A framework for seroepidemiologic investigations in future pandemics: insights from an evaluation of WHO's Unity Studies initiative.
COVID-19
Pandemic preparedness
SARS-CoV-2
Seroepidemiologic investigations
Journal
Health research policy and systems
ISSN: 1478-4505
Titre abrégé: Health Res Policy Syst
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101170481
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
16 May 2023
16 May 2023
Historique:
received:
28
06
2022
accepted:
20
02
2023
medline:
18
5
2023
pubmed:
17
5
2023
entrez:
16
5
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The WHO Unity Studies initiative supports countries, especially low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), in conducting seroepidemiologic studies for rapidly informing responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. Ten generic study protocols were developed which standardized epidemiologic and laboratory methods. WHO provided technical support, serological assays and funding for study implementation. An external evaluation was conducted to assess (1) the usefulness of study findings in guiding response strategies, (2) management and support to conduct studies and (3) capacity built from engagement with the initiative. The evaluation focused on the three most frequently used protocols, namely first few cases, household transmission and population-based serosurvey, 66% of 339 studies tracked by WHO. All 158 principal investigators (PIs) with contact information were invited to complete an online survey. A total of 19 PIs (randomly selected within WHO regions), 14 WHO Unity focal points at the country, regional and global levels, 12 WHO global-level stakeholders and eight external partners were invited to be interviewed. Interviews were coded in MAXQDA™, synthesized into findings and cross-verified by a second reviewer. Among 69 (44%) survey respondents, 61 (88%) were from LMICs. Ninety-five percent gave positive feedback on technical support, 87% reported that findings contributed to COVID-19 understanding, 65% to guiding public health and social measures, and 58% to guiding vaccination policy. Survey and interview group responses showed that the main technical barriers to using study findings were study quality, variations in study methods (challenge for meta-analysis), completeness of reporting study details and clarity of communicating findings. Untimely study findings were another barrier, caused by delays in ethical clearance, receipt of serological assays and approval to share findings. There was strong agreement that the initiative created equitable research opportunities, connected expertise and facilitated study implementation. Around 90% of respondents agreed the initiative should continue in the future. The Unity Studies initiative created a highly valued community of practice, contributed to study implementation and research equity, and serves as a valuable framework for future pandemics. To strengthen this platform, WHO should establish emergency-mode procedures to facilitate timeliness and continue to build capacity to rapidly conduct high-quality studies and communicate findings in a format friendly to decision-makers.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The WHO Unity Studies initiative supports countries, especially low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), in conducting seroepidemiologic studies for rapidly informing responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. Ten generic study protocols were developed which standardized epidemiologic and laboratory methods. WHO provided technical support, serological assays and funding for study implementation. An external evaluation was conducted to assess (1) the usefulness of study findings in guiding response strategies, (2) management and support to conduct studies and (3) capacity built from engagement with the initiative.
METHODS
METHODS
The evaluation focused on the three most frequently used protocols, namely first few cases, household transmission and population-based serosurvey, 66% of 339 studies tracked by WHO. All 158 principal investigators (PIs) with contact information were invited to complete an online survey. A total of 19 PIs (randomly selected within WHO regions), 14 WHO Unity focal points at the country, regional and global levels, 12 WHO global-level stakeholders and eight external partners were invited to be interviewed. Interviews were coded in MAXQDA™, synthesized into findings and cross-verified by a second reviewer.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Among 69 (44%) survey respondents, 61 (88%) were from LMICs. Ninety-five percent gave positive feedback on technical support, 87% reported that findings contributed to COVID-19 understanding, 65% to guiding public health and social measures, and 58% to guiding vaccination policy. Survey and interview group responses showed that the main technical barriers to using study findings were study quality, variations in study methods (challenge for meta-analysis), completeness of reporting study details and clarity of communicating findings. Untimely study findings were another barrier, caused by delays in ethical clearance, receipt of serological assays and approval to share findings. There was strong agreement that the initiative created equitable research opportunities, connected expertise and facilitated study implementation. Around 90% of respondents agreed the initiative should continue in the future.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
The Unity Studies initiative created a highly valued community of practice, contributed to study implementation and research equity, and serves as a valuable framework for future pandemics. To strengthen this platform, WHO should establish emergency-mode procedures to facilitate timeliness and continue to build capacity to rapidly conduct high-quality studies and communicate findings in a format friendly to decision-makers.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37194007
doi: 10.1186/s12961-023-00973-z
pii: 10.1186/s12961-023-00973-z
pmc: PMC10187500
doi:
Types de publication
Meta-Analysis
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
34Subventions
Organisme : WHO
ID : APW 111261534
Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s).
Références
Influenza Other Respir Viruses. 2021 Sep;15(5):561-568
pubmed: 34173715
PLoS One. 2015 Aug 28;10(8):e0135222
pubmed: 26317975
BMJ Glob Health. 2022 Aug;7(8):
pubmed: 35998978
Lancet Infect Dis. 2021 Apr;21(4):e75-e76
pubmed: 32763195
CMAJ. 2012 Jan 10;184(1):E70-6
pubmed: 22083674
Influenza Other Respir Viruses. 2018 Sep;12(5):558-565
pubmed: 29727518
Influenza Other Respir Viruses. 2017 Jan;11(1):2-14
pubmed: 27417916
PLoS One. 2021 Aug 31;16(8):e0256871
pubmed: 34464430
Soc Sci Med. 2009 Jan;68(1):154-68
pubmed: 19013702
Vaccine. 2002 Aug 19;20(25-26):3130-6
pubmed: 12163264
J Infect Dis. 2020 Nov 9;222(11):1772-1775
pubmed: 32856712
PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2016 May 03;10(5):e0004699
pubmed: 27136913
Influenza Other Respir Viruses. 2018 Sep;12(5):551-557
pubmed: 29722140
Math Biosci. 2021 Mar;333:108545
pubmed: 33460673
Malar J. 2019 Dec 4;18(1):402
pubmed: 31801556
Influenza Other Respir Viruses. 2022 Jan;16(1):7-13
pubmed: 34611986
AIDS. 1994 Oct;8(10):1359-69
pubmed: 7818807
Influenza Other Respir Viruses. 2022 Sep;16(5):803-819
pubmed: 36825117
Lancet Glob Health. 2021 May;9(5):e598-e609
pubmed: 33705690
Biomed Environ Sci. 2020 Oct 20;33(10):735-744
pubmed: 33228832
PLoS One. 2021 Jun 23;16(6):e0252617
pubmed: 34161316
Clin Microbiol Infect. 2021 Mar;27(3):331-340
pubmed: 33228974