Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33380341›Full record

ArticleGlobalization and health2020

Integrating the social sciences in epidemic preparedness and response: A strategic framework to strengthen capacities and improve Global Health security.

Kevin Louis Bardosh, Daniel H de Vries, Sharon Abramowitz, Adama Thorlie, Lianne Cremers, John Kinsman, Darryl Stellmach

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Globalization and health, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing 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

36 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

7 authors.

Kevin Louis BardoshCenter for One Health Research, School of Public Health, University of Washington, Box 357230, Seattle, WA, 98195-7230, USA. kbardosh@uw.edu.ORCID 0000-0003-2973-5708
Daniel H de VriesAmsterdam Institute for Global Health and Development, Paasheuvelweg 25, 1105, BP, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Sharon AbramowitzIndependent Consultant, Boston, USA.
Adama ThorlieIndependent Consultant, Berlin, Germany.
Lianne CremersAmsterdam University Medical Centre, Meibergdreef 9, 1105, AZ, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
John KinsmanDepartment of Epidemiology and Global Health, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden.
Darryl StellmachSydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Edward Ford Building (A27) Fisher Road, Sydney, NSW, 2006, Australia.

Funding

Wellcome TrustWellcome Trust N/AWellcome Trust (GB) 108692/Z/15/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe importance of integrating the social sciences in epidemic preparedness and response has become a common feature of infectious disease policy and practice debates. However to date, this integration remains inadequate, fragmented and under-funded, with limited reach and small initial investments. Based on data collected prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, in this paper we analysed the variety of knowledge, infrastructure and funding gaps that hinder the full integration of the social sciences in epidemics and present a strategic framework for addressing them.

methodsSenior social scientists with expertise in public health emergencies facilitated expert deliberations, and conducted 75 key informant interviews, a consultation with 20 expert social scientists from Africa, Asia and Europe, 2 focus groups and a literature review of 128 identified high-priority peer reviewed articles. We also analysed 56 interviews from the Ebola 100 project, collected just after the West African Ebola epidemic. Analysis was conducted on gaps and recommendations. These were inductively classified according to various themes during two group prioritization exercises. The project was conducted between February and May 2019. Findings from the report were used to inform strategic prioritization of global investments in social science capacities for health emergencies.

findingsOur analysis consolidated 12 knowledge and infrastructure gaps and 38 recommendations from an initial list of 600 gaps and 220 recommendations. In developing our framework, we clustered these into three areas: 1) Recommendations to improve core social science response capacities, including investments in: human resources within response agencies; the creation of social science data analysis capacities at field and global level; mechanisms for operationalizing knowledge; and a set of rapid deployment infrastructures; 2) Recommendations to strengthen applied and basic social sciences, including the need to: better define the social science agenda and core competencies; support innovative interdisciplinary science; make concerted investments in developing field ready tools and building the evidence-base; and develop codes of conduct; and 3) Recommendations for a supportive social science ecosystem, including: the essential foundational investments in institutional development; training and capacity building; awareness-raising activities with allied disciplines; and lastly, support for a community of practice.

interpretationComprehensively integrating social science into the epidemic preparedness and response architecture demands multifaceted investments on par with allied disciplines, such as epidemiology and virology. Building core capacities and competencies should occur at multiple levels, grounded in country-led capacity building. Social science should not be a parallel system, nor should it be "siloed" into risk communication and community engagement. Rather, it should be integrated across existing systems and networks, and deploy interdisciplinary knowledge "transversally" across all preparedness and response sectors and pillars. Future work should update this framework to account for the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the institutional landscape.

Indexed as

Global HealthCapacity BuildingCommunicable Disease ControlEpidemicsHumansQualitative ResearchSocial SciencesAnthropologyEpidemicsGlobal Health securityGovernanceHealth emergenciesInfectious diseasePreparednessSocial science

Identifiers

PMID33380341
PMCPMC7772799

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.