Mamunur R Malik1, Zaeem Ul Haq2, Quaid Saeed3, Ruth Riley4, Wasiq M Khan5. 1. Infectious Hazard Management, Eastern Mediterranean Office, World Health Organization. Electronic address: malikm@who.int. 2. Johns Hopkins Center for Communication Programs, Razia Sharif Plaza, Fazle-Haq Road, Blue Area, Islamabad, Pakistan. Electronic address: zaeemdr@gmail.com. 3. National HIV/AIDS Control Program, Islamabad, Pakistan. Electronic address: quaidsaeed@yahoo.com. 4. Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, UK. Electronic address: r.riley@bham.ac.uk. 5. Department of Health, University of Bath, UK. Electronic address: w.khan@bath.ac.uk.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Influenza pandemics are unpredictable and can have severe health and economic implications. Preparedness for pandemic influenza as advised by the World Health Organization (WHO) is key in minimizing the potential impacts. Pandemic Influenza Preparedness (PIP) Framework is a global public-private initiative to strengthen the preparedness. A total of 43 countries receive funds through Partnership Contribution (PC) component of PIP Framework to enhance preparedness; seven of these fall in the WHO's Eastern Mediterranean Region. We report findings of a desk review of preparedness plans of six such countries from the Region. METHODS: The assessment was done using a standardized checklist containing five criteria and 68 indicators. The checklist was developed using the latest WHO guidelines, in consultation with influenza experts from the Region. The criteria included preparation, surveillance, prevention and containment, case investigation and treatment, and risk communication. Two evaluators independently examined and scored the plans. RESULTS: Pandemic preparedness plan of only one country scored above 70% on aggregate and above 50% on all individual criteria. Plans from rest of the countries scored below satisfactory on aggregate, as well as on individual preparedness criteria. Among the individual criteria, prevention and containment scored highest while case investigation and treatment, the lowest for majority of the countries. In general, surveillance also scored low while it was absent altogether, in one of the plans. CONCLUSIONS: This was a desk review of the plans and not the actual assessment of the influenza preparedness. Moreover, only plans of countries facilitated through funds provided under the PC implementation plan were included. The preparedness scores of majority of reviewed plans were not satisfactory. This warrants a larger study of a representative sample from the Region and also calls for immediate policy action to improve the pandemic influenza preparedness plans and thereby enhance pandemic preparedness in the Region.
BACKGROUND: Influenza pandemics are unpredictable and can have severe health and economic implications. Preparedness for pandemic influenza as advised by the World Health Organization (WHO) is key in minimizing the potential impacts. Pandemic Influenza Preparedness (PIP) Framework is a global public-private initiative to strengthen the preparedness. A total of 43 countries receive funds through Partnership Contribution (PC) component of PIP Framework to enhance preparedness; seven of these fall in the WHO's Eastern Mediterranean Region. We report findings of a desk review of preparedness plans of six such countries from the Region. METHODS: The assessment was done using a standardized checklist containing five criteria and 68 indicators. The checklist was developed using the latest WHO guidelines, in consultation with influenza experts from the Region. The criteria included preparation, surveillance, prevention and containment, case investigation and treatment, and risk communication. Two evaluators independently examined and scored the plans. RESULTS: Pandemic preparedness plan of only one country scored above 70% on aggregate and above 50% on all individual criteria. Plans from rest of the countries scored below satisfactory on aggregate, as well as on individual preparedness criteria. Among the individual criteria, prevention and containment scored highest while case investigation and treatment, the lowest for majority of the countries. In general, surveillance also scored low while it was absent altogether, in one of the plans. CONCLUSIONS: This was a desk review of the plans and not the actual assessment of the influenza preparedness. Moreover, only plans of countries facilitated through funds provided under the PC implementation plan were included. The preparedness scores of majority of reviewed plans were not satisfactory. This warrants a larger study of a representative sample from the Region and also calls for immediate policy action to improve the pandemic influenza preparedness plans and thereby enhance pandemic preparedness in the Region.
Authors: Khalid A Kheirallah; Mohammed Al-Nusair; Shahed Aljabeiti; Nadir Sheikali; Abdallah Alzoubi; Jomana W Alsulaiman; Abdel-Hameed Al-Mistarehi; Hamed Alzoubi; Ayman Ahmad Bani Mousa; Mohammed Z Allouh Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-06-12 Impact factor: 4.614
Authors: Nina J Zhu; Ewan B Ferlie; Enrique Castro-Sánchez; Gabriel Birgand; Alison H Holmes; Rifat A Atun; Hailey Kieltyka; Raheelah Ahmad Journal: J Glob Health Date: 2021-07-01 Impact factor: 4.413