Integrating the social sciences in epidemic preparedness and response: A strategic framework to strengthen capacities and improve Global Health security.
Anthropology
Epidemics
Global Health security
Governance
Health emergencies
Infectious disease
Preparedness
Social science
Journal
Globalization and health
ISSN: 1744-8603
Titre abrégé: Global Health
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101245734
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
30 12 2020
30 12 2020
Historique:
received:
10
10
2019
accepted:
14
12
2020
entrez:
31
12
2020
pubmed:
1
1
2021
medline:
6
1
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The importance of integrating the social sciences in epidemic preparedness and response has become a common feature of infectious disease policy and practice debates. However to date, this integration remains inadequate, fragmented and under-funded, with limited reach and small initial investments. Based on data collected prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, in this paper we analysed the variety of knowledge, infrastructure and funding gaps that hinder the full integration of the social sciences in epidemics and present a strategic framework for addressing them. Senior social scientists with expertise in public health emergencies facilitated expert deliberations, and conducted 75 key informant interviews, a consultation with 20 expert social scientists from Africa, Asia and Europe, 2 focus groups and a literature review of 128 identified high-priority peer reviewed articles. We also analysed 56 interviews from the Ebola 100 project, collected just after the West African Ebola epidemic. Analysis was conducted on gaps and recommendations. These were inductively classified according to various themes during two group prioritization exercises. The project was conducted between February and May 2019. Findings from the report were used to inform strategic prioritization of global investments in social science capacities for health emergencies. Our analysis consolidated 12 knowledge and infrastructure gaps and 38 recommendations from an initial list of 600 gaps and 220 recommendations. In developing our framework, we clustered these into three areas: 1) Recommendations to improve core social science response capacities, including investments in: human resources within response agencies; the creation of social science data analysis capacities at field and global level; mechanisms for operationalizing knowledge; and a set of rapid deployment infrastructures; 2) Recommendations to strengthen applied and basic social sciences, including the need to: better define the social science agenda and core competencies; support innovative interdisciplinary science; make concerted investments in developing field ready tools and building the evidence-base; and develop codes of conduct; and 3) Recommendations for a supportive social science ecosystem, including: the essential foundational investments in institutional development; training and capacity building; awareness-raising activities with allied disciplines; and lastly, support for a community of practice. Comprehensively integrating social science into the epidemic preparedness and response architecture demands multifaceted investments on par with allied disciplines, such as epidemiology and virology. Building core capacities and competencies should occur at multiple levels, grounded in country-led capacity building. Social science should not be a parallel system, nor should it be "siloed" into risk communication and community engagement. Rather, it should be integrated across existing systems and networks, and deploy interdisciplinary knowledge "transversally" across all preparedness and response sectors and pillars. Future work should update this framework to account for the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the institutional landscape.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
The importance of integrating the social sciences in epidemic preparedness and response has become a common feature of infectious disease policy and practice debates. However to date, this integration remains inadequate, fragmented and under-funded, with limited reach and small initial investments. Based on data collected prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, in this paper we analysed the variety of knowledge, infrastructure and funding gaps that hinder the full integration of the social sciences in epidemics and present a strategic framework for addressing them.
METHODS
Senior social scientists with expertise in public health emergencies facilitated expert deliberations, and conducted 75 key informant interviews, a consultation with 20 expert social scientists from Africa, Asia and Europe, 2 focus groups and a literature review of 128 identified high-priority peer reviewed articles. We also analysed 56 interviews from the Ebola 100 project, collected just after the West African Ebola epidemic. Analysis was conducted on gaps and recommendations. These were inductively classified according to various themes during two group prioritization exercises. The project was conducted between February and May 2019. Findings from the report were used to inform strategic prioritization of global investments in social science capacities for health emergencies.
FINDINGS
Our analysis consolidated 12 knowledge and infrastructure gaps and 38 recommendations from an initial list of 600 gaps and 220 recommendations. In developing our framework, we clustered these into three areas: 1) Recommendations to improve core social science response capacities, including investments in: human resources within response agencies; the creation of social science data analysis capacities at field and global level; mechanisms for operationalizing knowledge; and a set of rapid deployment infrastructures; 2) Recommendations to strengthen applied and basic social sciences, including the need to: better define the social science agenda and core competencies; support innovative interdisciplinary science; make concerted investments in developing field ready tools and building the evidence-base; and develop codes of conduct; and 3) Recommendations for a supportive social science ecosystem, including: the essential foundational investments in institutional development; training and capacity building; awareness-raising activities with allied disciplines; and lastly, support for a community of practice.
INTERPRETATION
Comprehensively integrating social science into the epidemic preparedness and response architecture demands multifaceted investments on par with allied disciplines, such as epidemiology and virology. Building core capacities and competencies should occur at multiple levels, grounded in country-led capacity building. Social science should not be a parallel system, nor should it be "siloed" into risk communication and community engagement. Rather, it should be integrated across existing systems and networks, and deploy interdisciplinary knowledge "transversally" across all preparedness and response sectors and pillars. Future work should update this framework to account for the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the institutional landscape.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33380341
doi: 10.1186/s12992-020-00652-6
pii: 10.1186/s12992-020-00652-6
pmc: PMC7772799
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
120Subventions
Organisme : Wellcome Trust
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Wellcome Trust (GB)
ID : 108692/Z/15/Z
Pays : International
Organisme : Wellcome Trust
ID : N/A
Pays : United Kingdom
Références
Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2019 Jul 8;374(1776):20180276
pubmed: 31104603
Nat Hum Behav. 2020 May;4(5):460-471
pubmed: 32355299
Soc Sci Med. 2003 Feb;56(4):725-38
pubmed: 12560007
Lancet Infect Dis. 2019 May;19(5):461-463
pubmed: 31034383
Infect Dis Poverty. 2014 Oct 01;3(1):35
pubmed: 25320672
Hum Resour Health. 2008 Dec 16;6:27
pubmed: 19087253
Euro Surveill. 2009 Oct 29;14(43):
pubmed: 19883562
Am J Epidemiol. 2001 Dec 1;154(11):993-9
pubmed: 11724714
BMJ Glob Health. 2020 Sep;5(9):
pubmed: 32948618
J Infect Dis. 2018 Oct 20;218(11):1730-1738
pubmed: 29939284
Health Commun. 2019 Apr;34(4):437-455
pubmed: 29558199
Soc Sci Med. 2004 Aug;59(3):501-23
pubmed: 15144761
Nature. 2019 Nov;575(7781):130-136
pubmed: 31695207
BMJ Glob Health. 2020 Aug;4(Suppl 7):
pubmed: 32816819
Lancet. 2012 Dec 1;380(9857):1884-6
pubmed: 23200487
Soc Sci Med. 1997 Feb;44(3):347-58
pubmed: 9004369
Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2017 May 26;372(1721):
pubmed: 28396480
BMJ Glob Health. 2020 Aug;5(8):
pubmed: 32819916