Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42104283›Full record

ReviewBMC public health2026

Policy challenges in the provision of COVID-19 border screening: evidence from eight countries.

James Bates, Joshua R Moon, Sibylle Gaisser, Anne Nikiforov, James G Ryan, Choon Key Chekar, Robyn Meurant, Etienne Vignola-Gagné, Collins Iwuji, Erofili Grapsa and 4 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review 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.

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

14 authors.

James BatesScience Policy Research Unit (SPRU), University of Sussex Business School, Brighton, UK.
Joshua R MoonScience Policy Research Unit (SPRU), University of Sussex Business School, Brighton, UK. J.R.Moon@Sussex.ac.uk.
Sibylle GaisserAnsbach University of Applied Sciences, Ansbach, Germany.
Anne NikiforovAnsbach University of Applied Sciences, Ansbach, Germany.
James G RyanCIRCA Group Europe Ltd., Dublin, Ireland.
Choon Key ChekarLancaster Medical School, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK.
Robyn MeurantACT-IVD, Paris, France.
Etienne Vignola-GagnéElsevier, Science-Metrix, Montreal, Canada.
Collins IwujiAfrica Health Research Institute, KwaZulu-Natal, Durban, South Africa.
Erofili GrapsaBrighton and Sussex Medical School, Brighton, UK.
David Barbéra-TomásINGENIO (CSIC-UPV), Universitat Politecnica de Valencia, Valencia, Spain.
Enrique MeseguerINGENIO (CSIC-UPV), Universitat Politecnica de Valencia, Valencia, Spain.
Gail DaveyBrighton and Sussex Medical School, Brighton, UK.
Michael M HopkinsScience Policy Research Unit (SPRU), University of Sussex Business School, Brighton, UK.

Funding

Economic and Social Research Council ES/W00156X/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWhile border screening measures were widely adopted by countries during the COVID-19 pandemic, a lack of consensus on the utility of border screening created a gap in best practice for its implementation. As such, countries adopted a diversity of approaches, providing an opportunity to evaluate the configuration and evolution of border screening systems. The article addresses three questions: (i) how did countries configure their border screening systems for COVID-19? (ii) In what contexts did countries rely on public or private providers of these services? (iii) what do policies and narratives reveal about the perceived role of border screening in global public health? The article contributes to long-standing debates over the private sector's role in public health and the perceived value of border screening measures.

methodsThis article presents results from an international comparative study based on tracking the organisation of border screening in eight countries. Secondary data was collected between July 2021 - June 2022 from official government websites and policy publications, private sector sources where relevant, and trusted media sources in each study country. The countries included are Australia, Canada, Germany, Ireland, South Africa, South Korea, Spain, and the United Kingdom.

resultsAll study countries used private provision for pre-departure diagnostic testing for international travellers. In contrast, screening of arriving travellers was more diverse. Countries that opted for private sector post-arrival screening saw governance challenges around accreditation and monitoring of providers, while public service provision saw challenges in capacity and high resource costs. Travel was often framed as a 'luxury,' allowing states to shift responsibility for obtaining tests onto individuals; especially in the context of individuals travelling from low income to high income countries.

conclusionsThe different approaches countries followed for screening of departing and incoming travellers suggests wealthy countries were more oriented towards defending their populations against disease importation, rather protecting the international community from disease exportation. These findings provide an opportunity to reflect on the purpose and implementation of border screening. We emphasise a need for further discussion on the efficacy of border screening from both perspectives, given the tendency for countries to rely on these measures.

Indexed as

COVID-19COVID-19 TestingHealth PolicyMass ScreeningAustraliaCanadaGermanyHumansPrivate SectorRepublic of KoreaSouth AfricaSpainUnited KingdomBorder managementCOVID-19Cross-border health measuresDiagnostics industryInfectious disease screeningInternational Health RegulationsPrivate healthcare servicesPublic healthcare servicesTravel measures

Identifiers

PMID42104283
PMCPMC13326293

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.