Macro level influences on strategic responses to the COVID-19 pandemic - an international survey and tool for national assessments.
Journal
Journal of global health
ISSN: 2047-2986
Titre abrégé: J Glob Health
Pays: Scotland
ID NLM: 101578780
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 Jul 2021
01 Jul 2021
Historique:
entrez:
5
7
2021
pubmed:
6
7
2021
medline:
17
7
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Variation 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. A 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. 928 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. The 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.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Variation 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.
METHODS
METHODS
A 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.
RESULTS
RESULTS
928 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.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
The 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.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34221358
doi: 10.7189/jogh.11.05011
pii: jogh-11-05011
pmc: PMC8248749
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
05011Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2021 by the Journal of Global Health. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Competing interests: The authors completed the ICMJE Unified Competing Interest form (available upon request from the corresponding author), and declare no other conflicts of interest.
Références
N Engl J Med. 2020 Jun 11;382(24):2302-2315
pubmed: 32289214
EClinicalMedicine. 2020 Aug;25:100464
pubmed: 32838237
J Health Polit Policy Law. 2020 Dec 1;45(6):997-1012
pubmed: 32464665
BMJ Glob Health. 2019 Jan 29;4(1):e001157
pubmed: 30775006
Lancet Glob Health. 2020 Sep;8(9):e1142-e1151
pubmed: 32682459
Lancet Planet Health. 2020 Aug;4(8):e312-e314
pubmed: 32702296
Lancet. 2020 Sep 5;396(10252):653-655
pubmed: 32681821
JAMA. 2011 Jul 13;306(2):200-1
pubmed: 21750298
BMJ. 2020 Jun 25;369:m2522
pubmed: 32586833
BMJ Glob Health. 2020 Aug;5(8):
pubmed: 32839197
Lancet. 2020 Apr 25;395(10233):1321-1322
pubmed: 32277876
Lancet. 2020 Feb 29;395(10225):664-666
pubmed: 32061311
Int J Health Policy Manag. 2020 Jul 14;:
pubmed: 32668893
PLoS One. 2020 Oct 6;15(10):e0240011
pubmed: 33022023
BMJ Glob Health. 2019 Sep 11;4(5):e001730
pubmed: 31565417
JAMA. 2020 Mar 24;323(12):1133-1134
pubmed: 32207806
J R Soc Med. 2020 Jul;113(7):245-250
pubmed: 32663428
BMJ. 2020 Aug 18;370:m3209
pubmed: 32816760
Lancet Glob Health. 2020 Sep;8(9):e1132-e1141
pubmed: 32673577
BMJ. 2020 Apr 27;369:m1557
pubmed: 32341002
Health Policy. 2020 Jun;124(6):577-580
pubmed: 32425281
Telemed J E Health. 2007 Aug;13(4):425-31
pubmed: 17848110