Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40977802›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in public health2025

Pandemic preparedness and response: a survey among experts from high- and low-middle-income countries about the "100 Days Mission".

Vanessa Pencelli, Ralf Clemens, Mihai Alexandru Bica, Sue Ann Costa Clemens

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in 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

4 authors.

Vanessa PencelliInstitute of Global Health, University of Siena, Siena, Italy.
Ralf ClemensInstitute of Global Health, University of Siena, Siena, Italy.
Mihai Alexandru BicaInstitute of Global Health, University of Siena, Siena, Italy.
Sue Ann Costa ClemensInstitute of Global Health, University of Siena, Siena, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The "100 Days Mission" (100DM), designed by the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI), represents an ambitious new concept in vaccine development for effective pandemic preparedness, rapid response, and the reduction of health inequalities. We aimed to identify potential obstacles to the success of the 100DM by conducting a survey among experts in vaccinology and public health from both high-income countries (HICs) and low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Materials and methods: A descriptive cross-sectional study was conducted, using a semi-structured online survey distributed to 116 experts from both LMICs and HICs. The data collected were analyzed quantitatively and qualitatively, highlighting the differences in responses between the LMICs and HICs respondents. Results: The overall response rate was 73.2% (85/116), with 74% (57/77) of the respondents from HICs and 69.2% (27/39) from LMICs. The LMIC respondents (14/27, 51.9%) were more confident in the success of the 100DM than the HIC respondents (15/57, 26.3%). Additionally, LMIC respondents believed more strongly in the potential impact to overcome inequalities (15/27, 55.6% vs. 19/57, 33.3%). Almost all experts from both LMICs and HICs considered political will and governance, and sufficient sustainable funding as the most important prerequisites for the success of the 100DM, followed by the need for trustful collaborations between HICs and LMICs, effective public-private partnership, and continuous training and capability building. The 100DM should prioritize the establishment of vaccine candidate libraries, enhancement and sustainability of surveillance capabilities, and creation of laboratory and clinical trial site networks. Conclusion: This is the first prospective survey evaluating the feasibility of 100DM, involving external stakeholders from both HICs and LMICs. Experts from LMICs are more confident in the success of the 100DM than those from HICs. Political will, good governance, and sustainable financing are essential for successful implementation. The technical innovation aspect of the 100DM should prioritize the development of prototype vaccines and operational components over more long-term initiatives with broader impacts. To realize CEPI's vision, global stakeholders must set priorities and commit to focused, coordinated actions. Achieving early wins through short-term, high-impact deliverables and actionable policy reforms is essential to build confidence, sustain momentum, and prevent stakeholder fatigue. This strategic prioritization underpins the initiative's long-term success.

Indexed as

COVID-19Developed CountriesDeveloping CountriesPandemicsCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansMalePandemic PreparednessPublic HealthSurveys and Questionnaires100 Days MissionCEPIhigh income countrieslow middle income countriespandemic preparednesssurvey

Identifiers

PMID40977802
PMCPMC12446282

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.