ArticleBMJ global health2025
It is not just about the training: rethinking strategies to strengthen the global emergency response workforce.
Article in BMJ global 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionPublic health rapid response teams (RRTs) are critical to timely and effective emergency response. The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has trained country-level public health emergency managers on RRT programme design, management and operations. However, countries continue to face challenges in RRT programming, requiring further elucidation of the supportive and challenging factors.
methodsIn April 2021, 86 CDC-trained participants on RRT programme management were sent an anonymous online survey with questions regarding their country's RRT programme capacity (fully functional (FF-RRT) vs partially functional (PF-RRT)) and factors that affected programme implementation. Descriptive analyses were conducted; factors were stratified by respondent-reported RRT programme capacity and gross national income (low-lower middle (L-LM) and upper middle-high (UM-H) using a χ
results55 (64%) participants from 24 countries responded, most from the African region (75%) and 46% from L-LM countries. Most participants (82%) reported an RRT programme in their country, 65% PF-RRT and 35% FF-RRT. The greatest supportive factors for RRT programme implementation included a dedicated RRT management team (65%) and leadership understanding (65%). The major challenge was lack of funding (68%). L-LM countries cited greater challenges with funding (74% vs 38%; p=0.04) and equipment (46% vs 0%; p=0.01), while UM-H countries cited poor standard operating procedure development (50% vs 11%; p=0.04) and leadership understanding (50% vs 11%; p=0.01). Available funding was a more supportive factor for PF-RRTs than for FF-RRTs (48% vs 19%; p=0.004). More FF-RRTs (100% vs 62%; p=0.005) cited the lack of RRT surge staff as a challenging factor.
conclusionTraining RRTs is not enough. Addressing foundational factors such as sustainable funding and leadership support is essential for the long-term success of RRT programmes. With the challenges elucidated here, future global health initiatives can consider tailoring support based on RRT country capacity status and income level to ensure effective emergency response capacity.
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.