Pandemic Preparedness: A Scoping Review of Best and Worst Practices from COVID-19

Abstract

The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the scale of global unpreparedness to deal with the fast-arising needs of global health threats. This problem was coupled with a crisis of governance and presented in the context of globally hitting climate crisis and disasters. Although such a pandemic was predictable due to the known effects of human intervention on the surrounding environment and its devastating secondary effects, such as climate change and increased zoonoses, most countries were unprepared to deal with the scale and scope of the pandemic. In this context, such as that of the climate crisis, the Global North and Global South faced several common challenges, including, first and foremost, the scarcity of resources required for health, policy, wellbeing and socioeconomic wellness. In this paper, we review the most recent evidence available in the literature related to pandemic preparedness and governance, focusing on principles and practices used during the COVID-19 pandemic, and we place it in the context of a European Parliament Interest Group meeting (this event took place on 21 March 2023 during the “European Health Tech Summit”) to ground it within ongoing discussions and narratives of policy and praxis. The review identified key practices and principles required to better face future health threats and emergencies. Beyond health practices relying on technology and innovation, it is useful to mention the importance of contextualising responses and linking them to clear goals, improving the agreement between science and policymaking, thus building trust and enabling transparent communication with the general public based on clear ethical frameworks.

Towards a common European ethical and legal framework for conducting clinical research: the GATEKEEPER experience

“…However, this not only confirms that the multiformity of LERBs complicates and slows down an already complex process but also highlights that a uniform approach would have expedited the evaluation contemporarily the projects related to COVID-19 and the others without a long delay, in case this hiatus is to occur again in the future. It is anticipated that the COVID-19 pandemic was only one of the first global health emergencies and, for this reason, scientists, policymakers, and regulators are working to be “prepared” for future pandemics 23 . This stresses the importance of not repeating the errors of the past and finding new strategies to accelerate the evaluation of research projects in times of emergency.…”

The Use of Contact Tracing Technologies for Infection Prevention and Control Purposes in Nosocomial Settings: A Systematic Literature Review

“…Healthcare settings are high-risk environments for infectious disease outbreaks. The COVID-19 pandemic revealed facilities to be poorly prepared to respond to the challenges of novel pathogens, particularly relating to the tracing of infections [ 3 , 5 , 35 , 36 ]. The use of rapid diagnostic tests and contact tracing technologies in healthcare settings is a key response to future pandemic threats, as well as addressing the silent burden of healthcare-associated infections (HAI) [ 37 , 38 ].…”

“…Pandemic management was, indeed, as rapid as possible, but the lack of up-to-date preparedness plans had severe social and economic consequences [ 3 , 4 ]. This recent review by Maccaro et al [ 5 ] critically evaluates and reports on the most recent evidence available in the literature related to pandemic preparedness and governance, focusing on principles and practices used during the COVID-19 pandemic. The risk of pandemics is higher than ever before [ 6 ] and there is widespread governmental interest in learning from the COVID-19 pandemic in order to ensure the availability of evidence-based Infection Prevention and Control (IPC) measures.…”