Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37898790›Full record

ReviewGlobalization and health2023

Assessing public health preparedness and response in the European Union- a review of regional simulation exercises and after action reviews.

Mari Nythun Utheim, Mohamed Gawad, Karin Nygård, Emily Macdonald, Monica Falk

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Globalization and health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 13% of its field
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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Learning from COVID-19: A Systematic Review of the IHR-SPAR Framework's Role in the Pandemic Response.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. 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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

Mari Nythun UtheimNorwegian Institute of Public Health, Postboks 222 Skøyen, Oslo, 0213, Norway. marinythun@protonmail.com.ORCID 0000-0001-9078-0036
Mohamed GawadNorwegian Institute of Public Health, Postboks 222 Skøyen, Oslo, 0213, Norway.
Karin NygårdNorwegian Institute of Public Health, Postboks 222 Skøyen, Oslo, 0213, Norway.
Emily MacdonaldNorwegian Institute of Public Health, Postboks 222 Skøyen, Oslo, 0213, Norway.
Monica FalkNorwegian Institute of Public Health, Postboks 222 Skøyen, Oslo, 0213, Norway.
Norwegian Institute of Public Health · NO

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundImproving response capacities in the EU requires a good overview of capacities at both country and Union level. The International Health Regulations (2005) Monitoring and Evaluation framework assesses capacities in countries. It includes semi-quantitative tools such as State Parties Annual Report (SPAR) and Joint External Evaluation (JEE). After Action Reviews (AAR) and Simulation Exercises (SimEx) were included to identify weaknesses in the functionality of capacities which are not addressed bySPAR and JEE. This study presents an analysis of the use of qualitative tools at regional level, in Europe. It aims to identify their added value by comparing them to standardised monitoring tools and lessons learned from COVID-19, and considers ways to improve their use in assessing capacities in the EU.

methodsWe included 17 SimEx and 2 AAR organised by the European Commission between 2005 and 2018. We categorised a total of 357 recommendations according to the IHR (2005) core capacities and to the target audience of the recommendation. We analysed the data using language analysis software. Recommendations to countries were compared to SPAR and JEE indicators. Recommendations to EU agencies were compared to the current mandates of the EU agencies, and to lessons learnt during COVID-19.

resultsOf all extracted recommendations from the exercises, 59% (211/357) targeted EU agencies, 18% (64/357) targeted countries, and 16% (57/357) targeted both. Recommendations mainly addressed areas of IHR coordination (C2), heath emergency management (C7) and risk communication (C10), and not low scoring areas. Recommendations complement SPAR indicators by identifying gaps in functionality. Eight out of ten early lessons learnt during the COVID-19 pandemic had been raised earlier as recommendations from exercises. Exercise reports did not include or result in action plans for implementation, but COVID-19 has accelerated implementation of some recommendations.

conclusionSimEx/AAR provide valuable insight into public health preparedness at EU level, as they assess functionality of preparedness and response mechanisms, point out gaps, and provide training and awareness on for participants, who often have key roles in public health emergencies. Better follow-up and implementation of recommendations is key to improve the regional preparedness for international public health incidents such as pandemics.

Indexed as

COVID-19Public HealthEuropean UnionExerciseHumansPandemicsAfter action reviewEuropean UnionIHRMonitoring and evaluationPublic health preparednessSimulation exercises

Identifiers

PMID37898790
PMCPMC10612297
OpenAlexW4388001565

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.