Costing Framework for International Health Regulations (2005)

Katz, Rebecca; Haté, Vibhuti; Kornblet, Sarah; Fischer, Julie E.

doi:10.3201/eid1807.120191

Cited by 14 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Surveillance systems are essential to detect outbreaks of emerging infections, and to mitigate their health, security and economic effects, in all countries [27,28]. The International Health Regulations (IHR) confers responsibilities to WHO member states to develop surveillance systems to detect and respond to public health emergencies, although many are not ready [29]. IHR provides a mandate for global surveillance, a safety net to detect disease outbreaks if they are not detected and/or reported by countries.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ebola research funding: a systematic analysis, 1997–2015

Fitchett¹,

Lichtman²,

Soyode³

et al. 2016

Journal of Global Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThe latest outbreak of Ebola in West Africa overwhelmed the affected countries, with the impact on health extending far beyond Ebola–related deaths that have exceeded 11 000. The need to promptly mobilise resources to control emerging infections is widely recognized. Yet, data on research funding for emerging infections remains inadequately documented.MethodsWe defined research investment as all funding flows for Ebola and/or Marburg virus from 1997 to April 2015 whose primary purpose was to advance knowledge and new technologies to prevent or cure disease. We sourced data directly from funding organizations and estimated the investment in 2015 US dollars (US$).ResultsFunding for Ebola and Marburg virus research in 1997 to 2015 amounted to US$ 1.035 billion, including US$ 435.4 million (42.0%) awarded in 2014 and 2015. Public sources of funding invested US$ 758.8 million (73.1%), philanthropic sources US$ 65.1 million (6.3%), and joint public/private/philanthropic ventures accounted for US$ 213.8 million (20.6%). Prior to the Ebola outbreak in 2014, pre–clinical research dominated research with US$ 443.6 million (73.9%) investment. After the outbreak, however, investment for new product development increased 942.7–fold and that for clinical trials rose 23.5–fold. Investment in new tools to control Ebola and Marburg virus amounted to US$ 399.1 million, with 61.3% awarded for vaccine research, 29.2% for novel therapeutics research such as antivirals and convalescent blood products, and 9.5% for diagnostics research. Research funding and bibliometric output were moderately associated (Spearman’s ρ = 0.5232, P = 0.0259), however number of Ebola cases in previous outbreaks and research funding (ρ = 0.1706, P = 0.4985) and Ebola cases in previous outbreaks and research output (ρ = 0.3020, P = 0.0616) were poorly correlated.ConclusionSignificant public and philanthropic funds have been invested in Ebola and Marburg virus research in 2014 and 2015, following the outbreak in West Africa. Long term, strategic vision and leadership are needed to invest in infections with pandemic potential early, including innovative financing measures and open access investment data to promote the development of new therapies and technologies.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ebola research funding: a systematic analysis, 1997–2015

Fitchett¹,

Lichtman²,

Soyode³

et al. 2016

Journal of Global Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, when taking into account such changes of environmental and social patterns, such as increased migration to cities with subsequent increase in health conditions, climate change and shifting disease patterns, wider access to wireless technologies (cellular phones and the Internet), innovative surveillance and response are also highly accessible in remote areas where people live under poor conditions [30,41]. The capacity of surveillance and response is fuelled by heightened awareness of the importance of national core capacities for surveillance and response demonstrated by adoption of the International Health Regulations [42]. …”

Section: The Role Of Surveillance and Response In Disease Eliminationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Elimination of tropical disease through surveillance and response

Bergquist²,

2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Surveillance and response represent the final crucial steps in achieving effective control and particularly elimination of communicable diseases as recognized in the area of neglected tropical diseases (NTDs), applied in increasing numbers in endemic countries with ongoing control and elimination programmers. More and more national NTD elimination initiatives are scheduled based on the innovative and effective One world-One health perspective to detect pockets of transmission and disease reintroduction. Resource-constrained countries, which carry the heaviest NTD burdens, face various challenges how to strengthen the health system as well as developing effective and novel tools for surveillance and response tailored to local settings. Surveillance-response approaches take place in two different stages corralling the basic components of the surveillance-response system for NTD elimination. Six different research priorities have been identified:1)dynamic mapping of transmission, 2) near real-time capture of population dynamics, 3) modelling based on a minimum essential database/dataset, 4) implementation of mobile health (m-health) and sensitive diagnostics, 5) design of effective response packages tailored to different transmission settings and levels, and 6) validation of approaches and responses packages.

show abstract

“…Thus, rather than requiring countries to create a new system, the IHR guides countries in meeting the core capacity requirements through strengthening existing surveillance systems. 3 In the African region, Integrated Disease Surveillance and Response (IDSR), a WHO-AFRO strategy for improving national public health surveillance and response capacities, is an existing opportunity for implementation of IHR core capacities.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

IDSR as a Platform for Implementing IHR in African Countries

Kasolo¹,

Yoti²,

Bakyaita³

et al. 2013

Biosecurity and Bioterrorism: Biodefense Strategy, Practice, an

Self Cite

110

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Of the 46 countries in the World Health Organization (WHO) African region (AFRO), 43 are implementing Integrated Disease Surveillance and Response (IDSR) guidelines to improve their abilities to detect, confirm, and respond to high-priority communicable and noncommunicable diseases. IDSR provides a framework for strengthening the surveillance, response, and laboratory core capacities required by the revised International Health Regulations [IHR (2005)]. In turn, IHR obligations can serve as a driving force to sustain national commitments to IDSR strategies. The ability to report potential public health events of international concern according to IHR (2005) relies on early warning systems founded in national surveillance capacities. Public health events reported through IDSR to the WHO Emergency Management System in Africa illustrate the growing capacities in African countries to detect, assess, and report infectious and noninfectious threats to public health. The IHR (2005) provide an opportunity to continue strengthening national IDSR systems so they can characterize outbreaks and respond to public health events in the region.

show abstract

Costing Framework for International Health Regulations (2005)

Cited by 14 publications

References 1 publication

Ebola research funding: a systematic analysis, 1997–2015

Ebola research funding: a systematic analysis, 1997–2015

Elimination of tropical disease through surveillance and response

IDSR as a Platform for Implementing IHR in African Countries

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About