Global Health Security Preparedness and Response: An Analysis of the Relationship between Joint External Evaluation Scores and COVID-19 Response Performance

ObjectivesThe COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the importance and complexity of a country’s ability to effectively respond. The Joint External Evaluation (JEE) assessment was launched in 2016 to assess a country’s ability to prevent, detect and respond to public health emergencies. We examined whether JEE indicators could be used to predict a country’s COVID-19 response performance to tailor a country’s support more effectively.DesignFrom April to August 2020, we conducted interviews with Centers for Disease Control and Prevention country offices that requested COVID-19 support and previously completed the JEE (version 1.0). We used an assessment tool, the ‘Emergency Response Capacity Tool’ (ERCT), to assess COVID-19 response performance. We analysed 28 ERCT indicators aligned with eight JEE indicators to assess concordance and discordance using strict agreement and weighted kappa statistics. Generalised estimating equation (GEE) models were used to generate predicted probabilities for ERCT scores using JEE scores as the independent model variable.ResultsTwenty-three countries met inclusion criteria. Of the 163 indicators analysed, 42.3% of JEE and ERCT scores were in agreement (p value=0.02). The JEE indicator with the highest agreement (62%) was ‘Emergency Operations Center (EOC) operating procedures and plans’, while the lowest (16%) was ‘capacity to activate emergency operations’. Findings were consistent with weighted kappa statistics. In the GEE model, EOC operating procedures and plans had the highest predicted probability (0.86), while indicators concerning response strategy and coordination had the lowest (≤0.5).ConclusionsOverall, there was low agreement between JEE scores and COVID-19 response performance, with JEE scores often trending higher. JEE indicators concerning coordination and operations were least predictive of COVID-19 response performance, underscoring the importance of not inferring country response readiness from JEE scores alone. More in-depth country-specific investigations are likely needed to accurately estimate response capacity and tailor countries’ global health security activities.

Reading between the lines: A qualitative case study of national public health institute functions and attributes in the Joint External Evaluation

National Public Health Institutes (NPHIs) are national-level institutions that can lead and coordinate a country’s public health system. The Africa Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (Africa CDC) considers NPHI development critical to strengthening public health systems in Africa. This paper describes how Joint External Evaluation (JEE) reports demonstrate the role NPHIs can play in supporting the goals of IHR compliance and global health security. This study is a secondary document-based qualitative analysis of JEE reports from 11 countries in the WHO AFRO region (Botswana, Ethiopia, Liberia, Mozambique, Namibia, Nigeria, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Uganda, and Zambia). Researchers found three distinct thematic areas: i) core public health functions, ii) governance, and iii) coordination, collaboration, and communication. These themes and their interlinkages, both in pairs and all three, were of importance in displaying the roles that NPHIs could play in the strengthening of health systems. The data suggests that NPHIs, though not always explicitly mentioned in the data, may have a vital role in strengthening health systems across Africa and their governments’ goals of achieving IHR compliance.

Military participation in health security: analysis of Joint External Evaluation mission reports and National Action Plans for Health Security

Militaries across the world play an important but at times poorly defined and underappreciated role in global health security. For example, they are often called upon to support civilian authorities in humanitarian crises and to provide routine healthcare for civilians. Furthermore, military personnel are a unique population in a health security context, as they are highly mobile and often deploy to austere settings domestically and internationally, which may increase exposure to infectious diseases. Despite the role of militaries, few studies have systematically evaluated the involvement of militaries in global health security activities, including the Global Health Security Agenda (GHSA). To address this shortcoming, we analyzed Joint External Evaluation (JEE) mission reports (n=91) and National Action Plans for Health Security (n=11) that had been completed as of October 2019 (n=91) to determine the extent to which military organizations have been involved in the evaluation process, country military contributions to health security are accounted for, and specific recommendations are provided for the country’s military. For JEE reports, military involvement was highest for the “Respond” core area (73%) but much lower for the Prevent (36%) and Detect (30%) core areas. Similarly, 73% of NAPHS documents mentioned military involvement in the Respond core area, compared to 27% and 36% for Prevent and Detect, respectively. Additionally, only 26% of JEE reports provide recommendations for the military in any of the core areas. Our results indicate the need to more fully incorporate military roles and contributions into the GHSA framework and other health security activities in order to improve national capabilities to prevent, detect, and respond to infectious disease threats.

The Joint External Evaluation process in Cameroon: Assessing the country’s capacity for health security

Objectives: The objective of this study was to present the JEE process in Cameroon’s as well as the country capacities to prevent, detect and respond to public health threats in accordance with the IHR (2005). Data for the 48 indicators within the 19 technical areas of the Joint External Evaluation (JEE) tool was examined. Results: Cameroon's overall median score was 2 (Min =1, Max=4) and 34/48 indicators (71%) had scores less than 2 on a 1 to 5 scale. The weakest technical areas in the “Prevent” category were antimicrobial resistance, biosafety and biosecurity, and National legislation, policy and financing. In the “Detect” category, the median score was 2. Technical areas with the lowest median scores were Reporting and National Laboratory System. Emergency Response Operations, Preparedness, Medical Countermeasures and Personnel Deployment had the lowest scores in the “Respond” category. Chemical Events and Points of Entry had the lowest score in “Other IHR-related hazards and Point of Entry” category. Recommendations from the JEE to address the gaps will be aligned in a costed National Action Plan for Health Security (NAPHS) and implemented using national resources, external donors and multilateral agencies. Key words: International Health Regulation, Joint External Evaluation, Health security, Cameroon.

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

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.