Protecting the world from infectious disease threats: now or never

Shahpar, Cyrus; Lee, Christopher T.; Wilkason, Colby; Buissonnière, Marine; McClelland, Amanda; Frieden, Thomas R.

doi:10.1136/bmjgh-2019-001885

Cited by 21 publications

(43 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…While the intention of JEE scoring has never been to draw inter-country comparisons, these have nonetheless occurred as politicians and national governments seek to assess their preparedness capacities against those of their neighbours or regional rivals. Ninety-six countries participated in the JEE scoring exercise and in this paper we use ReadyScore, which is the average of 19 technical areas included in JEE, as presented by Shahpar et al [12]. This ReadyScore is calculated using either JEE 1.0 or JEE 2.0, depending on which assessment the country completed.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Global Health Security index and Joint External Evaluation score for health preparedness are not correlated with countries' COVID-19 detection response time and mortality outcome

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Global Health Security Index (GHSI) and Joint External Evaluation (JEE) are two well-known health security and related capability indices. We hypothesised that countries with higher GHSI or JEE scores would have detected their first COVID-19 case earlier, and would experience lower mortality outcome compared to countries with lower scores. We evaluated the effectiveness of GHSI and JEE in predicting countries' COVID-19 detection response times and mortality outcome (deaths/million). We used two different outcomes for the evaluation: (i) detection response time, the duration of time to the first confirmed case detection (from 31st December 2019 to 20th February 2020 when every country's first case was linked to travel from China) and (ii) mortality outcome (deaths/million) until 11th March and 1st July 2020, respectively. We interpreted the detection response time alongside previously published relative risk of the importation of COVID-19 cases from China. We performed multiple linear regression and negative binomial regression analysis to evaluate how these indices predicted the actual outcome. The two indices, GHSI and JEE were strongly correlated (r = 0.82), indicating a good agreement between them. However, both GHSI (r = 0.31) and JEE (r = 0.37) had a poor correlation with countries' COVID-19–related mortality outcome. Higher risk of importation of COVID-19 from China for a given country was negatively correlated with the time taken to detect the first case in that country (adjusted R2 = 0.63–0.66), while the GHSI and JEE had minimal predictive value. In the negative binomial regression model, countries' mortality outcome was strongly predicted by the percentage of the population aged 65 and above (incidence rate ratio (IRR): 1.10 (95% confidence interval (CI): 1.01–1.21) while overall GHSI score (IRR: 1.01 (95% CI: 0.98–1.01)) and JEE (IRR: 0.99 (95% CI: 0.96–1.02)) were not significant predictors. GHSI and JEE had lower predictive value for detection response time and mortality outcome due to COVID-19. We suggest introduction of a population healthiness parameter, to address demographic and comorbidity vulnerabilities, and reappraisal of the ranking system and methods used to obtain the index based on experience gained from this pandemic.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Global Health Security index and Joint External Evaluation score for health preparedness are not correlated with countries' COVID-19 detection response time and mortality outcome

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For example, the first 100 JEEs identified more than 7,000 priority tasks necessary to improve health security, but very few of these gaps have been addressed. 4 In fact, despite having undergone a JEE, many countries have yet to draft and cost their action plans, and even fewer have mobilized the resources needed to improve preparedness capacities. 4 These challenges are evident in data from our recently published Global Health Security (GHS) Index.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…4 In fact, despite having undergone a JEE, many countries have yet to draft and cost their action plans, and even fewer have mobilized the resources needed to improve preparedness capacities. 4 These challenges are evident in data from our recently published Global Health Security (GHS) Index. 5 This firstever benchmarking of health security among the 195 IHR states parties { finds that no country is fully prepared for an epidemic or pandemic.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Road to Achieving Global Health Security: Accelerating Progress and Spurring Urgency to Fill Remaining Gaps

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…25,26 To have progress in global health security, we must have strong partnerships, stakeholder buy-in, and investments. 27 In addition, metrics need to be developed in local and national settings with all stakeholders and partners involved, because such metrics may not meet the criteria that ''one size fits all.'' Global health security metrics need to be tailored to the local conditions in individual countries to best fit their needs and ensure that such metrics can be feasibly measured (ie, data can be collected) to better track progress.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In summary, because the primary aim of global health security is built on a foundation of sustainability, partnerships are critical. [2][3][4][5][9][10][11][12]27 Global health security aims to not only build partnerships, but also to facilitate the development of partnerships across stakeholders, from the national to the local level. [2][3][4][5][9][10][11][12]27 This supplement provides lessons learned on the value of effective partnerships and reveals opportunities for new partnership development.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%