Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38238029›Full record

ArticleBMJ global health2024

Sri Lanka's COVID-19 response and maintaining health services: implications for future pandemics.

Ravindra Prasan Rannan-Eliya, Azrah Ghaffoor, Sarasi Amarasinghe, Manage Dhanusha Nirmani, Nilmini Wijemunige, Sanjay Perera, Sarath Samarage, Kcs Dalpatadu, Niroshani Wisidagama, Sachini Fonseka and 3 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ global health, 2024. 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

13 authors.

Ravindra Prasan Rannan-EliyaInstitute for Health Policy, Colombo, Sri Lanka ravi@ihp.lk.ORCID 0000-0002-5013-2816
Azrah GhaffoorInstitute for Health Policy, Colombo, Sri Lanka.
Sarasi AmarasingheInstitute for Health Policy, Colombo, Sri Lanka.ORCID 0000-0003-2572-8666
Manage Dhanusha NirmaniInstitute for Health Policy, Colombo, Sri Lanka.ORCID 0000-0003-3344-740X
Nilmini WijemunigeInstitute for Health Policy, Colombo, Sri Lanka.ORCID 0000-0002-2241-3194
Sanjay PereraInstitute for Health Policy, Colombo, Sri Lanka.
Sarath SamarageInstitute for Health Policy, Colombo, Sri Lanka.ORCID 0000-0002-8137-3786
Kcs DalpataduInstitute for Health Policy, Colombo, Sri Lanka.
Niroshani WisidagamaInstitute for Health Policy, Colombo, Sri Lanka.
Sachini FonsekaInstitute for Health Policy, Colombo, Sri Lanka.ORCID 0000-0002-4618-4947
Nalin KumaraInstitute for Health Policy, Colombo, Sri Lanka.
Ahthiga SelvaratnamInstitute for Health Policy, Colombo, Sri Lanka.
Thimani DananjanaInstitute for Health Policy, Colombo, Sri Lanka.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study examines how Sri Lanka, a lower-middle income country, managed its COVID-19 response and maintained health services. It draws on an extensive document review, key informant interviews and a national survey of public experience and opinion to assess what Sri Lanka did, its effectiveness and why.Owing to a strong health system and luck, Sri Lanka stopped the first wave of COVID-19 infections, and it adopted a 'Zero-COVID' approach with the explicit goal of stopping outbreaks. This was initially effective. Outbreaks reduced healthcare use, but with minimal impact on health outcomes. But from end-2020, Sri Lanka switched its approach to tolerating transmission and mitigation. It took proactive actions to maintain healthcare access, and it pursued a COVID-19 vaccination effort that was successful in covering its adult population rapidly and with minimal disparities. Despite this, widespread transmission during 2021-2022 disrupted health services through the pressure on health facilities of patients with COVID-19 and infection of healthcare workers, and because COVID-19 anxiety discouraged patients from seeking healthcare. This led to substantial mortality and more than 30 000 excess deaths by 2022.We find that Sri Lanka abandoned its initially successful approach, because it failed to understand that its chosen strategy required symptomatic PCR testing in primary care. Failure to invest in testing was compounded by groupthink and a medical culture averse to testing.Sri Lanka's experience confirms that strong public health capacities, robust healthcare systems and intersectoral action are critical for pandemic response. It shows that civilian-military collaboration can be beneficial but contested, and that lack of fiscal space will undermine any response. It also demonstrates that pandemic preparedness cannot guarantee a successful pandemic response. Policy and research must pay more attention to improving decision-making processes when faced with pandemics involving novel pathogens, rapid spread, and substantial scientific uncertainty.

Indexed as

COVID-19AdultCOVID-19 VaccinesHealth ServicesHumansPandemicsSri LankaCOVID-19 VaccinesCOVID-19health policyhealth services researchhealth systemspublic health

Identifiers

PMID38238029
PMCPMC10846852

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.