Framing post-pandemic preparedness: Comparing eight European plans

Abstract

Framing has previously been studied in the field of pandemic preparedness and global health governance and influenza pandemics have usually been framed in terms of security and evidence-based medicine on a global scale. This paper is based on the pandemic preparedness plans, published after 2009, from eight European countries. We study how pandemic preparedness is framed and how pandemic influenza in general is narrated in the plans. All plans contain references to 'uncertainty', 'pandemic phases', 'risk management', 'vulnerability' and 'surveillance'. These themes were all framed differently in the studied plans. The preparedness plans in the member states diverge in ways that will challenge the ambition of the European Union to make the pandemic preparedness plans interoperable and to co-ordinate the member states during future pandemics. ARTICLE HISTORY

Ebola, Zika, Corona…What Is Next for Our World?

“…Furthermore, political decisions and their associated policies greatly influence what is studied or researched, environmental regulations, public-private partnerships, and social processes and institutions. One can easily see how politics and policies are dominant influences on global health [24][25][26].…”

“…Accessible and high-quality primary care is an essential component of any national or regional healthcare system that aspires to be effective, efficient, and equitable. Primary care systems are also the foundation and key drivers of pandemic related emergency response and can serve as warning barometers for emergency response mechanisms [24][25][26][27]. Therefore, the last "P" that we recommend adding to the original model is: "Primary Care"…”

‘Tiny Iceland’ preparing for Ebola in a globalized world

“…The study was reported to the Data Protection Authority and approved by the National Bioethics Committee in Iceland (number VSI- ). Subsequently, the study was approved by the University Hospital Ethical Committee on 4 February 2016 (number LSH [13][14][15][16]. Participants signed an informed consent form before taking part in the study.…”

“…Yet, preparedness is also enveloped in and influenced by the socio-cultural dimension at the individual, organizational, and national levels, and measures to manage outbreaks are not always accepted or accommodated by the communities to which they are applied [13]. An analysis of eight European countries' preparedness plans since 2009 for countering a future influenza A (H1N1) pandemic revealed that the way plans were framed varied considerably, and '[told] us something about how the different countries want pandemics and preparedness to be understood by the public' [14]. More research was encouraged into cultural and social structures in the respective countries.…”

Solidarity at the Needle Point - the Intersection of Compassion and Containment during the A(H1N1) Pandemic in Sweden 2009

“…In several statements, WHO officials focused on the novelty and unpredictability of the virus strain, on the need for global solidarity, and on the presence of H1N1 infection among the young as a key distinction for this pandemic (Abeysinghe 2015) [9] The first influenza pandemic in over 40 years was now hitting the world and rapidly turning decades of influenza pandemic preparedness plans into different versions of pandemic responses. Since World War II, influenza vaccination has been the most favored technical solution to protect people from flu, whether seasonal or pandemic (Lundgren and Holmberg 2016) [10]. When the WHO decided to upgrade the pandemic and also focus on its implied seriousness -a judgement that has since been strongly questioned (cf.…”