifests as thrombotic cardiovascular complications. As such, the triad of tobacco, COVID-19 and cardiovascular disease constitutes a dangerous cocktail. The lockdowns and social distancing measures imposed by governments have also had adverse effects on our lifestyles (e.g., shifts in diets, physical activity, tobacco consumption patterns, etc.) and mental well-being, all of which affect cardiovascular health. In particular, vulnerable populations are especially susceptible to tobacco use, cardiovascular disease and the psychological fallout from the pandemic. Therefore, national pandemic responses need to consider health equity as well as the social determinants of health. The pandemic has also had catastrophic impacts on many health systems, bringing some to the brink of collapse. As a result, many health services, such as services for cardiovascular disease or tobacco cessation, were severely disrupted due to fears of transmission and redirection of resources for COVID-19 care. Unfortunately, the return to pre-pandemic levels of cardiovascular disease care activity has stagnated. Nevertheless, digital solutions, such as telemedicine and apps, have flourished, and may help reduce the gaps. Advancing tobacco control was especially challenging due to interference from the tobacco industry. The industry exploited lingering uncertainties to propagate misleading information on tobacco and COVID-19 in order to promote its products. Regrettably, the links between tobacco use and risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection remain inconclusive. However, a robust body of evidence has, since then, demonstrated that tobacco use is associated with more severe COVID-19 illness and complications. Additionally, the tobacco industry also repeatedly attempted to forge partnerships with governments under the guise of corporate social responsibility. The implementation of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control could address many of the aforementioned challenges and alleviate the burden of tobacco, COVID-19, and cardiovascular disease. In particular, the implementation of Article 5.3 could protect public health policies from the vested interests of the industry. The world can learn from the COVID-19 pandemic to better prepare for future health emergencies of international concern. In light of the impact of tobacco on the COVID-19 pandemic, it is imperative that tobacco control remains a central component in pandemic preparedness and response plans.

Practice recommendations regarding parental presence in NICUs during pandemics caused by respiratory pathogens like COVID-19.

To co-create parental presence practice recommendations across Canadian NICUs during pandemics caused by respiratory pathogens such as COVID-19. Recommendations were developed through evidence, context, Delphi and Values and Preferences methods. For Delphi 1 and 2, participants rated 50 items and 20 items respectively on a scale from 1 (very low importance) to 5 (very high). To determine consensus, evidence and context of benefits and harms were presented and discussed within the Values and Preference framework for the top-ranked items. An agreement of 80% or more was deemed consensus. After two Delphi rounds (n = 59 participants), 13 recommendations with the highest rated importance were identified. Consensus recommendations included 6 strong recommendations (parents as essential caregivers, providing skin-to-skin contact, direct or mothers' own expressed milk feeding, attending medical rounds, mental health and psychosocial services access, and inclusion of parent partners in pandemic response planning) and 7 conditional recommendations (providing hands-on care tasks, providing touch, two parents present at the same time, food and drink access, use of communication devices, and in-person access to medical rounds and mental health and psychosocial services). These recommendations can guide institutions in developing strategies for parental presence during pandemics caused by respiratory pathogens like COVID-19.

A practical agenda for incorporating trust into pandemic preparedness and response.

Despite widespread acknowledgement that trust is important in a pandemic, few concrete proposals exist on how to incorporate trust into preparing for the next health crisis. One reason is that building trust is rightly perceived as slow and challenging. Although trust in public institutions and one another is essential in preparing for a pandemic, countries should plan for the possibility that efforts to instil or restore trust may fail. Incorporating trust into pandemic preparedness means acknowledging that polarization, partisanship and misinformation may persist and engaging with communities as they currently are, not as we would wish them to be. This paper presents a practical policy agenda for incorporating mistrust as a risk factor in pandemic preparedness and response planning. We propose two sets of evidence-based strategies: (i)strategies for ensuring the trust that already exists in a community is sustained during a crisis, such as mitigating pandemic fatigue by health interventions and honest and transparent sense-making communication; and (ii)strategies for promoting cooperation in communities where people mistrust their governments and neighbours, sometimes for legitimate, historical reasons. Where there is mistrust, pandemic preparedness and responses must rely less on coercion and more on tailoring local policies and building partnerships with community institutions and leaders to help people overcome difficulties they encounter in cooperating with public health guidance. The regular monitoring of interpersonal and government trust at national and local levels is a way of enabling this context-specific pandemic preparedness and response planning.

On Pandemics Being Productive

ABSTRACT: How can and do pandemic events become productive for everyday human experiences of death and dying? This social thought and commentary piece’s central argument examines the productive potential of pandemics, specifically COVID-19, by focusing on the early impact of the coronavirus in 2020 and its longer-term ripple effects. By grounding this personal essay in these early reflections on an extremely intense period of both personal and global chaos, it is possible to begin discussing what future historians, anthropologists, and academics in related fields might glimpse when looking backward. It is also important to begin understanding how future pandemic response plans will emerge, building on the failures of 2020, in order to manage yet unknown global pandemics. One key takeaway for this planning work is to avoid defaulting into the essay’s core theoretical point, a concept I call virological determinism, where societal inequalities amplifying pandemic-related effects are entirely blamed on a virus and not the underlying social conditions caused by government negligence. By reflecting on the productive possibilities created by pandemics, it is also then possible to begin understanding how many more people died during the early years of COVID-19 than ever needed to.

SEIR Model on the Review Impact of Social Distancing for COVID-19 Transmission Dynamics

The COVID-19 pandemic has had a huge influence on world health, with many countries enacting lockdowns and social distancing measures to help reduce transmission. However, the efficiency of these efforts is questionable, particularly in locations like as North East Nigeria, where specific socioeconomic and demographic characteristics can alter virus transmission dynamics. In this paper, we assess the pandemic in North East Nigeria by modifying the SIR to SEIR compartmental model, which incorporates data from the National Centre for Disease Control. We exposed that social distancing techniques like face masks, hand washing, and avoiding big gatherings are more successful than lockdowns in slowing the spread of COVID-19 in the region. Our findings suggest that future pandemic response plans should concentrate on social distancing measures that are both effective and feasible while avoiding the economic and social disruptions caused by lockdowns. Our work emphasizes the significance of specialized approaches to pandemic control in varied situations, including North East Nigeria.

‘We Were an Afterthought’: Corona Virus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Pandemic in Culturally and Linguistically Diverse (CALD) Communities in New South Wales, Australia

ABSTRACT This paper investigates the impact on Culturally and Linguistically Diverse (CALD) communities in Australia of government and community responses to the coronavirus pandemic of 2019 in the domains of education, employment, housing, social connectedness, and public health communication. Most of the examples are drawn from the state of New South Wales. In Australia, CALD refers to people from countries not classified as main English speaking. Most CALD communities reported in this article are from refugee backgrounds, are recently arrived migrants or do not use English in most of their communication. Inadequate, and in some instances, inappropriate or absent support, adversely impacts CALD communities. We used a multidisciplinary bricolage approach that draws on media, government, and community support publications and concluded that CALD communities experienced heightened pressures due to lower resource availability and poor communication. This led to disruption of support services, exposing gaps and vulnerability. The results reported here challenge Australian government, schools, community agencies, researchers to include proactively CALD community perspectives when planning and responding to such crises in future. Improving communication, pandemic response planning, addressing needs and ensuring participation are key considerations.

“Family doctors are also people”: a qualitative analysis of how family physicians managed competing personal and professional responsibilities during the COVID-19 pandemic

BackgroundFamily physicians (FPs) fill an essential role in public health emergencies yet have frequently been neglected in pandemic response plans. This exclusion harms FPs in their clinical roles and has unintended consequences in the management of concurrent personal responsibilities, many of which were amplified by the pandemic. The objective of our study was to explore the experiences of FPs during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic to better understand how they managed their competing professional and personal priorities.MethodsWe conducted semi-structured interviews with FPs from four Canadian regions between October 2020 and June 2021. Employing a maximum variation sampling approach, we recruited participants until we achieved saturation. Interviews explored FPs’ personal and professional roles and responsibilities during the pandemic, the facilitators and barriers that they encountered, and any gender-related experiences. Transcribed interviews were thematically analysed.ResultsWe interviewed 68 FPs during the pandemic and identified four overarching themes in participants’ discussion of their personal experiences: personal caregiving responsibilities, COVID-19 risk navigation to protect family members, personal health concerns, and available and desired personal supports for FPs to manage their competing responsibilities. While FPs expressed a variety of ways in which their personal experiences made their professional responsibilities more complicated, rarely did that affect the extent to which they participated in the pandemic response.ConclusionsFor FPs to contribute fully to a pandemic response, they must be factored into pandemic plans. Failure to appreciate their unique role and circumstances often leaves FPs feeling unsupported in both their professional and personal lives. Comprehensive planning in anticipation of future pandemics must consider FPs’ varied responsibilities, health concerns, and necessary precautions. Having adequate personal and practice supports in place will facilitate the essential role of FPs in responding to a pandemic crisis while continuing to support their patients’ primary care needs.