ArticleBMC public health2021
The heterogeneity of the COVID-19 pandemic and national responses: an explanatory mixed-methods study.
Article in BMC public health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
24 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) excess mortality outcomes associated with pandemic effects study (COPES): A systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in medicine · 2022Pooled it
- Public health messaging and community engagement during COVID-19: a rapid-review from the Greater Mekong Subregion.One health outlook · 2025Review
- Identifying indicators of "success" in managing the COVID-19 pandemic in Europe: insights from an interdisciplinary expert consultation.Archives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique · 2025Article
- Uncovering cell-type-specific immunomodulatory variants and molecular phenotypes in COVID-19 using structurally resolved protein networks.Cell reports · 2024Article
- How well prepared are hospitals for future crises? Board members perceive their hospitals as resilient for acute crises.BMC health services research · 2024Article
- COVID-19 Policy Response Analysis: A Canadian Perspective.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2024Article
- Unraveling the effects of the Ebola experience on behavior choices during COVID-19 in Liberia: a mixed-methods study across successive outbreaks.BMC global and public health · 2024Article
- Income inequality and its association with COVID-19 cases and deaths: a cross-country analysis in the Eastern Mediterranean region.BMJ global health · 2023Article
- COVID-19 vaccination and governance in the case of low, middle and high-income countries.BMC public health · 2023Article
- Reply: Healthcare Responses and Values System in Public Health.Infection & chemotherapy · 2023Article
- COVID-19 collaborative modelling for policy response in the Philippines, Malaysia and Vietnam.The Lancet regional health. Western Pacific · 2022Review
- The impact of an enhanced health surveillance system for COVID-19 management in Serrana, Brazil.Public health in practice (Oxford, England) · 2022Article
- Environmental health, COVID-19, and the syndemic: internal medicine facing the challenge.Internal and emergency medicine · 2022Review
- Resilience of the primary health care system - German primary care practitioners' perspectives during the early COVID-19 pandemic.BMC primary care · 2022Article
- Lessons from the frontline: Leadership and governance experiences in the COVID-19 pandemic response across the Pacific region.The Lancet regional health. Western Pacific · 2022Article
- The Advantages of the Zero-COVID-19 Strategy.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Review
- COVID-19 epidemic in New York City: development of an age group-specific mathematical model to predict the outcome of various vaccination strategies.Virology journal · 2022Article
- Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic Declaration on New Oncology Trial Commencements: An Interrupted Time Series with Segmented Regression Analysis.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Impact of COVID-19 on Affected Individuals in Iraq Focusing on Deceased Cancer Patients.JCO global oncology · 2022Article
- Analysis of the COVID-19 pandemic: lessons towards a more effective response to public health emergencies.Globalization and health · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19) has quickly spread to all corners of the world since its emergence in Wuhan, China in December of 2019. The disease burden has been heterogeneous across regions of the world, with Americas leading in cumulative cases and deaths, followed by Europe, Southeast Asia, Eastern Mediterranean, Africa and Western Pacific. Initial responses to COVID-19 also varied between governments, ranging from proactive containment to delayed intervention. Understanding these variabilities allow high burden countries to learn from low burden countries on ways to create more sustainable response plans in the future.
methodsThis study used a mixed-methods approach to perform cross-country comparisons of pandemic responses in the United States (US), Brazil, Germany, Australia, South Korea, Thailand, New Zealand, Italy and China. These countries were selected based on their income level, relative COVID-19 burden and geographic location. To rationalize the epidemiological variability, a list of 14 indicators was established to assess the countries' preparedness, actual response, and socioeconomic and demographic profile in the context of COVID-19.
resultsAs of 1 April 2021, the US had the highest cases per million out of the nine countries, followed by Brazil, Italy, Germany, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand, Thailand and China. Meanwhile, Italy ranked first out of the nine countries' total deaths per million, followed by the US, Brazil, Germany, Australia, South Korea, New Zealand, China and Thailand. The epidemiological differences between these countries could be explained by nine indicators, and they were 1) leadership, governance and coordination of response, 2) communication, 3) community engagement, 4) multisectoral actions, 5) public health capacity, 6) universal health coverage, 7) medical services and hospital capacity, 8) demography and 9) burden of non-communicable diseases.
conclusionThe COVID-19 pandemic manifests varied outcomes due to differences in countries' vulnerability, preparedness and response. Our study rationalizes why South Korea, New Zealand, Thailand, Australia and China performed better than the US, Italy and Brazil. By identifying the strengths of low burden countries and weaknesses of hotspot countries, we elucidate factors constituting an effective pandemic response that can be adopted by leaders in preparation for re-emerging public health threats.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.