ArticleFrontiers in public health2025
Pandemic preparedness and response: a survey among experts from high- and low-middle-income countries about the "100 Days Mission".
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.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.