The Global Health Security index and Joint External Evaluation score for health preparedness are not correlated with countries' COVID-19 detection response time and mortality outcome

Haider, Najmul; Yavlinsky, Alexei; Chang, Yu‐Mei; Hasan, Mohammad Nayeem; Benfield, Camilla T. O.; Osman, Abdinasir Yusuf; Uddin, Mohammed Jashim; Dar, Osman; Ntoumi, Francine; Zumla, Alimuddin; Kock, Richard

doi:10.1017/s0950268820002046

Cited by 92 publications

(109 citation statements)

References 15 publications

(44 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Previous analyses have not found an association between preparedness measures and COVID-19 case counts or incidence, and have questioned the value of the JEE process. 4,5,6 We find that preparedness scores do in fact correlate with pandemic severity, but that this association is only apparent after adjusting for testing rates, which we identified as a confounding variable. The JEE is a useful tool to measure country progress on achieving the IHR (2005) commitments and provide the necessary planning framework that can be costed and implemented into a fully functional action plan.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 67%

“…12 We found substantial covariance among these three measures, and focused on JEE scores for capacity measurement; the correlations among these measures have been published elsewhere. 4,5,6…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, several other analyses did not find any correlation between JEE scores and COVID-19 case and death rates, with these analyses including both the JEE and the Global Health Security Index. 4,5,6 There is a perception that the JEE has not correlated with the effectiveness of country response to the pandemic. 7…”

Section: Background and Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Association Between Preparedness and Response Measures and COVID-19 Incidence and Mortality

Lee

Buissonnière

McClelland

et al. 2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The COVID-19 pandemic is the most disruptive global health threat in a century. We analyzed publicly available data on preparedness capacity, COVID-19 incidence and mortality, governance, and testing. Although other analyses have suggested that preparedness assessments do not correlate with effective pandemic response, we found that testing rates correlate with both COVID-19 incidence and mortality and strongly correlated with country preparedness capacity as measured by the Joint External Evaluation (JEE). There is a statistically significant association between preparedness capacities and COVID-19 case incidence and an independent association between governance and COVID-19 case and mortality rates. Legislation, surveillance, and risk communication capacities were associated with lower COVID-19 case incidence and mortality. Preparedness and governance are independently associated with COVID-19 pandemic severity. Preparedness capacities are not sufficient - capacity and governance are both critical to pandemic control. Countries must improve public health systems and implement strong government leadership.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 67%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Association Between Preparedness and Response Measures and COVID-19 Incidence and Mortality

Lee

Buissonnière

McClelland

et al. 2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We further found that countries with higher median age had higher CFR value. Older age has been recognized as one of the most common risk factors for a severe outcome of COVID-19 [99][100][101]. A study conducted with 5,484 patients in Italy found the CFR of COVID-19 was 0.43% for people below 70 years and 10.5% for people above 70 years and above [101].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Estimation of novel coronavirus (covid-19) reproduction number and case fatality rate: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Ahammed

Anjum

Rahman

et al. 2020

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Understanding the transmission dynamics and the severity of the novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) informs public health interventions, surveillance, and planning. Two important parameters, the basic reproduction number (R0) and case fatality rate (CFR) of COVID-19, help in this understanding process. The objective of this study was to estimate the R0 and CFR of COVID-19 and assess whether the parameters vary in different regions of the world. We carried out a systematic review to retrieve the published estimates of the R0 and the CFR in articles from international databases between 1st January and 31st August 2020. Random-effect models and Forest plots were implemented to evaluate the mean effect size of the R0 and the CFR. Furthermore, the R0 and CFR of the studies were quantified based on geographic location, the tests/thousand population, and the median population age of the countries where studies were conducted. The I2 statistic and the Cochran's Q test were applied to assess statistical heterogeneity among the selected studies. Forty-five studies involving R0 and thirty-four studies involving CFR were included. The pooled estimation of the R0 was 2.69 (95% CI: 2.40, 2.98), and that of the CFR was 2.67 (2.25, 3.13). The CFR in different regions of the world varied significantly, from 2.51 (2.12, 2.95) in Asia to 7.11 (6.38, 7.91) in Africa. We observed higher mean CFR values for the countries with lower tests (3.15 vs. 2.16) and greater median population age (3.13 vs. 2.27). However, the R0 did not vary significantly in different regions of the world. An R0 of 2.69 and CFR of 2.67 indicate the severity of the COVID-19. Although R0 and CFR may vary over time, space, and demographics, we recommend considering these figures in control and prevention measures.

show abstract

“…Furthermore, from these published studies, we noted that anti-epidemic measures at the national level often performed inadequately in predicting disease burdens emanating from the COVID-19 pandemic. 3 , 4 …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

State fragility and the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic: an ecologic analysis of data from 146 countries

Duan¹,

Ma²,

Huang³

et al. 2021

Global Health Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background : Global spread and impact of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic are determined to a large extent, by resistance to the pandemic and public response of all countries in the world; while a country's resistance and response are in turn determined by its political and socio economic conditions. To inform future disease prevention and control, we analyzed global data to exam the relationship between state vulnerabilities and COVID-19 incidences and deaths. Methods : Vulnerability was measured using the Fragile States Index (FSI). FSI is created by the Fund for Peace to assess levels of fragility for individual countries. Total FSI score and scores for 12 specific indicators were used as the predictor variables. Outcome variables were national cumulative COVID-19 cases and deaths up to September 16, 2020, derived the World Health Organization. Cumulative incidence rates were computed using 2019 National population derived from the World Bank, and case fatality rates were computed as the ratio of deaths/COVID-19 cases. Countries with incomplete data were excluded, yielding a final sample of 146 countries. Multivariate regression was used to examine the association between the predictor and the outcome measures. Results : There were dramatic cross-country variations in both FSI and COVID-19 epidemiological measurements. FSI total scores were negatively associated with both COVID-19 cumulative incidence rates (β = -0.0135, P < 0.001) and case fatality rates (β = -0.0147, P < 0.05). Of the 12 FSI indicators, three negatively associated with COVID-19 incidences were E1(Economic Decline and Poverty), E3 (Human Flight and Brain Drain), and S2 (Refugees and Internally Displaced Persons); two positively associated were P1 (State Legitimacy) and X1 (External Intervention). With regard to association with case fatality rates, C1 (Security Apparatus) was positive, and P3 (Human Rights and Rule of Law) and X1 was negative. Conclusions : With FSI measures by the Fund of Peace, overall, more fragile countries are less likely to be affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, and even if affected, death rates were lower. However, poor in state legitimacy and lack of external intervention are risk for COVID-19 infection and lack of security apparatus is risky for COVID-19 death. Implications of the study findings are discussed and additional studies are needed to examine the mechanisms underpinning these relationships.

show abstract

The Global Health Security index and Joint External Evaluation score for health preparedness are not correlated with countries' COVID-19 detection response time and mortality outcome

Cited by 92 publications

References 15 publications

Association Between Preparedness and Response Measures and COVID-19 Incidence and Mortality

Association Between Preparedness and Response Measures and COVID-19 Incidence and Mortality

Estimation of novel coronavirus (covid-19) reproduction number and case fatality rate: a systematic review and meta-analysis

State fragility and the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic: an ecologic analysis of data from 146 countries

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About