Objective: The first wave of the coronavirus SARS-COV-2 pandemic has revealed a fragmented governance within the European Union (EU) to tackle public health emergencies. This qualitative study aims: 1) to understand the current EU position within the field of public health emergencies taking the case of the COVID-19 as an example by comparing and contrasting experiences from EU institutions and experts from various EU Member States at the beginning of the pandemic; and, 2) to identify and to formulate future EU pandemic strategies and actions based on experts' opinions.Methods: Eighteen semi-structured interviews were conducted with public health experts from various European Member States and European Commission officials from May 2020 until August 2020. The transcripts were analyzed by Thematic Content Analysis (TCA), mainly a manifest content analysis.Results: This study demonstrated that the limited EU mandate in health hinders proper actions to prevent and tackle infectious disease outbreaks, such as the COVID-19 pandemic. The results showed that this limitation significantly impacted the ECDC, as the Member States' competence did not allow the agency to have more capacity. The European Commission has fulfilled its role of coordinating and supporting the Member States by facilitating networks and information exchange. However, EU intra- and inter-communication need further improvement. Although diverse EU instruments and mechanisms were found valid, their implementation needed to be faster and more efficient. The results pointed out that underlying political challenges in EU decision-making regarding health emergencies hinder the aligned response. It was stated that the Member States were not prepared, and due to the restriction of their mandate, EU institutions could not enforce binding guidelines. Additionally, the study explored future EU pandemic strategies and actions. Both, EU institutions and national experts suggested similar and clear recommendations regarding the ECDC, the investment, and future harmonized preparedness tools.Conclusion: The complex politics of public health at the EU level have led to the fragmentation of its governance for effective pandemic responses. This ongoing pandemic has shed light on the fragility of the political and structural systems in Europe in public health emergencies. Health should be of high importance in the political agenda, and robust health reforms at the local, regional, national, and EU levels are highly recommended.

Background Dengue is a prioritized public health concern in China. Because of the larger scale, more frequent and wider spatial distribution, the challenge for dengue prevention and control has increased in recent years. While land use and land cover (LULC) change was suggested to be associated with dengue, relevant research has been quite limited. The “Open Door” policy introduced in 1978 led to significant LULC change in China. This systematic review is the first to review the studies on the impacts of LULC change on dengue dynamics in China. This review aims at identifying the research evidence, research gaps and provide insights for future research. Methods A systematic literature review was conducted following the PRISMA protocol. The combinations of search terms on LULC, dengue and its vectors were searched in the databases PubMed, Web of Science, and Baidu Scholar. Research conducted on China published from 1978 to December 2019 and written in English or Chinese was selected for further screening. References listed in articles meeting the inclusion criteria were also reviewed and included if again inclusion criteria were met to minimize the probability of missing relevant research. Results 28 studies published between 1978 and 2017 were included for the full review. Guangdong Province and southern Taiwan were the major regional foci in the literature. The majority of the reviewed studies observed associations between LULC change factors and dengue incidence and distribution. Conflictive evidence was shown in the studies about the impacts of green space and blue space on dengue in China. Transportation infrastructure and urbanization were repeatedly suggested to be positively associated with dengue incidence and spread. The majority of the studies reviewed considered meteorological and sociodemographic factors when they analyzed the effects of LULC change on dengue. Primary and secondary remote sensing (RS) data were the primary source for LULC variables. In 21 of 28 studies, a geographic information system (GIS) was used to process data of environmental variables and dengue cases and to perform spatial analysis of dengue. Conclusions The effects of LULC change on the dynamics of dengue in China varied in different periods and regions. The application of RS and GIS enriches the means and dimensions to explore the relations between LULC change and dengue. Further comprehensive regional research is necessary to assess the influence of LULC change on local dengue transmission to provide practical advice for dengue prevention and control.

Background An effective emergency medical dispatch process is vital to provide appropriate prehospital care to patients. It increases patient safety and ensures the sustainable use of medical resources. Although Copenhagen has a sophisticated emergency medical services (EMS) system with a significant focus on public welfare, more than 10% of emergency cases are still being categorized as an "unclear problem category" (UPC) and are thus not categorized as "symptom-specific". Therefore, the objective of this research is to gain a better understanding of the patient and dispatch characteristics of emergency cases categorized as "unclear". Methods This register-based study based on medical emergency cases data describes patient and dispatch characteristics of emergency cases categorized as “unclear” through the use of numbers and proportions. Moreover, these cases were compared to non UPC cases. Use of UPC was stratified by month to determine the impact of alerting medical dispatchers to reduce its use. Results From 296,398 included cases UPC accounted for 11.4% of the cases. The median age of those triaged with the UPC was 66 years vs 58 years for individuals triaged with other symptom-specific categories. Moreover, after having been triaged with the UPC, 9,661 (34.7%) of the dispatched EMS vehicles ended up being cancelled. Sensitizing medical dispatchers about the use of the UPC likely contributed to the decreased use of the UPC over time. Conclusion The UPC has different dispatch characteristics than the symptom-specific categories, with potential negative effects on the medical dispatch process. Moreover, the median age of individuals triaged with the UPC is higher than those triaged with symptom-specific categories. Nonetheless, the use of the UPC decreased throughout the study period after the medical dispatchers were alerted about the implications of its use.

BackgroundIn the Euregio-Meuse-Rhine (EMR), cross-border collaboration is essential for resource-saving and needs-based patient care within the emergency medical service (EMS) systems and interhospital transport (IHT). However, at the onset of the novel coronavirus SARS-COV-2 (COVID-19) pandemic, differing national measures highlighted the fragmentation within the European Union (EU) in its various approaches to combating the pandemic. To assess the consequences of the pandemic in the EMR border area, the aim of this study was to analyze the effects and “lessons learned” regarding cross-border collaboration in EMS and IHT.MethodA qualitative study with 22 semi-structured interviews was carried out. Experts from across the EMR area, including the City of Aachen, the City region of Aachen, the District of Heinsberg (Germany), South Limburg (The Netherlands), and the Province of Limburg, as well as Liège (Belgium), took part. The interviews were coded and analyzed according to changes in cross-border collaboration before and during the pandemic, as well as lessons learned and recommendations.ResultsEach EU member country within the EMR area, addressed the pandemic individually with national measures. Cross-border collaboration between regional actors was hardly or not at all addressed at the national level during political decision- or policymaking. Previous direct communication at the personal level was replaced by national procedures, which made regular cross-border collaboration significantly more difficult. The cross-border transfer regulations of patients with COVID-19 proved to be complex and led, among other things, to patients being transported to hospitals far outside the border region. Collaboration continues to be seen as valuable and Euregional emergency services including hospitals work well together, albeit to different degrees. The information and data exchange should, however, be more transparent to use resources more efficiently.ConclusionEffective Euregional collaboration of emergency services is imperative for public safety in a multi-border region with strong economic, cultural, and social cross-border links. Our findings indicate that existing (pre-pandemic) structures which included regular meetings of senior managerial staff in the region and a number of thematic working groups were helpful to deal with and to compensate for the disruptions during the crisis. Regional cross-border agreements that are currently based on mutual but more or less informal arrangements need to be formalized and better promoted and recognized also at the national and EU level to increase resilience. The continuous determination of synergies and good and best practices are further approaches to support cross-border collaboration especially in preparation for future crises.