Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32967981›Full record

ArticleBMJ global health2020

How previous epidemics enable timelier COVID-19 responses: an empirical study using organisational memory theory.

Sian Hsiang-Te Tsuei

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ global health, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

1 author.

Sian Hsiang-Te TsueiGlobal Health and Populations, Harvard University T H Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, USA stsuei@g.harvard.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThere has been little systematic exploration into what affects timeliness of epidemic response, despite the potential for earlier responses to be more effective. Speculations have circulated that previous exposure to major epidemics helped health systems respond more quickly to COVID-19. This study leverages organisational memory theory to test whether health systems with any, more severe, or more recent exposure to major epidemics enacted timelier COVID-19 policy responses.

methodsA data set was constructed cataloguing 846 policies across 178 health systems in total, 37 of which had major epidemics within the last 20 years. Hypothesis testing used OLS regressions with World Health Organization region fixed effects, controlling for several health system expenditure and political variables.

resultsResults show that exposure to any major epidemics was associated with providing earlier response in the following policy categories: all policies, surveillance/response, distancing, and international travel policies. The effect was about 6-10 days earlier response. The significance of this variable was largely nullified with the addition of the other two independent variables. Neither total cases nor years since previous epidemics showed no statistical significance.

conclusionThis study suggests that health systems may learn from past major epidemics. Policymakers ought to institutionalise lessons from COVID-19. Future studies can examine specific generalisable lessons and whether timelier responses correlated with lower health and economic impacts.

Indexed as

BetacoronavirusCommunicable Disease ControlCoronavirus InfectionsCOVID-19Disaster PlanningDisease OutbreaksEfficiency, OrganizationalHumansOrganizational InnovationPandemicsPneumonia, ViralSARS-CoV-2Time Factorshealth policies and all other topicshealth systems

Identifiers

PMID32967981
PMCPMC7513424

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.