An Evaluation of Epidemic Intelligence Service Alumni in Public Health Leadership Roles

Background The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has administered the Epidemic Intelligence Service (EIS) fellowship for over 50 years, with the goal of developing scientists and leaders in applied epidemiology. Our objective was to understand the extent to which CDC EIS alumni are present in select public health leadership roles. Methods We conducted an evaluation describing EIS alumni representation in five preselected leadership positions (CDC director [1953–2016]; CDC center director, state epidemiologist, Field Epidemiology Training Program [FETP] resident advisor, and Career Epidemiology Field Officer [CEFO] [2000–2016]). We developed a dataset using multiple sources to identify staff in selected positions. We then matched these data with an internal EIS alumni dataset. Results Selected positions were staffed by 353 persons, of which 185 (52%) were EIS alumni; 10 persons served in >1 leadership position, of which 6 were EIS alumni. Among 12 CDC directors, four (33%) were EIS alumni; collectively these alumni led CDC for approximately 25 years. EIS alumni accounted for 29 (58%) of 50 CDC center directors, 61 (35%) of 175 state epidemiologists, 27 (56%) of 48 Field Epidemiology Training Program resident advisors, and 70 (90%) of 78 Career Epidemiology Field Officers. Of 185 EIS alumni in leadership positions, 136 (74%) were physicians, 22 (12%) were scientists, 21 (11%) were veterinarians, 6 (3%) were nurses; 94 (51%) were assigned to a state or local health department. Among 61 EIS alumni who served as state epidemiologists, 40 (66%) were assigned to a state or local health department during EIS. Conclusions EIS alumni accounted for between approximately one-third (CDC directors and state epidemiologists) and 90% (CEFOs) of people serving in essential leadership positions at multiple levels.

Preferences and patterns of response to public health advice during the COVID-19 pandemic

With recurring waves of the Covid-19 pandemic, a dilemma facing public health leadership is whether to provide public advice that is medically optimal (e.g., most protective against infection if followed), but unlikely to be adhered to, or advice that is less protective but is more likely to be followed. To provide insight about this dilemma, we examined and quantified public perceptions about the tradeoff between (a) the stand-alone value of health behavior advice, and (b) the advice’s adherence likelihood. In a series of studies about preference for public health leadership advice, we asked 1061 participants to choose between (5) strict advice that is medically optimal if adhered to but which is less likely to be broadly followed, and (2) relaxed advice, which is less medically effective but more likely to gain adherence—given varying infection expectancies. Participants’ preference was consistent with risk aversion. Offering an informed choice alternative that shifts volition to advice recipients only strengthened risk aversion, but also demonstrated that informed choice was preferred as much or more than the risk-averse strict advice.

Public Health Leadership in a VUCA World Environment: Lessons Learned during the Regional Emergency Rollout of SARS-CoV-2 Vaccinations in Heidelberg, Germany, during the COVID-19 Pandemic

The purpose of this work is to share methods used and lessons learned during a comprehensive inter-institutional pandemic disaster response in Heidelberg, Germany, conveying experiences of the regional SARS-CoV-2 vaccination rollout campaign for up to 1,000,000 vaccines in the year 2020. In this volatile, uncertain, complex, and ambiguous (VUCA) environment, the following five strategic elements were pertinent for institutional arrangements so that specific contributions of the various project partners would be available fast without the necessity of extensive negotiations or information exchange: (1) robust mandate, (2) use of established networks, (3) fast onboarding and securing of commitment of project partners, (4) informed planning of supply capacity, and (5) securing the availability of critical items. Planning tools included analyses through a VUCA lens, analyses of stakeholders and their management, possible failures, and management of main risks including mitigation strategies. The method of the present analysis (VUCA factors combined with analyses of possible failures, and management of stakeholders and risks) can theoretically be adjusted to any public health care emergency anywhere across the globe. Lessons learned include ten tactical leadership priorities and ten major pitfalls.

When Efficacy and Adherence Conflict: Preferences and Patterns of Response to Public Health Advice During the COVID-19 Pandemic

With recurring waves of the Covid-19 pandemic, a dilemma facing public health leadership is whether to provide public advice that is medically optimal (e.g., most protective against infection if followed), but unlikely to be adhered to, or advice that is less protective but is more likely to be followed. To provide insight about this dilemma, we examined and quantified public perceptions about the tradeoff between (a) the stand-alone value of health behavior advice, and (b) the advice’s adherence likelihood. In a series of studies about preference for public health leadership advice, we asked 1,061 participants to choose between (1) strict advice that is medically optimal if adhered to but which is less likely to be broadly followed, and (2) relaxed advice, which is less medically effective but more likely to gain adherence-given varying infection expectancies. Participants’ preference was consistent with risk aversion. Offering an informed choice alternative that shifts volition to advice recipients only strengthened risk aversion, but also demonstrated that informed choice was preferred as much or more than the risk-averse strict advice.

Spread and sources of information and misinformation about COVID-19 early during the pandemic in a U.S. national cohort study

ABSTRACTBackgroundEarly in the pandemic, misinformation about COVID-19 was spread on social media. The purpose of this study was to describe trusted sources of COVID-19 information and claims seen and believed about COVID-19 early in the pandemic among U.S. adults. Then, we assessed the impact of believing such claims on engaging in personal protective actions (PPA).MethodsWe used baseline data from the CHASING COVID Cohort (n = 7,070) collected March 28, 2020 to April 20, 2020 to describe trusted sources of COVID-19 information as well as claims circulating on social media that had been seen and believed. We used Poisson regression to determine the association of believing certain claims with engaging in a higher number of PPA.ResultsThe top three trusted sources of COVID-19 information were the CDC (67.9%), the WHO (53.7%), and State Health Departments (53.0%). Several COVID-19 claims circulated on social media had been seen, e.g., that the virus was created in a laboratory (54.8%). Moreover, substantial proportions of participants indicated agreement with some of these claims. In multivariable regression, we found that belief in certain claims was associated with engaging in a higher number of PPA. For example, believing that paper masks would prevent transmission of the virus was associated with engaging in a higher number of protective actions (β = 0.02, 95% CI: 0.004 – 0.046).ConclusionsResults suggest the need for public health leadership on social media platforms to combat misinformation and supports social media as a tool to further public health interventions.

When efficacy and adherence conflict: preferences and patterns of response to public health advice during the COVID-19 pandemic

With recurring waves of the Covid-19 pandemic, a dilemma facing public health leadership is whether to provide public advice that is medically optimal (e.g., most protective against infection if followed), but unlikely to be adhered to, or advice that is less protective but is more likely to be followed. To provide insight about this dilemma, we examined and quantified public perceptions about the tradeoff between (a) the stand-alone value of health behavior advice, and (b) the advice’s adherence likelihood. In a series of studies about preference for public health leadership advice, we asked 1,061 participants to choose between (1) strict advice that is medically optimal if adhered to but which is less likely to be broadly followed, and (2) relaxed advice, which is less medically effective but more likely to gain adherence - given varying infection expectancies. Participants’ preference was consistent with risk aversion. Offering an informed choice alternative that shifts volition to advice recipients only strengthened risk aversion, but also demonstrated that informed choice was preferred as much or more than the risk-averse strict advice.

The first UK report of a rare Cryptosporidium hominis genetic variant isolated during a complex Scottish swimming pool outbreak

Cryptosporidium species are responsible for causing the majority of parasite-related gastrointestinal infections in the UK. This report describes an outbreak of 12 laboratory-confirmed cryptosporidiosis cases identified as part of a Scottish swimming pool investigation, with 9 primary and 3 secondary cases occurring over an 8-week period. Molecular speciation was successful for 11/12 cases, which revealed 10 Cryptosporidium hominis cases and 1 Cryptosporidium parvum case. Of the 10 C. hominis cases, further typing identified 7 as being an unusual sub-type, IbA6G3, which is the first description in the UK of this rare variant. The remaining three C. hominis cases were identified as the common IbA10G2 subtype. Following implementation of control measures on two occasions, no further cases were reported. This report highlights the importance of molecular typing to identify and characterize outbreaks, and emphasizes the need to adhere to swimming pool guidance. It also raises awareness of the potential for outbreaks to involve multiple species/sub-types, and emphasizes the importance of strong public health leadership to ensure effective multi-agency investigations and management of outbreaks.