Tools for Assessment of Country Preparedness for Public Health Emergencies: A Critical Review

Abstract

Recent international communicable disease crises have highlighted the need for countries to assure their preparedness to respond effectively to public health emergencies. The objective of this study was to critically review existing tools to support a country’s assessment of its health emergency preparedness. We developed a framework to analyze the expected effectiveness and utility of these tools. Through mixed search strategies, we identified 12 tools with relevance to public health emergencies. There was considerable consensus concerning the critical preparedness system elements to be assessed, although their relative emphasis and means of assessment and measurement varied considerably. Several tools identified appeared to have reporting requirements as their primary aim, rather than primary utility for system self-assessment of the countries and states using the tool. Few tools attempted to give an account of their underlying evidence base. Only some tools were available in a user-friendly electronic modality or included quantitative measures to support the monitoring of system preparedness over time. We conclude there is still a need for improvement in tools available for assessment of country preparedness for public health emergencies, and for applied research to increase identification of system measures that are valid indicators of system response capability.

Assessing health governance across countries: a scoping review protocol on indices and assessment tools applied globally

“…To better identify the advantages and gaps and summarise the lessons learnt, there will be an analysis based on the proposed preliminary evaluation framework ( table 4 ) after the data presentation. This framework is amended from Haeberer et al ’s framework 22 according to the topic of this scoping review and the contents relying on the authors’ subjective judgement were cut. The purpose of this framework is not to set criteria for the indices or assessment tools.…”

“…Some reviews have included indices or assessment tools applied in regions like Europe as part of eligible literature. [21][22][23] Moreover, considering the objectives of this scoping review, including indices or assessment tools applied in particular countries or regions will weaken the global generalisability. In addition, since the concept of 'governance' in this scoping review involves diverse actors and organisations, governance of only one type of organisation (eg, hospital or enterprise) does not fit this research's scope.…”

“…This scoping review excludes indices or assessment tools designed to be applied in a particular country or region. Some reviews have included indices or assessment tools applied in regions like Europe as part of eligible literature 21–23. Moreover, considering the objectives of this scoping review, including indices or assessment tools applied in particular countries or regions will weaken the global generalisability.…”

Modeling epidemic recovery: An expert elicitation on issues and approaches

“…However, the IHR and JEE scarcely mention recovery. Recent reviews of major global health security initiatives ( Carlin et al, 2019 ), high-level recommendations on national preparedness for public health emergencies ( WHO, 2019 ), and tools for countries to monitor PHEP capabilities ( Haeberer et al, 2020 ) all identify epidemic recovery as a persistent gap.…”

July 2022

“…Despite attempts to develop preparedness measures, there remains a lack of consensus and, consequently, a research gap about how preparedness evaluation should be done (Savoia et al 2017, Belfroid et al 2020, Haeberer et al 2020, Asch and co-authors (2005 concluded that existing tools lacked objectivity and scientific evidence, an issue that persists. Objective evaluation would allow for intersubjective comparability of preparedness.…”