ArticlePublic health2025
Pandemic preparedness and response priorities in Latin America: A regional Delphi consensus.
Article in Public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Developing context-specific competencies for epidemic and pandemic preparedness in the MENA region: a training needs assessment and Delphi approach.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThe Independent Panel for Pandemic Preparedness and Response issued a series of recommendations for future pandemic preparedness and response. Latin America's COVID-19-related deaths represented 25 % of the global demises, despite harboring less than 8 % of the world's population. As little data exists to support whether the Panel's recommendations reflect public health professionals' priorities in the region the study aimed to define these priorities utilizing a Delphi study. STUDY
designA consensus-building modified Delphi technique.
methodsFor the first two rounds, participants were asked to rank a list of topics across seven domains on a 4-point Likert scale. Topics voted by at least 75 % of participants in either round as very important were included in the final round. Participants ranked the topics from each of the seven domains in numeric order to define top priorities.
resultsA total of 115 responses were obtained across three rounds. Most respondents were involved in direct efforts against COVID-19 (75·0-86·%) and a considerable proportion had more than 16 years of public health experience (37·3-50·0 %). The top priority issues were zoonotic disease-pathogen surveillance systems (27·4 points), robust infection and prevention control programs (22·8 points), and indicator and event-based monitoring and reporting systems (22·1 points).
conclusionsEstablishing priorities for future pandemics is critical to ensure better health outcomes. The region should strengthen collaboration and enhance its capacities while conducting country-level analysis and defining priorities for future arrangements.
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.