How prepared are we for cross-border outbreaks? An exploratory analysis of cross-border response networks for outbreaks of multidrug resistant microorganisms in the Netherlands and Germany.
Carbapenem-Resistant Enterobacteriaceae
/ pathogenicity
Contact Tracing
/ methods
Disease Outbreaks
/ prevention & control
Enterobacteriaceae Infections
/ epidemiology
Germany
Government Programs
/ organization & administration
Humans
International Cooperation
Medical Countermeasures
Netherlands
Surveys and Questionnaires
/ statistics & numerical data
Journal
PloS one
ISSN: 1932-6203
Titre abrégé: PLoS One
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101285081
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2019
2019
Historique:
received:
22
10
2018
accepted:
26
06
2019
entrez:
11
7
2019
pubmed:
11
7
2019
medline:
27
2
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The emergence and spread of multidrug resistant microorganisms is a serious threat to transnational public health. Therefore, it is vital that cross-border outbreak response systems are constantly prepared for fast, rigorous, and efficient response. This research aims to improve transnational collaboration by identifying, visualizing, and exploring two cross-border response networks that are likely to unfold during outbreaks involving the Netherlands and Germany. Quantitative methods were used to explore response networks during a cross-border outbreak of carbapenem resistant Enterobacteriaceae in healthcare settings. Eighty-six Dutch and German health professionals reflected on a fictive but realistic outbreak scenario (response rate ≈ 70%). Data were collected regarding collaborative relationships between stakeholders during outbreak response, prior working relationships, and trust in the networks. Network analysis techniques were used to analyze the networks on the network level (density, centralization, clique structures, and similarity of tie constellations between two networks) and node level (brokerage measures and degree centrality). Although stakeholders mainly collaborate with stakeholders belonging to the same country, transnational collaboration is present in a centralized manner. Integration of the network is reached, since several actors are beneficially positioned to coordinate transnational collaboration. However, levels of trust are moderately low and prior-existing cross-border working relationships are sparse. Given the explored network characteristics, we conclude that the system has a promising basis to achieve effective coordination. However, future research has to determine what kind of network governance form might be most effective and efficient in coordinating the necessary cross-border response activity. Furthermore, networks identified in this study are not only crucial in times of outbreak containment, but should also be fostered in times of non-crisis.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
The emergence and spread of multidrug resistant microorganisms is a serious threat to transnational public health. Therefore, it is vital that cross-border outbreak response systems are constantly prepared for fast, rigorous, and efficient response. This research aims to improve transnational collaboration by identifying, visualizing, and exploring two cross-border response networks that are likely to unfold during outbreaks involving the Netherlands and Germany.
METHODS
Quantitative methods were used to explore response networks during a cross-border outbreak of carbapenem resistant Enterobacteriaceae in healthcare settings. Eighty-six Dutch and German health professionals reflected on a fictive but realistic outbreak scenario (response rate ≈ 70%). Data were collected regarding collaborative relationships between stakeholders during outbreak response, prior working relationships, and trust in the networks. Network analysis techniques were used to analyze the networks on the network level (density, centralization, clique structures, and similarity of tie constellations between two networks) and node level (brokerage measures and degree centrality).
RESULTS
Although stakeholders mainly collaborate with stakeholders belonging to the same country, transnational collaboration is present in a centralized manner. Integration of the network is reached, since several actors are beneficially positioned to coordinate transnational collaboration. However, levels of trust are moderately low and prior-existing cross-border working relationships are sparse.
CONCLUSION
Given the explored network characteristics, we conclude that the system has a promising basis to achieve effective coordination. However, future research has to determine what kind of network governance form might be most effective and efficient in coordinating the necessary cross-border response activity. Furthermore, networks identified in this study are not only crucial in times of outbreak containment, but should also be fostered in times of non-crisis.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31291355
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0219548
pii: PONE-D-18-29887
pmc: PMC6619808
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e0219548Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Références
Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd. 2011;155(35):A3743
pubmed: 21902849
BMC Public Health. 2019 Jan 11;19(1):52
pubmed: 30634960
Health Care Manage Rev. 2011 Oct-Dec;36(4):315-26
pubmed: 21712725
Euro Surveill. 2009 Feb 05;14(5):
pubmed: 19215714
Emerg Health Threats J. 2013;6:
pubmed: 23362414
PLoS Curr. 2009 Aug 31;1:RRN1026
pubmed: 20025199
Infect Dis Poverty. 2014 Aug 05;3:29
pubmed: 25120913
BMJ Qual Saf. 2012 Mar;21(3):239-49
pubmed: 22129933
Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2008 Dec;29(12):1110-7
pubmed: 18973456
Prev Chronic Dis. 2010 Nov;7(6):A116
pubmed: 20950523
Clin Infect Dis. 2018 Sep 14;67(7):1147-1149
pubmed: 29659740
Int J Med Microbiol. 2013 Aug;303(6-7):380-7
pubmed: 23499307
Soc Networks. 2013 Oct;35(4):
pubmed: 24311893
Public Health Rep. 2009 Jan-Feb;124(1):138-48
pubmed: 19413036
Infection. 2005 Oct;33(5-6):309-13
pubmed: 16258859
Emerg Infect Dis. 2009 May;15(5):727-34
pubmed: 19402958
Antimicrob Resist Infect Control. 2015 Feb 27;4:7
pubmed: 25763183