ArticleBMC public health2026
Public health emergency response through field epidemiology training and rapid response teams - a scoping review.
Article in BMC public health, 2026. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPublic Health Emergency Workforce (PHEW) plays a significant role in the detection and rapid response to emerging diseases, thus helping countries manage global threats. In line with the International Health Regulations' call for strengthening national capacities, field epidemiology training programs (FETPs) and rapid response teams (RRTs) have been developed to enhance countries' preparedness and response capacities. This scoping review synthesizes the evidence on available FETPs and RRTs and on their effectiveness as well as the challenges they face.
methodsA scoping review was conducted using EMBASE, Ovid Medline and Scopus databases in addition to the grey literature for studies published after year 2000, in the English language. Studies were selected by two independent reviewers and data were extracted into an excel sheet. Included manuscripts were analyzed through a narrative synthesis.
resultsFour thousand one hundred ten studies were identified from the three peer-reviewed databases and six articles from the grey literature. Finally, 67 studies were included in the review comprising 47 identified through our search and 20 sourced from the references. The studies on PHEW training included FETPs encompassing those with laboratory and veterinary focus, and training on rapid response. Enhancement in learning acquired, course satisfaction, application of skills in workplace and engagements in key emergency response activities were found. However, lack of funding and a standardized curriculum were still among the most common challenges facing FETPs and RRTs.
conclusionWhile PHEW training including FETPs and RRTs are essential for building resilience against health threats, financial challenges, lack of standardized curricula and operating procedures hinders their effectiveness. Integrating One Health and laboratory skills into FETPs are vital, as seen during the COVID-19 pandemic response. Governments should work towards increasing funding and incentivizing graduate retention. They should also collaborate with organizations such as the International Association of National Public Health Institutes (IANPHI) and the Global Field Epidemiology Partnership (GFEP) to establish standardized curricula for FETP and RRT.
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.