Explore the vast range of titles available.

Background The International Health Regulations (IHR) developed and approved by the World Health Organization (WHO) in 2005 provide an overarching legal framework that stipulates countries’ rights and obligations in handling and managing public health events and emergencies that may cross local and international borders. Sri Lanka established an IHR Steering Committee in 2016 providing an opportunity to significantly enhance intersectoral collaboration and information sharing, thereby improving the health and health security of humans and animals. A Joint External Evaluation (JEE) of IHR core capacities was conducted in Sri Lanka in 2018 to assess the country’s preparedness to meet IHR. The aim of this study was to investigate the preparedness of the country for maintaining prevention of re-establishment of malaria in terms of IHR criteria based on indicators considered in the JEE conducted in 2018. Methods The criteria (prevent, detect, respond and IHR related activities) in the JEE which were relevant for the prevention of re-establishment of malaria in Sri Lanka were reviewed. The assessment was done by the authors. The Delphi technique was used to provide the relevant evidence and to assign a score by consensus following the scoring system that was originally used by the JEE. Results In the prevent domain, all subdomains obtained a score of 5 except for IHR coordination due to the unavailability of a functional mechanism for coordination between relevant sectors. In detect domain, many of the subdomains demonstrated sustainable capacity. However, further improvement was required in workforce development. In the response domain, emergency preparedness subdomain demonstrated the greatest need for further improvement especially in emergency operation centre capacities, procedures and plans which obtained a score of two, reflecting limited capacity. In the fourth subdomain, IHR-related activity, securing the ports of entry demonstrated capacity even though the systems were not sustainable. Other subdomains achieved the highest score. Conclusions This study demonstrates that the IHR framework provides an useful tool to assess the capacity of a country during PoR to sustain malaria-free status. This novel approach used for the first time, has demonstrated that Sri Lanka has the sustainable capacity for the prevention of re-establishment of malaria 12 years after elimination. It is proposed that a malaria-specific tool using an IHR lens be developed and an evaluation be conducted once in 5 years in countries with high receptivity and importation risk certified as malaria-free.

Background Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is of growing concern globally and AMR status in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) is undefined due to a lack of real-time data recording, surveillance and regulation. World Health Organization (WHO) Joint External Evaluation (JEE) reports are voluntary, collaborative processes to assess country capacities and preparedness to prevent, detect and rapidly respond to public health risks, including AMR. The data from SSA JEE reports were analysed to gain an overview of how SSA is working towards AMR preparedness and where strengths and weaknesses lie. Methods SSA country JEE AMR preparedness scores were analysed. A cumulative mean of all the SSA country AMR preparedness scores was calculated and compared to the overall mean SSA JEE score. AMR preparedness indicators were analysed, and data were weighted by region. Findings The mean SSA AMR preparedness score was 53% less than the overall mean SSA JEE score. East Africa had the highest percentage of countries reporting having AMR National Action Plans in place, as well as human and animal pathogen AMR surveillance programmes. Southern Africa reported the highest percentage of countries with training programmes and antimicrobial stewardship. Conclusions The low mean AMR preparedness score compared to overall JEE score, along with the majority of countries lacking implemented National Action Plans, suggests that until now AMR has not been a priority for most SSA countries. By identifying regional and One Health strengths, AMR preparedness can be fortified across SSA with a multisectoral approach.

A number of scientific publications and commentaries have suggested that standard preparedness indices such as the Global Health Security Index (GHSI) and Joint External Evaluation (JEE) scores did not predict COVID-19 outcomes. To some, the failure of these metrics to be predictive demonstrates the need for a fundamental reassessment which better aligns preparedness measurement with operational capacities in real-world stress situations, including the points at which coordination structures and decision-making may fail. There are, however, several reasons why these instruments should not be so easily rejected as preparedness measures. From a methodological point of view, these studies use relatively simple outcome measures, mostly based on cumulative numbers of cases and deaths at a fixed point of time. A country’s “success” in dealing with the pandemic is highly multidimensional – both in the health outcomes and type and timing of interventions and policies – is too complex to represent with a single number. In addition, the comparability of mortality data over time and among jurisdictions is questionable due to highly variable completeness and representativeness. Furthermore, the analyses use a cross-sectional design, which is poorly suited for evaluating the impact of interventions, especially for COVID-19. Conceptually, a major reason that current preparedness measures fail to predict pandemic outcomes is that they do not adequately capture variations in the presence of effective political leadership needed to activate and implement existing system, instill confidence in the government’s response; or background levels of interpersonal trust and trust in government institutions and country ability needed to mount fast and adaptable responses. These factors are crucial; capacity alone is insufficient if that capacity is not effectively leveraged. However, preparedness metrics are intended to identify gaps that countries must fill. As important as effective political leadership and trust in institutions, countries cannot be held accountable to one another for having good political leadership or trust in institutions. Therefore, JEE scores, the GHSI, and similar metrics can be useful tools for identifying critical gaps in capacities and capabilities that are necessary but not sufficient for an effective pandemic response.

Background The pandemic situation due to COVID-19 highlighted the importance of global health security preparedness and response. Since the revision of the International Health Regulations (IHR) in 2005, Joint External Evaluation (JEE) and States Parties Self-Assessment Annual Reporting (SPAR) have been adopted to track the IHR implementation stage in each country. While national IHR core capacities support the concept of Universal Health Coverage (UHC), there have been limited studies verifying the relationship between the two concepts. This study aimed to investigate empirically the association between IHR core capacity scores and the UHC service coverage index. Method JEE score, SPAR score and UHC service coverage index data from 96 countries were collected and analyzed using an ecological study design. The independent variable was IHR core capacity scores, measured by JEE 2016-2019 and SPAR 2019 from the World Health Organization (WHO) and the dependent variable, UHC service coverage index, was extracted from the 2019 UHC monitoring report. For examining the association between IHR core capacities and the UHC service coverage index, Spearman’s correlation analysis was used. The correlation between IHR core capacities and UHC index was demonstrated using a scatter plot between JEE score and UHC service coverage index, and the SPAR score and UHC service coverage index were also presented. Result While the correlation value between JEE and SPAR was 0.92 ( p  < 0.001), the countries’ external evaluation scores were lower than their self-evaluation scores. Some areas such as available human resources and points of entry were mismatched between JEE and SPAR. JEE was associated with the UHC score ( r  = 0.85, p  < 0.001) and SPAR was also associated with the UHC service coverage index ( r  = 0.81, p  < 0.001). The JEE and SPAR scores showed a significant positive correlation with the UHC service coverage index after adjusting for several confounding variables. Conclusion The study result supports the premise that strengthening national health security capacities would in turn contribute to the achievement of UHC. With the help of the empirical result, it would further guide each country for better implementation of IHR.

Background This study aims to evaluate the gap between countries’ self-evaluation and external evaluation regarding core capacity of infectious disease control required by International Health Regulations and the influence factors of the gap. Methods We collected countries’ self-evaluated scores (International Health Regulations Monitoring tool, IHRMT) of 2016 and 2017, and external evaluation scores (Joint External Evaluation, JEE) from WHO website on 4rd and 27rd November, 2018. There were 127 and 163 countries with IHRMT scores in 2016 and in 2017, and 74 countries with JEE scores included in the analysis. The gap between countries’ self-evaluation and external evaluation was represented by the difference between condensed IHR scores and JEE. Civil liberties (CL) scores were collected as indicators of the transparency of each country. The Human Development Index (HDI) and data indicating the density of physicians and nurses (HWD) were collected to reflect countries’ development and health workforce statuses. Then, chi-square test and logistic regression were performed to determine the correlation between the gap of IHRMT and JEE, and civil liberties, human development, and health workforce status. Results Countries’ self-evaluation scores significantly decreased from 2016 to 2017. Countries’ external evaluation scores are consistently 1 to 1.5 lower than self-evaluation scores. There were significantly more countries with high HDI status, high CL status and high HWD status in groups with bigger gap between IHRMT and JEE. And countries with higher HDI status presented a higher risk of having bigger gap between countries’ self and external scores (OR = 3.181). Conclusion Our study result indicated that countries’ transparency represented by CL status do play a role in the gap between IHR and JEE scores. But HDI status is the key factor which significantly associated with the gap. The main reason for the gap in the current world is the different interpretation of evaluation of high HDI countries, though low CL countries tended to over-scored their capacity.

Background The International Health Regulations (IHR) are a legally binding instrument designed to improve Global Health Security by limiting the cross boarder spread of health risks. All 196 signatories to the IHR (2005) are required to report progress towards IHR core capacity implementation through an annual multi-sectoral self-assessment process known as the State Parties Self-Assessment Annual Reporting (SPAR). This mandatory process sits alongside the voluntary, external, peer-reviewed Joint External Evaluations (JEE) as two core components of the IHR monitoring and evaluation framework. JEEs are intended to occur once every 4–5 years following a voluntary request from the member state. This means that interim monitoring of IHR core capacity compliance, can be challenging and additional data sources are required. The outputs of the SPAR process represent one such source. Although the JEE and SPAR tools are intended to be complimentary, there has been no publicly available mapping of JEE indicators to SPAR indicators in order to inform progress on IHR compliance. Results This paper mapped JEE indicators to SPAR indicators and found a high level of correlation suggesting the SPAR process offers a method for countries and technical assistance programmes to monitor progress on IHR compliance and identify gaps in between JEE visits. However, coverage was not complete, and several gaps were identified most notably in antimicrobial resistance (AMR) and vaccinations. Conclusion Enhancing alignment between JEE and SPAR could offer a more consistent and complete way of assessing compliance with IHR.

Background Increasingly, there has been recognition that siloed approaches focusing mainly on human health are ineffective for global antimicrobial resistance (AMR) containment efforts. The inherent complexities of AMR containment warrant a coordinated multisectoral approach. However, how to institutionalize a country’s multisectoral coordination across sectors and between departments used to working in silos is an ongoing challenge. This paper describes the technical approach used by a donor-funded program to strengthen multisectoral coordination on AMR in 11 countries as part of their efforts to advance the objectives of the Global Health Security Agenda and discusses some of the challenges and lessons learned. Methods The program conducted a rapid situational analysis of the Global Health Security Agenda and AMR landscape in each country and worked with the governments to identify the gaps, priorities, and potential activities in multisectoral coordination on AMR. Using the World Health Organization (WHO) Joint External Evaluation tool and the WHO Benchmarks for International Health Regulations (2005) Capacities as principal guidance, we worked with countries to achieve key milestones in enhancing effective multisectoral coordination on AMR. Results The program’s interventions led to the achievement of key benchmarks recommended actions, including the finalization of national action plans on AMR and tools to guide their implementation; strengthening the leadership, governance, and oversight capabilities of multisectoral governance structures; establishing and improving the functions of technical working groups on infection prevention and control and antimicrobial stewardship; and coordinating AMR activities within and across sectors. Conclusion A lot of learning still needs to be done to identify best practices for building mutual trust and adequately balancing the priorities of individual ministries with cross-cutting issues. Nevertheless, this paper provides some practical ideas for countries and implementing partners seeking to improve multisectoral coordination on AMR. It also demonstrates that the WHO benchmark actions, although not intended as an exhaustive list of recommendations, provide adequate guidance for increasing countries’ capacity for effective multisectoral coordination on AMR in a standardized manner.

INTRODUCTION: The International Health Regulation (2005) requires all countries to develop and maintain core capacities for preparedness and response to public health emergencies. The objective of this study was to assess Cameroon’s capacities to prevent, detect and respond to public health threats through the Joint External Evaluation process. METHODS: data for the 48 indicators within the 19 technical areas of the Joint External Evaluation tool were examined. The scores for the 19 technical areas were analyzed using Microsoft Excel and R.3.4.3 for descriptive statistics (median and interquartile ranges). RESULTS: Cameroon´s overall median score was 2 (Min =1, Max=4) and 34/48 indicators (71%) had scores less than 2 on a 1 to 5 scale. The weakest technical areas in the “Prevent” category were antimicrobial resistance, biosafety and biosecurity, and National legislation, policy and financing. In the “Detect” category, the median score was 2. Technical areas with the lowest median scores were reporting and national laboratory system. Emergency response operations, preparedness, medical countermeasures and personnel deployment had the lowest scores in the “Respond” category. Chemical events and points of entry had the lowest score in “Other IHR-related hazards and points of entry” category. CONCLUSION: recommendations from the Joint External Evaluation to address the gaps should be aligned in a National Action Plan for Health Security and implementation ensured by a high level multi sectoral platform to strengthen IHR core capacities in the country.

Background The Joint External Evaluation Process (JEE), developed in response to the 2014 Global Health Security Agenda (GHSA), is a voluntary, independent process conducted by a team of external evaluators to assess a country’s public health preparedness capabilities under the 2005 International Health Regulations (IHR) revision. Feedback from the JEE process is intended to aid in the development of national action plans by elucidating weaknesses in current preparedness and response capabilities. Methods To identify gaps in sector participation and the development of national action plans in response to public health emergencies, all English-language JEE reports available on March 31, 2018 ( N  = 47) were systematically reviewed to determine sectoral backgrounds of key host country participants. Results Overall, strong representation was seen in the health, agriculture, domestic security, and environment sectors, whereas the energy/nuclear and defense sectors were largely under-represented. Conclusions While strong participation by more traditional sectors such as health and agriculture is common in the JEE development process, involvement by the defense and energy/nuclear sectors in the JEE process could be increased, potentially improving preparedness and response to widespread public health emergencies.

Background The emergence of high consequence pathogens such as Ebola and SARS-CoV-2, along with the continued burden of neglected diseases such as rabies, has highlighted the need for preparedness for emerging and endemic infectious diseases of zoonotic origin in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) using a One Health approach. To identify trends in SSA preparedness, the World Health Organization (WHO) Joint External Evaluation (JEE) reports were analysed. JEEs are voluntary, collaborative processes to assess country’s capacities to prevent, detect and rapidly respond to public health risks. This report aimed to analyse the JEE zoonotic disease preparedness data as a whole and identify strengths and weaknesses. Methods JEE zoonotic disease preparedness scores for 44 SSA countries who had completed JEEs were analysed. An overall zoonotic disease preparedness score was calculated as an average of the sum of all the SSA country zoonotic disease preparedness scores and compared to the overall mean JEE score. Zoonotic disease preparedness indicators were analysed and data were collated into regions to identify key areas of strength. Results The mean ‘Zoonotic disease’ preparedness score (2.35, range 1.00–4.00) was 7% higher compared to the mean overall JEE preparedness score (2.19, range 1.55–3.30), putting ‘Zoonotic Diseases’ 5th out of 19 JEE sub-areas for preparedness. The average scores for each ‘Zoonotic Disease’ category were 2.45 for ‘Surveillance Systems’, 2.76 for ‘Veterinary Workforce’ and 1.84 for ‘Response Mechanisms’. The Southern African region scored highest across the ‘Zoonotic disease’ categories (2.87). A multisectoral priority zoonotic pathogens list is in place for 43% of SSA countries and 70% reported undertaking national surveillance on 1–5 zoonotic diseases. 70% of SSA countries reported having public health training courses in place for veterinarians and 30% had veterinarians in all districts (reported as sufficient staffing). A multisectoral action plan for zoonotic outbreaks was in place for 14% countries and 32% reported having an established inter-agency response team for zoonotic outbreaks. The zoonotic diseases that appeared most in reported country priority lists were rabies and Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza (HPAI) (both 89%), anthrax (83%), and brucellosis (78%). Conclusions With ‘Zoonotic Diseases’ ranking 5th in the JEE sub-areas and a mean SSA score 7% greater than the overall mean JEE score, zoonotic disease preparedness appears to have the attention of most SSA countries. However, the considerable range suggests that some countries have more measures in place than others, which may perhaps reflect the geography and types of pathogens that commonly occur. The category ‘Response Mechanisms’ had the lowest mean score across SSA, suggesting that implementing a multisectoral action plan and response team could provide the greatest gains.