Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32393259›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2020

Methodology for assessment of public health emergency preparedness and response synergies between institutional authorities and communities.

Daniel H de Vries, John Kinsman, Judit Takacs, Svetla Tsolova, Massimo Ciotti

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Daniel H de VriesDepartment of Anthropology, University of Amsterdam, Nieuwe Achtergracht 166, 1018, WV, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. d.h.devries@uva.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7455-0628
John KinsmanEuropean Centre for Disease Prevention and Control, Gustav III:s Boulevard 40, 169 73, Solna, Sweden.
Judit TakacsEuropean Centre for Disease Prevention and Control, Gustav III:s Boulevard 40, 169 73, Solna, Sweden.
Svetla TsolovaEuropean Centre for Disease Prevention and Control, Gustav III:s Boulevard 40, 169 73, Solna, Sweden.
Massimo CiottiEuropean Centre for Disease Prevention and Control, Gustav III:s Boulevard 40, 169 73, Solna, Sweden.

Funding

European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control ECDC/2014/005
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThis paper describes a participatory methodology that supports investigation of the synergistic collaboration between communities affected by infectious disease outbreak events and relevant official institutions. The core principle underlying the methodology is the recognition that synergistic relationships, characterised by mutual trust and respect, between affected communities and official institutions provide the most effective means of addressing outbreak situations.

methodsThe methodological approach and lessons learned were derived from four qualitative case studies including (i) two tick-borne disease events (Crimean-Congo haemorrhagic fever in Spain, 2016, and tick-borne encephalitis in the Netherlands, 2016); and (ii) two outbreaks of acute gastroenteritis (norovirus in Iceland, 2017, and verocytotoxin-producing Escherichia coli [VTEC] in Ireland, 2018). An after-event qualitative case study approach was taken using mixed methods. The studies were conducted in collaboration with the respective national public health authorities in the affected countries by the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC). The analysis focused on the specific actions undertaken by the participating countries' public health and other authorities in relation to community engagement, as well as the view from the perspective of affected communities.

resultsLessons highlight the critical importance of collaborating with ECDC National Focal Points during preparation and planning and with anthropological experts. Field work for each case study was conducted over one working week, which although limiting the number of individuals and institutions involved, still allowed for rich data collection due to the close collaboration with local authorities. The methodology enabled efficient extraction of synergies between authorities and communities. Implementing the methodology required a reflexivity among fieldworkers that ackowledges that different versions of reality can co-exist in the social domain. The method allowed for potential generalisability across studies. Issues of extra attention included insider-outsider perspectives, politically sensitivity of findings, and how to deal with ethical and language issues.

conclusionsThe overall objective of the assessment is to identify synergies between institutional decision-making bodies and community actors and networks before, during and after an outbreak response to a given public health emergency. The methodology is generic and could be applied to a range of public health emergencies, zoonotic or otherwise.

Indexed as

Community-Institutional RelationsEmergenciesPublic HealthDisease OutbreaksHealth FacilitiesHumansIcelandIrelandNetherlandsQualitative ResearchSpainCommunity engagementEuropean UnionMethodologyProtocolPublic health emergency preparednessSynergies

Identifiers

PMID32393259
PMCPMC7212582

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.