Corinne Packer1, Sam F Halabi2,3, Helge Hollmeyer4, Salima S Mithani5, Lindsay Wilson5, Arne Ruckert1, Ronald Labonté1, David P Fidler6, Lawrence O Gostin2, Kumanan Wilson7,8,9. 1. School of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, 600 Peter Morand Cres, Ottawa, K1G 5Z3, Canada. 2. O'Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law, Georgetown University Law Center, 600 New Jersey Ave NW, Washington, DC, 20001, USA. 3. University of Missouri School of Law, Columbia, MO, 65211, USA. 4. International Health Regulations Coordination Department, World Health Organization WHO, 20 Avenue Appia, 1211, Geneva 27, Switzerland. 5. Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, 1053 Carling Avenue, Ottawa, ON, K1Y 4E9, Canada. 6. Council on Foreign Relations, Washington, DC, USA. 7. Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, 1053 Carling Avenue, Ottawa, ON, K1Y 4E9, Canada. kwilson@ohri.ca. 8. Department of Medicine, University of Ottawa and The Ottawa Hospital, Ottawa, Canada. kwilson@ohri.ca. 9. Bruyère and Ottawa Hospital Research Institutes, Ottawa, Canada. kwilson@ohri.ca.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The 2005 International Health Regulations (IHR (2005)) require States Parties to establish National Focal Points (NFPs) responsible for notifying the World Health Organization (WHO) of potential events that might constitute public health emergencies of international concern (PHEICs), such as outbreaks of novel infectious diseases. Given the critical role of NFPs in the global surveillance and response system supported by the IHR, we sought to assess their experiences in carrying out their functions. METHODS: In collaboration with WHO officials, we administered a voluntary online survey to all 196 States Parties to the IHR (2005) in Africa, Asia, Europe, and South and North America, from October to November 2019. The survey was available in six languages via a secure internet-based system. RESULTS: In total, 121 NFP representatives answered the 56-question survey; 105 in full, and an additional 16 in part, resulting in a response rate of 62% (121 responses to 196 invitations to participate). The majority of NFPs knew how to notify the WHO of a potential PHEIC, and believed they have the content expertise to carry out their functions. Respondents found training workshops organized by WHO Regional Offices helpful on how to report PHEICs. NFPs experienced challenges in four critical areas: 1) insufficient intersectoral collaboration within their countries, including limited access to, or a lack of cooperation from, key relevant ministries; 2) inadequate communications, such as deficient information technology systems in place to carry out their functions in a timely fashion; 3) lack of authority to report potential PHEICs; and 4) inadequacies in some resources made available by the WHO, including a key tool - the NFP Guide. Finally, many NFP representatives expressed concern about how WHO uses the information they receive from NFPs. CONCLUSION: Our study, conducted just prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, illustrates key challenges experienced by NFPs that can affect States Parties and WHO performance when outbreaks occur. In order for NFPs to be able to rapidly and successfully communicate potential PHEICs such as COVID-19 in the future, continued measures need to be taken by both WHO and States Parties to ensure NFPs have the necessary authority, capacity, training, and resources to effectively carry out their functions as described in the IHR.
BACKGROUND: The 2005 International Health Regulations (IHR (2005)) require States Parties to establish National Focal Points (NFPs) responsible for notifying the World Health Organization (WHO) of potential events that might constitute public health emergencies of international concern (PHEICs), such as outbreaks of novel infectious diseases. Given the critical role of NFPs in the global surveillance and response system supported by the IHR, we sought to assess their experiences in carrying out their functions. METHODS: In collaboration with WHO officials, we administered a voluntary online survey to all 196 States Parties to the IHR (2005) in Africa, Asia, Europe, and South and North America, from October to November 2019. The survey was available in six languages via a secure internet-based system. RESULTS: In total, 121 NFP representatives answered the 56-question survey; 105 in full, and an additional 16 in part, resulting in a response rate of 62% (121 responses to 196 invitations to participate). The majority of NFPs knew how to notify the WHO of a potential PHEIC, and believed they have the content expertise to carry out their functions. Respondents found training workshops organized by WHO Regional Offices helpful on how to report PHEICs. NFPs experienced challenges in four critical areas: 1) insufficient intersectoral collaboration within their countries, including limited access to, or a lack of cooperation from, key relevant ministries; 2) inadequate communications, such as deficient information technology systems in place to carry out their functions in a timely fashion; 3) lack of authority to report potential PHEICs; and 4) inadequacies in some resources made available by the WHO, including a key tool - the NFP Guide. Finally, many NFP representatives expressed concern about how WHO uses the information they receive from NFPs. CONCLUSION: Our study, conducted just prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, illustrates key challenges experienced by NFPs that can affect States Parties and WHO performance when outbreaks occur. In order for NFPs to be able to rapidly and successfully communicate potential PHEICs such as COVID-19 in the future, continued measures need to be taken by both WHO and States Parties to ensure NFPs have the necessary authority, capacity, training, and resources to effectively carry out their functions as described in the IHR.
Entities:
Keywords:
COVID-19; Health security; International health regulations (IHR); National Focal Point (NFP); Public health; Public health emergency of international concern (PHEIC)
Authors: Thomas Haustein; Helge Hollmeyer; Max Hardiman; Stephan Harbarth; Didier Pittet Journal: Bull World Health Organ Date: 2011-02-28 Impact factor: 9.408
Authors: Joseph F Wamala; Charles Okot; Issa Makumbi; Nasan Natseri; Annet Kisakye; Miriam Nanyunja; Barnabas Bakamutumaho; Julius J Lutwama; Rajesh Sreedharan; Jun Xing; Peter Gaturuku; Thomas Aisu; Fernando Da Silveira; Stella Chungong Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2010-12-03 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Amitabh B Suthar; Lisa G Allen; Sara Cifuentes; Christopher Dye; Jason M Nagata Journal: Bull World Health Organ Date: 2017-12-11 Impact factor: 9.408
Authors: Kumanan Wilson; Sam Halabi; Helge Hollmeyer; Lawrence O Gostin; David P Fidler; Corinne Packer; Lindsay Wilson; Ronald Labonté Journal: Bull World Health Organ Date: 2021-05-04 Impact factor: 9.408