scholarly journals Initial Public-Health Emergency Response to SARS and COVID-19 Pandemics in Mainland China: A Retrospective Comparative Study

2021 ◽  
Vol Volume 14 ◽  
pp. 4199-4209
Author(s):  
Huanhuan Zhu ◽  
Qian Wang ◽  
Tiantian Zhang ◽  
Xin Liu ◽  
Ruiming Dai ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Comparative Study ◽  
Emergency Response ◽  
Mainland China ◽  
Public Health Emergency ◽  
Public Health Emergency Response ◽  
Retrospective Comparative Study

scholarly journals Facts and Reflections on Initial Public Health Emergency Response to SARS and COVID-19 Pandemics in Mainland China: A Retrospective Comparative Study

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Huanhuan Zhu ◽  
Qian Wang ◽  
Tiantian Zhang ◽  
Xin Liu ◽  
Ruiming Dai ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Comparative Study ◽  
Emergency Response ◽  
Mainland China ◽  
Public Health Emergency ◽  
Peak Time ◽  
Pathogen Identification ◽  
Public Health Emergency Response ◽  
Retrospective Comparative Study

Abstract Background: Since December 2019, 2019-nCoV has emerged in Wuhan, China, the fast pace of transmission is wreaking global public health crisis. Country’s reaction speed is critical for the control of public health emergency (PHE), especially in the early stage of an outbreak. Compared with SARS pandemic, whether has the efficiency of initial public health emergency response to COVID-19 in mainland China been improved? And whether is there still existing vulnerabilities in current PHE system? Studies on this topic are relatively few. We tried to find the answers, evidences and alternatives. Methods: We conducted a retrospective comparative study. The speed of hospital reporting, pathogen identification and government decision-making between SARS and COVID-19 were compared by selecting 5 critical events from initial public health emergency response timeline. Besides, combining with the two pandemics' progress curves, we discussed the characteristics of their peak time.Results:(1) SARS completed the entire initial public health emergency response in 127 days, and COVID-19 completed in 44 days. Response speed has been shorted nearly by 3 times. (2) Both the first SARS and COVID-19 cases were reported in 19 days. It doesn't appear that hospital reporting speed becomes faster. (3) The accumulated time completing pathogen identification were 118 days for SARS and 31 days for COVID-19. The speed has been improved by more than 3 times. (4) 9 days after the completion of pathogen identification, national government made emergency policies for SARS while the interval between pathogen identification and national government's decision-making for COVID-19 was 13 days. (5) The peak time of SARS came about 80 days later than that of COVID-19. But both the two pandemics' peak occurred about 20 days after the national government's decision-making, and then the curves went down dramatically.Conclusions: The speed of initial public health emergency response to pandemic has been improved due to faster identification. However, some deficiencies and challenges in early alert and authorities' decision-making still remain. Therefore, Chinese government should put more stress on improving hospital's sensitivity to new emerging infectious diseases and timeliness of government's decision-making.

scholarly journals The trend of morbidity and mortality of Coronavirus disease 2019 under the first-level public health emergency response in China

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jingya Xu ◽  
Xiling Lin ◽  
Xiaowen Pan ◽  
Xin Huang ◽  
Ying Chen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Emergency Response ◽  
Prevention And Control ◽  
Control Mechanism ◽  
Mainland China ◽  
Public Health Emergency ◽  
World Health ◽  
Public Health Emergency Response ◽  
Health Organization ◽  
And Control

Abstract Background The ongoing outbreak of Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has led to declaration of public health emergency of international concern by World Health Organization and the first-level public health emergency response in China. We aimed to share the Joint Prevention and Control Mechanism taken in Mainland China and evaluate the effectiveness.Methods A powerful Joint Prevention and Control Mechanism was adopted to fight against COVID-19 in Mainland China. Data were collected from the daily epidemic reports released by the national and provincial health commissions of China from January 21 to April 6, 2020. Global data were collected from daily situation reports by World Health Organization.Results As of April 6, 2020, there were 81,740 confirmed COVID-19 cases (32 new) in Mainland China. The case fatality ratio was 4.74% and 0.85% in and outside Hubei respectively. It is gratifying to see that there were up to 22 provinces reporting zero new infections, but it can’t be ignored that there were 1,196,651 confirmed cases (68,700 new) reported in over 221 countries and territories outside China and the total death number were 69,274, nowadays China is facing great challenges of imported cases.Conclusions Great achievements have been made in controlling the spread of COVID-19 in Mainland China, but it is still a major challenge worldwide. The comprehensive and powerful control measures taken by Mainland China have proved to be effective and might be applicable to other regions.

Public Health Emergency Response Leadership Training

2021 ◽  
Vol Publish Ahead of Print ◽  
Author(s):  
Yang Li ◽  
Edbert B. Hsu ◽  
Xiaohong M. Davis ◽  
Gail M. Stennies ◽  
Nhu N. Pham ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Emergency Response ◽  
Leadership Training ◽  
Public Health Emergency ◽  
Public Health Emergency Response

scholarly journals Use of Community Assessments for Public Health Emergency Response (CASPERs) to Rapidly Assess Public Health Issues — United States, 2003-2012

2015 ◽  
Vol 30 (4) ◽  
pp. 374-381 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tesfaye M. Bayleyegn ◽  
Amy H. Schnall ◽  
Shimere G. Ballou ◽  
David F. Zane ◽  
Sherry L. Burrer ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Emergency Response ◽  
Disaster Preparedness ◽  
Public Health Emergency ◽  
Cluster Sampling ◽  
Health Issues ◽  
Public Health Action ◽  
Sampling Methodology ◽  
Health Action ◽  
Public Health Emergency Response

AbstractIntroductionCommunity Assessment for Public Health Emergency Response (CASPER) is an epidemiologic technique designed to provide quick, inexpensive, accurate, and reliable household-based public health information about a community’s emergency response needs. The Health Studies Branch at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) provides in-field assistance and technical support to state, local, tribal, and territorial (SLTT) health departments in conducting CASPERs during a disaster response and in non-emergency settings. Data from CASPERs conducted from 2003 through 2012 were reviewed to describe uses of CASPER, ascertain strengths of the CASPER methodology, and highlight significant findings.MethodsThrough an assessment of the CDC’s CASPER metadatabase, all CASPERs that involved CDC support performed in US states and territories from 2003 through 2012 were reviewed and compared descriptively for differences in geographic distribution, sampling methodology, mapping tool, assessment settings, and result and action taken by decision makers.ResultsFor the study period, 53 CASPERs were conducted in 13 states and one US territory. Among the 53 CASPERS, 38 (71.6%) used the traditional 2-stage cluster sampling methodology, 10 (18.8%) used a 3-stage cluster sampling, and two (3.7%) used a simple random sampling methodology. Among the CASPERs, 37 (69.9%) were conducted in response to specific natural or human-induced disasters, including 14 (37.8%) for hurricanes. The remaining 16 (30.1%) CASPERS were conducted in non-disaster settings to assess household preparedness levels or potential effects of a proposed plan or program. The most common recommendations resulting from a disaster-related CASPER were to educate the community on available resources (27; 72.9%) and provide services (18; 48.6%) such as debris removals and refills of medications. In preparedness CASPERs, the most common recommendations were to educate the community in disaster preparedness (5; 31.2%) and to revise or improve preparedness plans (5; 31.2%). Twenty-five (47.1%) CASPERs documented on the report or publications the public health action has taken based on the result or recommendations. Findings from 27 (50.9%) of the CASPERs conducted with CDC assistance were published in peer-reviewed journals or elsewhere.ConclusionThe number of CASPERs conducted with CDC assistance has increased and diversified over the past decade. The CASPERs’ results and recommendations supported the public health decisions that benefitted the community. Overall, the findings suggest that the CASPER is a useful tool for collecting household-level disaster preparedness and response data and generating information to support public health action.BayleyegnTM, SchnallAH, BallouSG, ZaneDF, BurrerSL, NoeRS, WolkinAF. Use of Community Assessments for Public Health Emergency Response (CASPERs) to rapidly assess public health issues — United States, 2003-2012. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2015;30(4):1-8.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document