IntroductionWorldwide, people experience the effects of infectious disease outbreaks on a regular basis. These effects vary from direct impact of the virus on health, to indirect impact of control measures on day-to-day life. Yet, incorporating the experiences, views and ideas of patients and the public in decision-making in managing outbreaks does not take place on a structural basis. However, this might be beneficial. We examined the current incorporation of patient and public engagement (PPE) in decision-making regarding outbreak management (OM).MethodsA systematic search was executed in PubMed, Embase, APA PsycInfo, Web of Science, Scopus and other literature sources. Papers describing PPE in decision-making regarding OM on a collective level (group-level) were included. Relevant information about study characteristics, methods, impact and embedment of PPE in decision-making in OM was collected.ResultsThe search yielded 4186 papers of which 13 were included. The papers varied in study context and design. Remarkably, no substantial patient engagement was identified. Overall, public engagement (PE) in decision-making regarding OM was mostly executed by a mix of methods, for example, workshops, interviews and surveys. Knowledge and idea sharing between the public and experts was deemed beneficial for establishing well-informed discussions. The efforts resulted in either direct implications for practice or recommendations in policy papers. Most papers described their efforts as a first step. No structural embedment of collective PE in decision-making regarding OM was identified. Furthermore, the quality of most papers was low to moderate due to insufficient description.ConclusionOverall, various practices for PE can be potentially valuable, but structural embedment in OM decision-making on a collective level was low. Before PPE can be permanently embedded in OM, more evidence on its impact needs to be collected. Furthermore, reporting on the engagement process and used terminology needs to be harmonised to ensure reproducibility and transparency.

Background: the costs of HIV/AIDS interventions in Indonesia are largely unknown. Knowing these costs is animportant input for policy makers in the decision-making of setting priorities among HIV/AIDS interventions. Theaim of this analysis is to determine the costs of four HIV/AIDS interventions in Bandung, Indonesia in 2015, to informthe local AIDS commission. Methods: data on utilization and costs of the different interventions were collected in asexual transmitted infections (STI)-clinic and the KPA, the local HIV/AIDS commission, for the period of January2015-December 2015. The costs were estimated from a societal perspective, using a micro-costing approach. Results:the total annualized costs for condom distribution, mobile voluntary counselling and testing (VCT), religious basedinformation, communication, and education (IEC) and STI services equalled US$56,926, US$2,985, US$1,963 andUS$5,865, respectively. Conclusion: this analysis has provided cost estimates of four different HIV/AIDS interventionsin Bandung, Indonesia. Additionally, it has estimated the costs of scaling up these interventions. Together, this providesimportant information for policy makers vis-à-vis the implementation of these interventions. However, an evaluationof the effectiveness of these interventions is needed to estimate the cost-effectiveness.

Background In the management of epidemics, like COVID‐19, trade‐offs have to be made between reducing mortality and morbidity and minimizing socioeconomic and political consequences. Traditionally, epidemic management (EM) has been guided and executed attentively by experts and policymakers. It can, however, still be controversial in the public sphere. In the last decades, public engagement (PE) has been successfully applied in various aspects of healthcare. This leads to the question if PE could be implemented in EM decision‐making. Methods From June to October 2020, seven deliberative discussion focus groups were executed with 35 Dutch citizens between 19 and 84 years old. Their views on PE in COVID‐19 management were explored. The deliberative approach allows for the education of participants on the topic before the discussion. The benefits, barriers, timing and possible forms of PE in EM were discussed. Results Almost all participants supported PE in EM, as they thought that integrating their experiences and ideas would benefit the quality of EM, and increase awareness and acceptance of measures. A fitting mode for PE was consultation, as it was deemed important to provide the public with possibilities to share ideas and feedback; however, final authority remained with experts. The publics could particularly provide input about communication campaigns and control measures. PE could be executed after the first acute phase of the epidemic and during evaluations. Conclusions This paper describes the construction of an empirically informed framework about the values and conditions for PE in EM from the perspective of the public. Participants expressed support to engage certain population groups and considered it valuable for the quality and effectiveness of EM; however, they expressed doubts about the feasibility of PE and the capabilities of citizens. In future studies, these results should be confirmed by a broader audience. Patient or Public Contribution No patients or members of the public were involved in the construction and execution of this study. This study was very exploratory, to gain a first insight into the views of the public in the Netherlands, and will be used to develop engagement practices accordingly. At this stage, the involvement of the public was not yet appropriate.