Background The COVID-19 pandemic continues to demonstrate the risks and profound health impacts that result from infectious disease emergencies. Emergency preparedness has been defined as the knowledge, capacity and organizational systems that governments, response and recovery organizations, communities and individuals develop to anticipate, respond to, or recover from emergencies. This scoping review explored recent literature on priority areas and indicators for public health emergency preparedness (PHEP) with a focus on infectious disease emergencies. Methods Using scoping review methodology, a comprehensive search was conducted for indexed and grey literature with a focus on records published from 2017 to 2020 onward, respectively. Records were included if they: (a) described PHEP, (b) focused on an infectious emergency, and (c) were published in an Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development country. An evidence-based all-hazards Resilience Framework for PHEP consisting of 11 elements was used as a reference point to identify additional areas of preparedness that have emerged in recent publications. The findings were analyzed deductively and summarized thematically. Results The included publications largely aligned with the 11 elements of the all-hazards Resilience Framework for PHEP. In particular, the elements related to collaborative networks, community engagement, risk analysis and communication were frequently observed across the publications included in this review. Ten emergent themes were identified that expand on the Resilience Framework for PHEP specific to infectious diseases. Planning to mitigate inequities was a key finding of this review, it was the most frequently identified emergent theme. Additional emergent themes were: research and evidence-informed decision making, building vaccination capacity, building laboratory and diagnostic system capacity, building infection prevention and control capacity, financial investment in infrastructure, health system capacity, climate and environmental health, public health legislation and phases of preparedness. Conclusion The themes from this review contribute to the evolving understanding of critical public health emergency preparedness actions. The themes expand on the 11 elements outlined in the Resilience Framework for PHEP, specifically relevant to pandemics and infectious disease emergencies. Further research will be important to validate these findings, and expand understanding of how refinements to PHEP frameworks and indicators can support public health practice.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic continues to demonstrate the risks and profound health impacts that result from infectious disease emergencies. Emergency preparedness has been defined as the knowledge, capacity and organizational systems that governments, response and recovery organizations, communities and individuals develop to anticipate, respond to, or recover from emergencies. This scoping review explored recent literature on priority areas and indicators for public health emergency preparedness (PHEP) with a focus on infectious disease emergencies. Methods: Using scoping review methodology, a comprehensive search was conducted for indexed and grey literature with a focus on records published from 2017 and 2020 onward, respectively. Records were included if they: a) described PHEP, b) focused on an infectious emergency, and c) were published in an Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development country. An evidence-based all-hazards Resilience Framework for PHEP consisting of 11 elements was used as a reference point to identify additional areas of preparedness that have emerged in recent publications. The findings were summarized thematically. Results: The included publications largely aligned with the all-hazards Resilience Framework for PHEP. In particular, the elements related to collaborative networks, community engagement, risk analysis and communication were frequently observed across the publications included in this review. Emergent themes were identified that expand on the Resilience Framework for PHEP. These were related to mitigating inequities, public health capacities (vaccination, laboratory system capacity, infection prevention and control capacity, financial investment in infrastructure, public health legislation, phases of preparedness), scientific capacities (research and evidence-informed decision making, climate and environmental health), and considerations for health system capacity. Conclusions: The themes from this review contribute to the evolving understanding of critical public health preparedness actions; however, there was a paucity of recent evidence on PHEP indicators. The themes can expand on the 11 elements outlined in the Resilience Framework for PHEP, specifically relevant to infectious disease emergencies and risks. Further research will be important to validate these findings, and expand understanding of how refinements to PHEP frameworks and indicators can support public health practice.