ASM LabCap’s contributions to disease surveillance and the International Health Regulations (2005)

Specter, Steven; Schuermann, Lily; Hakiruwizera, Celestin; Sow, Mah-Séré Keita

doi:10.1186/1471-2458-10-s1-s7

Cited by 6 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These findings are consistent with a published reported from one State Party in sub-Saharan Africa that indicated the country lacked surveillance guidelines and case definitions for outbreak response to food, chemical and radio-nuclear hazards [ 18 ]. In developing countries, effective detection of food and water-borne diseases requires significant improvements in laboratory infrastructure and expertise [ 24 ]. Meanwhile, the surveillance and reporting of chemical, nuclear and radiological threats have been described as persistent challenges by several States Parties in both developing and developed countries [ 25 ], complicating planning for major incidents [ 26 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Descriptive review and evaluation of the functioning of the International Health Regulations (IHR) Annex 2

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThe International Health Regulations (IHRs) (2005) was developed with the aim of governing international responses to public health risks and emergencies. The document requires all 194 World Health Organization (WHO) Member States to detect, assess, notify and report any potential public health emergency of international concern (PHEIC) under specific timelines. Annex 2 of the IHR outlines decision-making criteria for State-appointed National Focal Points (NFP) to report potential PHEICs to the WHO, and is a critical component to the effective functioning of the IHRs.MethodsThe aim of the study was to review and evaluate the functioning of Annex 2 across WHO-reporting States Parties. Specific objectives were to ascertain NFP awareness and knowledge of Annex 2, practical use of the tool, activities taken to implement it, its perceived usefulness and user-friendliness. Qualitative telephone interviews, followed by a quantitative online survey, were administered to NFPs between October, 2009 and February, 2010.ResultsA total of 29 and 133 NFPs participated in the qualitative and quantitative studies, respectively. Qualitative interviews found most NFPs had a strong working knowledge of Annex 2; perceived the tool to be relevant and useful for guiding decisions; and had institutionalized management, legislation and communication systems to support it. NFPs also perceived Annex 2 as human and disease-centric, and emphasized its reduced applicability to potential PHEICs involving bioterrorist attacks, infectious diseases among animals, radio-nuclear and chemical spills, and water- or food-borne contamination. Among quantitative survey respondents, 88% reported having excellent/good knowledge of Annex 2; 77% reported always/usually using Annex 2 for assessing potential PHEICs; 76% indicated their country had some legal, regulatory or administrative provisions for using Annex 2; 95% indicated Annex 2 was always/usually useful for facilitating decisions regarding notifiability of potential PHEICs.ConclusionThis evaluation, including a large sample of WHO-reporting States Parties, found that the IHR's Annex 2 is perceived as useful for guiding decisions about notifiability of potential PHEICs. There is scope for the WHO to expand training and guidance on application of the IHR's Annex 2 to specific contexts. Continued monitoring and evaluation of the functioning of the IHR is imperative to promoting global health security.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Descriptive review and evaluation of the functioning of the International Health Regulations (IHR) Annex 2

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The review revealed considerable attention to the laboratory workforce capacities as the key basis for the promotion of health security [ 57 ], particularly a focus on the capacity to detect infectious diseases like Ebola and Zika (for instance see [ 72 , 103 ]). Initiatives to support capacity building of workforce at this level were also reported, with international initiatives, such as the International Laboratory Capacity Building Program established by the American society for microbiology [ 104 ] highlighted as promoting health security. Beyond this, local initiatives like Uganda’s program to enhance the capacity of the health workforce were also linked to the promotion of health security.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The role of health systems for health security: a scoping review revealing the need for improved conceptual and practical linkages

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Practical links between health systems and health security are historically prevalent, but the conceptual links between these fields remain under explored, with little on health system strengthening. The need to address this gap gains relevance in light of the COVID-19 pandemic as it demonstrated a crucial relationship between health system capacities and effective health security response. Acknowledging the importance of developing stronger and more resilient health systems globally for health emergency preparedness, the WHO developed a Health Systems for Health Security framework that aims to promote a common understanding of what health systems for health security entails whilst identifying key capacities required. Methods/ results To further explore and analyse the conceptual and practical links between health systems and health security within the peer reviewed literature, a rapid scoping review was carried out to provide an overview of the type, extent and quantity of research available. Studies were included if they had been peer-reviewed and were published in English (seven databases 2000 to 2020). 343 articles were identified, of those 204 discussed health systems and health security (high and medium relevance), 101 discussed just health systems and 47 discussed only health security (low relevance). Within the high and medium relevance articles, several concepts emerged, including the prioritization of health security over health systems, the tendency to treat health security as exceptionalism focusing on acute health emergencies, and a conceptualisation of security as ‘state security’ not ‘human security’ or population health. Conclusion Examples of literature exploring links between health systems and health security are provided. We also present recommendations for further research, offering several investments and/or programmes that could reliably lead to maximal gains from both a health system and a health security perspective, and why these should be explored further. This paper could help researchers and funders when deciding upon the scope, nature and design of future research in this area. Additionally, the paper legitimises the necessity of the Health Systems for Health Security framework, with the findings of this paper providing useful insights and evidentiary examples for effective implementation of the framework.

show abstract

“…In 2006, the WHA made a resolution relative to the immediate and voluntary compliance with IHR(2005); it included a request to "expand and accelerate training eff orts in the areas of…laboratory capacity, including regional networking of laboratories, biosafety, and quality control…", and in 2008, the WHA resolved to pay close attention to the sub-Saharan African laboratory network [4]. ASM LabCap is actualizing an accelerated response to defi ciencies in laboratory capacity in many sub-Saharan African countries by helping the countries defi ne and implement laboratory policies and guidance documents, map their public health laboratory capacity, develop human resources capable of implementing IHR(2005) laboratory core capacity requirements, off er laboratory services to test for priority health threats, institute laboratory biosafety and biosecurity practices, and network on a regional and international level, in support of Article 44 of IHR(2005), and expressed in the 2006 and 2008 WHA resolutions.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

ASM LabCap’s contributions to disease surveillance and the International Health Regulations (2005)

et al. 2010

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract

The revised International Health Regulations [IHR(2005)], which requires the Member States of the World Health Organization (WHO) to develop core capacities to detect, assess, report, and respond to public health threats, is bringing new challenges for national and international surveillance systems. As more countries move toward implementation and/or strengthening of their infectious disease surveillance programs, the strengthening of clinical microbiology laboratories becomes increasingly important because they serve as the first line responders to detect new and emerging microbial threats, re-emerging infectious diseases, the spread of antibiotic resistance, and the possibility of bioterrorism. In fact, IHR(2005) Core Capacity #8, “Laboratory”, requires that laboratory services be a part of every phase of alert and response.

Public health laboratories in many resource-constrained countries require financial and technical assistance to build their capacity. In recognition of this, in 2006, the American Society for Microbiology (ASM) established an International Laboratory Capacity Building Program, LabCap, housed under the ASM International Board. ASM LabCap utilizes ASM’s vast resources and its membership’s expertise—40,000 microbiologists worldwide—to strengthen clinical and public health laboratory systems in low and low-middle income countries. ASM LabCap’s program activities align with HR(2005) by building the capability of resource-constrained countries to develop quality-assured, laboratory-based information which is critical to disease surveillance and the rapid detection of disease outbreaks, whether they stem from natural, deliberate or accidental causes.

ASM LabCap helps build laboratory capacity under a cooperative agreement with the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and under a sub-contract with the Program for Appropriate Technology in Health (PATH) funded by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). Successful activities of ASM LabCap have occurred throughout Africa, Asia, Central America and the Caribbean. In addition, ASM LabCap coordinates efforts with international agencies such as the WHO in order to maximize resources and ensure a unified response, with the intended goal to help build integrated disease surveillance and response capabilities worldwide in compliance with HR(2005)’s requirements.

show abstract

ASM LabCap’s contributions to disease surveillance and the International Health Regulations (2005)

Cited by 6 publications

References 3 publications

Descriptive review and evaluation of the functioning of the International Health Regulations (IHR) Annex 2

Descriptive review and evaluation of the functioning of the International Health Regulations (IHR) Annex 2

The role of health systems for health security: a scoping review revealing the need for improved conceptual and practical linkages

ASM LabCap’s contributions to disease surveillance and the International Health Regulations (2005)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About