scholarly journals Operationalising Regional Cooperation for Infectious Disease Control: A Scoping Review of Regional Disease Control Bodies and Networks

Author(s):  
Anna Durrance-Bagale ◽  
Manar Marzouk ◽  
Sunanda Agarwal ◽  
Aparna Ananthakrishnan ◽  
Sarah Gan ◽  
...  

Background: The rapid spread of the COVID-19 pandemic demonstrates the value of regional cooperation in infectious disease prevention and control. We explored the literature on regional infectious disease control bodies, to identify lessons, barriers and enablers to inform operationalisation of a regional infectious disease control body or network in southeast Asia. Methods: We conducted a scoping review to examine existing literature on regional infectious disease control bodies and networks, and to identify lessons that can be learned that will be useful for operationalisation of a regional infectious disease control body such as the ASEAN Center for Public Health Emergency and Emerging Diseases. Results: Of the 57 articles included, 53 (93%) were in English, with two (3%) in Spanish and one (2%) each in Dutch and French. Most were commentaries or review articles describing programme initiatives. Sixteen (28%) publications focused on organisations in the Asian continent, with 14 (25%) focused on Africa, and 14 (24%) primarily focused on the European region. Key lessons focused on organisational factors, diagnosis and detection, human resources, communication, accreditation, funding, and sustainability. Enablers and constraints were consistent across regions/organisations. A clear understanding of the regional context, budgets, cultural or language issues, staffing capacity and governmental priorities, is pivotal. An initial workshop inclusive of the various bodies involved in the design, implementation, monitoring or evaluation of programmes is essential. Clear governance structure, with individual responsibilities clear from the beginning, will reduce friction. Secure, long-term funding is also a key aspect of the success of any programme. Conclusion: Operationalisation of regional infectious disease bodies and networks is complicated, but with extensive groundwork, and focus on organisational factors, diagnosis and detection, human resources, communication, accreditation, funding, and sustainability, it is achievable. Ways to promote success are to include as many stakeholders as possible from the beginning, to ensure that context-specific factors are considered, and to encourage employees through capacity building and mentoring, to ensure they feel valued and reduce staff turnover.

1980 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 107-119 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jane Fedorowicz ◽  
William D. Haseman

EcoHealth ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 44-49 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter Daniels ◽  
Bagoes Poermadjaja ◽  
Chris Morrissy ◽  
Thanh Long Ngo ◽  
Paul Selleck ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Feng-Jen Tsai ◽  
Mathuros Tipayamongkholgul

Abstract Background This study aimed to evaluate associations among countries’ self-reported International Health Regulation 2005 (IHR 2005) capacity assessments and infectious disease control outcomes. Methods Countries’ self-reported assessments implemented by percentages as IHR Monitoring Tools (IHRMT) in 2016 and 2017 were used to represent national capacity regarding infectious disease control. WHO Disease Outbreak News and matched diseases reports on ProMED-mail were collected in 2016 to represent disease control outcomes of countries. Disease control outcomes were divided in good, normal and bad groups based on the development of outbreaks listed in the reports. The Human Development Index (HDI), density of physicians and nurses, health expenditure, number of arrivals of international tourists were also collected for control. Chi-square test and logistic regression were applied for analysis. Results A total of 907 cases occurred in 92 countries. For all diseases, cases occurring in high international travel volume countries presented twice the risk of having a bad disease control outcomes than cases occurring in low international travel volume countries (OR = 2.19 for IHR 2016, OR =2.97 for IHR 2017). Cases occurring in low IHR average score countries had significant higher risk (OR = 7.83 for IHR 2016 and OR = 2.23 for IHR 2017) of having a bad disease control outcomes than countries with high IHR average scores. For only human diseases, cases occurring in high international travel volume countries presented twice the risk of having a bad disease control outcomes than cases occurring in low international travel volume countries for IHR 2017 (OR =2.79). Cases occurring in low IHR average score countries had significant higher risk (OR = 11.16 for IHR 2016 and OR = 3.45 for IHR 2017) of having a bad disease control outcomes than countries with high IHR average scores. The HDI, health workforce density and total health expenditure were all positively associated with disease control outcomes. Conclusions Countries’ self-reported infectious disease control capacities positively correlated with their disease control outcomes. While the self-reported IHR scores were accountable to some degree, this approach was useful for understanding global capacity in infectious disease control and in allocating resources for future preparedness.


2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
feng-jen Tsai ◽  
Mathuros Tipayamongkholgul

Abstract Background This study aimed to evaluate associations among countries’ self-reported International Health Regulation 2005 (IHR 2005) capacity assessments and infectious disease control outcomes. Methods Countries’ self-reported assessments implemented by percentages as IHR Monitoring Tools (IHRMT) in 2016 and 2017 were used to represent national capacity regarding infectious disease control. WHO Disease Outbreak News and matched diseases reports on ProMED-mail were collected in 2016 to represent disease control outcomes of countries. Disease control outcomes were divided in good, normal and bad groups based on the development of outbreaks listed in the reports. The Human Development Index (HDI), density of physicians and nurses, health expenditure, number of arrivals of international tourists were also collected for control. Chi-square test and logistic regression were applied for analysis. Results A total of 907 cases occurred in 92 countries. For all diseases, cases occurring in high international travel volume countries presented twice the risk of having a bad disease control outcomes than cases occurring in low international travel volume countries (OR = 2.19 for IHR 2016, OR =2.97 for IHR 2017). Cases occurring in low IHR average score countries had significant higher risk (OR = 7.83 for IHR 2016 and OR = 2.23 for IHR 2017) of having a bad disease control outcomes than countries with high IHR average scores. For only human diseases, cases occurring in high international travel volume countries presented twice the risk of having a bad disease control outcomes than cases occurring in low international travel volume countries for IHR 2017 (OR =2.79). Cases occurring in low IHR average score countries had significant higher risk (OR = 11.16 for IHR 2016 and OR = 3.45 for IHR 2017) of having a bad disease control outcomes than countries with high IHR average scores. The HDI, health workforce density and total health expenditure were all positively associated with disease control outcomes. Conclusions Countries’ self-reported infectious disease control capacities positively correlated with their disease control outcomes. While the self-reported IHR scores were accountable to some degree, this approach was useful for understanding global capacity in infectious disease control and in allocating resources for future preparedness.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document