Scales of governance: The role of surveillance in facilitating new diplomacy during the 2009–2010 H1N1 pandemic

Bell, Morag; Warren, Adam P.; Budd, Lucy

doi:10.1016/j.healthplace.2012.07.005

Cited by 9 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Furthermore, the information most needed during an acute crisis may not always be the same as that required for operational purposes and routine management ( Bell et al 2012 ). A health system that is able to effectively and flexibly draw on diverse sources of information, assess the implications of wider societal events outside of the health system and meaningfully integrate the analysis into operational decisions, is therefore crucial to inform adequate short- as well as long-term responses.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Towards an understanding of resilience: responding to health systems shocks

Hanefeld

Mayhew

Legido‐Quigley

et al. 2018

Health Policy and Planning

159

219

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The recent outbreak of Ebola Virus Disease (EVD) in West Africa has drawn attention to the role and responsiveness of health systems in the face of shock. It brought into sharp focus the idea that health systems need not only to be stronger but also more ‘resilient’. In this article, we argue that responding to shocks is an important aspect of resilience, examining the health system behaviour in the face of four types of contemporary shocks: the financial crisis in Europe from 2008 onwards; climate change disasters; the EVD outbreak in West Africa 2013–16; and the recent refugee and migration crisis in Europe. Based on this analysis, we identify ‘3 plus 2’ critical dimensions of particular relevance to health systems’ ability to adapt and respond to shocks; actions in all of these will determine the extent to which a response is successful. These are three core dimensions corresponding to three health systems functions: ‘health information systems’ (having the information and the knowledge to make a decision on what needs to be done); ‘funding/financing mechanisms’ (investing or mobilising resources to fund a response); and ‘health workforce’ (who should plan and implement it and how). These intersect with two cross-cutting aspects: ‘governance’, as a fundamental function affecting all other system dimensions; and predominant ‘values’ shaping the response, and how it is experienced at individual and community levels. Moreover, across the crises examined here, integration within the health system contributed to resilience, as does connecting with local communities, evidenced by successful community responses to Ebola and social movements responding to the financial crisis. In all crises, inequalities grew, yet our evidence also highlights that the impact of shocks is amenable to government action. All these factors are shaped by context. We argue that the ‘3 plus 2’ dimensions can inform pragmatic policies seeking to increase health systems resilience.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Towards an understanding of resilience: responding to health systems shocks

Hanefeld

Mayhew

Legido‐Quigley

et al. 2018

Health Policy and Planning

159

219

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The GPHIN database contains the articles that are deemed highly relevant based on an automatic scoring algorithm, whereas articles with lower relevancy scores are manually assessed by analysts [102]. The GPHIN issued early alerts during previous outbreaks such as SARS, H1N1 Influenza, and MERS [108,109]. Post-SARS, numerous countries increased their surveillance through the use of the GPHIN outputs [108].…”

Section: Global Public Health Intelligence Networkmentioning

confidence: 99%

Canada’s multi-jurisdictional COVID-19 Public Health response – January to May 2020

Bielska¹,

Embrett²,

Jewett³

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In late January 2020, the first COVID-19 case was reported in Canada. By March 5, 2020, community spread of the virus was identified and by May 26, 2020, close to 86,000 patients had COVID-19 and 6,566 had died. As COVID-19 cases increased, provincial and territorial governments announced states of public health emergency between March 13 and 20, 2020. This paper examines Canada’s public health response to the COVID-19 pandemic during the first four months (January to May 2020) by overviewing the actions undertaken by the federal (national) and regional (provincial/territorial) governments. Canada’s jurisdictional public health structures, public health responses, technological and research endeavours, and public opinion on the pandemic measures are described. As the pandemic unravelled, the federal and provincial/territorial governments unrolled a series of stringent public health interventions and restrictions, including physical distancing and gathering size restrictions; closures of borders, schools, and non-essential businesses and services; cancellations of non-essential medical services; and limitations on visitors in hospital and long-term care facilities. In late May 2020, there was a gradual decrease in the daily numbers of new COVID-19 cases seen across most jurisdictions, which has led the provinces and territories to prepare phased re-opening. Overall, the COVID-19 pandemic in Canada and the substantial amount of formative health and policy-related data being created provide an insight on how to improve responses and better prepare for future health emergencies.

show abstract

“…The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention shared medical personnel, guidelines, and the results of disease tests with the Asia-Pacific region. The United States also spent 1 billion dollars for H1N1 flu vaccine production (Bell et al 2012.…”

Section: Strategiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Four models on globalizing disaster management in the Asia-Pacific region: a comparative perspective

2015

The Pacific Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study contributes to disaster management in the Asia-Pacific region by examining four models: the United Nations/International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UN/ISDR) professional coordination, US surveillance-oriented management, Korean copy-oriented efforts, and Indonesian homogenization-based action. Based on the comparative perspective, as well as basic concepts on global disaster management, the study cross-checks two features of global disaster management, namely, political interests and dynamic culture, and three comparative variables, namely, stakeholders, resources, and strategies, in each model. The biggest contribution of the study is that it more rigorously examines the comparative analytical framework of the four models. The key tenet is that the above-mentioned models have to address the continuous study of local culture and the job security of employees (UN/ISDR model), more partnership with private institutions and feasible training (US model), long-term international study and creative strategies (Korean model), and gender-sensitive management and information exchange (Indonesian model), by further utilizing both global education and networks.

show abstract

Scales of governance: The role of surveillance in facilitating new diplomacy during the 2009–2010 H1N1 pandemic

Cited by 9 publications

References 32 publications

Towards an understanding of resilience: responding to health systems shocks

Towards an understanding of resilience: responding to health systems shocks

Canada’s multi-jurisdictional COVID-19 Public Health response – January to May 2020

Four models on globalizing disaster management in the Asia-Pacific region: a comparative perspective

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About