Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40022025›Full record

ArticleBMC public health2025

How have PHEIC determinations changed since the COVID-19 pandemic? A document analysis of 101 WHO International Health Regulations Emergency Committees' statements.

Kevin Hemmat, Michelle Amri, Daniel Eisenkraft Klein

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

3 authors.

Kevin HemmatSchool of Public Policy, Simon Fraser University, 515 West Hastings Street, Vancouver, BC, V6B 4N6, Canada.
Michelle AmriThe W. Maurice Young Centre for Applied Ethics, School of Population and Public Health, University of British Columbia, 2206 East Mall, Room 209, Vancouver, BC, V6T 1Z3, Canada. michelle.amri@ubc.ca.
Daniel Eisenkraft KleinDivision of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, 1620 Tremont Street, Suite 3012, Boston, MA, 02120, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe World Health Organization (WHO) is chiefly responsible for declaring a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC). The WHO makes the assessment on whether to declare a formal PHEIC if the event fulfils three criteria: (i) it is an extraordinary event, (ii) is a public health risk to other States through the international spread of disease, and (iii) potentially requires a coordinated international response. There have been seven PHEIC declarations, including for the 2009 H1N1 flu pandemic, Ebola and Polio outbreaks, the COVID-19 pandemic, and most recently, the mpox outbreak. While the WHO's approach to PHEIC declarations prior to COVID-19 has been previously analyzed, there has been limited scholarly attention to how the approach has shifted since the pandemic. Given that COVID-19 constitutes the most severe pandemic in a century, this study empirically assesses how the PHEIC declaration process has been impacted by, and what has changed during and after, the COVID-19 pandemic.

methodA document analysis of 101 WHO International Health Regulations Emergency Committees' (EC) statements was undertaken with inductive thematic analysis. The thematic analysis focused on identifying common patterns in the EC statements to ascertain changes to PHEICs since COVID-19.

resultsThree primary themes emerged from our analysis: (i) this work affirms previous findings that the rationale for a PHEIC declaration and the criteria used to declare PHEICs have been applied inconsistently; (ii) since the COVID-19 pandemic, there has been a greater focus in explaining and justifying the use of the three criteria for PHEIC declarations and terminations; and (iii) since the COVID-19 pandemic, there has been increased detail, discussion, and structure in IHR EC statements. DISCUSSION: This analysis suggests that changes to the PHEIC process are needed and we present two primary recommendations: first, to create a new standardized interpretation of PHEIC criteria; and second, for the WHO EC to reaffirm its commitment to clear and transparent communications.

conclusionGiven changes to the PHEIC declaration process following the COVID-19 pandemic, it is evident that reforms are necessary to ensure a more consistent, transparent, and effective global health response moving forward. Our recommendations, if adopted, could significantly enhance the WHO's ability to respond to future global health crises, ensuring more consistent and transparent decision-making in PHEIC declarations, and ultimately strengthening international preparedness and cooperation.

Indexed as

COVID-19EmergenciesInternational Health RegulationsPandemicsPublic HealthWorld Health OrganizationDocument AnalysisGlobal HealthHumansGlobal healthHealth policyInternational healthPHEICPublic healthPublic health emergenciesPublic Health Emergency of International ConcernPublic policyWHOWorld HealthOrganization

Identifiers

PMID40022025
PMCPMC11871820

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.