Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38709792›Full record

ArticlePLOS global public health2024

Community interventions for pandemic preparedness: A scoping review of pandemic preparedness lessons from HIV, COVID-19, and other public health emergencies of international concern.

Sali Hafez, Sharif A Ismail, Zandile Zibwowa, Nadin Alhamshary, Reem Elsayed, Mandeep Dhaliwal, Fiona Samuels, Ade Fakoya

Erratum issuedAbstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in PLOS global public health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Sali HafezFaculty of Public Health and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1051-1819
Sharif A IsmailFaculty of Public Health and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.
Zandile ZibwowaFaculty of Public Health and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6560-5754
Nadin AlhamsharyThe Nuffield Centre for International Health and Development, School of Medicine, The University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8717-3438
Reem ElsayedThe University of Western Cape, Cape Town, South Africa.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6321-2092
Mandeep DhaliwalHIV and Health Group, United Nations Development Program, New York, United States of America.
Fiona SamuelsCentre for Public Health and Policy, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8709-1328
Ade FakoyaInstitute for Global Health, University College London, London, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Community action is broadly recognised as central to comprehensive and effective system responses to pandemics. However, there is uncertainty about how and where communities can be best supported to bolster long-term resilience and preparedness. We applied a typology of community interventions (Community Informing, Consulting, Involving, Collaborating or Empowering-or CICICE) to cover the diverse range of interventions identified across the literature and used this to structure a scoping review addressing three linked topics: (i) how CICICE interventions have been understood and applied in the literature on epidemic and pandemic preparedness; (ii) the spectrum of interventions that have been implemented to strengthen CICICE and (iii) what evidence is available on their effectiveness in influencing preparedness for current and future emergencies. We drew on peer-reviewed and grey literature from the HIV (from 2000) and COVID-19 pandemics and recent public health emergencies of international concern (from 2008), identified through systematic searches in MEDLINE, Scopus, the Cochrane Collaboration database, supplemented by keyword-structured searches in GoogleScholar and websites of relevant global health organisations. Following screening and extraction, key themes were identified using a combined inductive/deductive approach. 130 papers met the criteria for inclusion. Interventions for preparedness were identified across the spectrum of CICICE. Most work on COVID-19 focused on informing and consulting rather than capacity building and empowerment. The literature on HIV was more likely to report interventions emphasising human rights perspectives and empowerment. There was little robust evidence on the role of CICICE interventions in building preparedness. Evidence of effect was most robust for multi-component interventions for HIV prevention and control. Much of the reporting focused on intermediate outcomes, including measures of health service utilisation. We put forward a series of recommendations to help address evidence shortfalls, including clarifying definitions, organising and stratifying interventions by several parameters and strengthening evaluation methods for CICICE.

Identifiers

PMID38709792
PMCPMC11073720

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.